# ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Partial Deregulation Measures for Cultivation of Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events J101/J163

August 5, 2010

# ACRONYMS AND ABBREVI AT IONS

Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations Environmental Report i 8/5/2010 ACCase acetyl

- CoA carboxylase (enzyme)

ADF Acid detergent fiber

ai/A Active ingredient per acre

ALS acetolactate synthase (enzyme)

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA)

AOSCA Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies

AP Adventitious presence

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)

ASTA American Seed Trade Association

BMP Best Management Practices

BNF Biote chnology Notification Files

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Service (USDA APHIS)

BST Bovine somatotropin

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CRLF California red

- legged frog

CTIC Conserva tion Technology Information Center

CTP2 Chloroplast transit peptide

d Dose

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EA Environmental Assessment

EC European Commission (EU)

EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Pro tection Agency (U.S.)

## Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmen tal Report ii 8/5/2010 EPSPS 5

- enolpyruvylshikimate

- 3

- phosphate synthase (enzyme)

ER Environmental Report

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

FDA Food and Drug Administration ( U.S.)

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FGI Forage Genetics International

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand

ft feet

GE Genetic engineering or genetically engineered

GM Genetically modified

GMO Genetically modified organism

GPS Global Positioning System

GR Glyphosate resistant

GT Glyphosate

- tolerant

HSP70 Heat shock protein intron

IM/NRC Institute of Medicine an d National Research Council

in. Inches

IPA Isopropylamine salt

lbs. Pounds

IM Institute of Medicine
kg Kilograms

## Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmen tal Report iii 8/5/2010 M Mendelian manner

mg Mi lligrams

MR ID Master Record Identification Number

MT/SA Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement

NA National Academies

NAFA National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance

NAS National Academy of Science

NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service (USDA)

NCBA National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

NDF Neutral detergent fiber

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

No. Number

NOP Na tional Organic Program

NRC National Research Council

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OFPA Organic Foods Production Act

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PNT Plant with a Novel Trait

PNW Pacific Northwest

POEA Polyetho xylated Tallow Amine

PPA Plant Protection Act

ppm Parts per million

rDNA Recombinant DNA

RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision

RfD Reference Dose

ROD Record of Decision

## Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmen tal Report iv 8/5/2010 RR Roundup Ready

RRA Roundup Ready® Alfalfa

TUG Technology use guide

T

- DNA Transferre d DNA

UC University of California

μg Micrograms

U.S. United States

U.S.C U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDC U.S. District Court

WH O Wo rld Health Organization

WS SA We ed Science Society of America

wt weight

# TA BLE OF CONTENTS

Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents Environmental Report v 8/5/2010 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ........................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ER

................................ ................................ ............................ 1 1.1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ............................. 1 1.1.2 Purpose of and need for action

................................ ................................ 3 1.1.3 The proposed measures

................................ ................................ .......... 4 1.2 RATIONALE FOR CREATION OF RRA

................................ ................................ .. 17 1.3 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED

................................ ......... 17 1.3.1 Gene transmission to non

- genetically engineered alfalfa

....................... 17 1.3.2 Socioeconomic impacts

................................ ................................ ......... 18 1.3.3 Consumer’s choice to consume non

- GE food

................................ ........ 18 1.3.4 Potential for development of glyphosate

- resistant (GR) weeds

.............. 19 1.3.5 Cumulative effects of increased use of glyphosate

................................ 19 1.4 FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY

– COORDINATED FRAMEWORK

.......... 19 1.4.1 USDA regulatory authority

................................ ................................ ..... 20 1.4.2 EPA regulatory authority

................................ ................................ ........ 21 1.4.3 FDA regulatory authority

................................ ................................ ........ 22 1.5 THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

......................... 22 1.5.1 Non

- GMO Project working standard

................................ ...................... 24 1.5.2 Growth in organic and GE farming

................................ ......................... 25 1.6 COEXISTENCE IN U.S. AGRICULTURE

................................ ................................ 25 1.6.1 Coexistence and biotechnology

................................ ............................. 25 1.6.2 USDA position on coexistence and biotechnology

................................ . 26 1.6.3 Coexistence in U.S. agriculture

................................ .............................. 26 1.7 ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES IN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ . 27 1.8 ALTERNATIVES

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 1.8.1 Alternative 1

– No Action

................................ ................................ ....... 28 1.8.2 Alternative 2

– Partial Deregula tion

................................ ........................ 29

SECTION 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

................................ ................................ ...... 30

2.1 ALFALFA CHARACTERISTICS

................................ ................................ .............. 30 2.1.1 Growth

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 0 2.1.2 Pollination

................................ ................................ .............................. 30 2.2 ALFALFA PRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ........................ 31 2.2.1 Forage production, general

................................ ................................ .... 31 2.2.2 Organic alfalfa hay production

................................ ............................... 35 2.2.3 Seed production

................................ ................................ ..................... 36 2.3 GENE FLOW

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 41 2.3.1 Hybridization

................................ ................................ .......................... 42 2.3.2 Seed

- to

- seed gene flow studies

................................ ............................. 44 2.3.3 Gene flow potential

................................ ................................ ................ 46 2.4 ALFALFA WEED MANAGEMENT

................................ ................................ .......... 46 2.4.1 We ed characteristics and concerns

................................ ....................... 46 2.4.2 Problem weeds in alfalfa production

................................ ...................... 47 2.4.3 Use of herbicides to control weeds

................................ ........................ 52 2.4.4 Non

- herbicide weed management practices

................................ .......... 59 2.5 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE

................................ ................................ ..................... 60

## Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report vi 8/5/2010 2.6 SEXUALLY COMPATIBLE RELATIVES INCLUDING CONSPECIFIC FERAL AND VOLUNTEER ALFALFA

................................ ................................ ................. 63 2.6.1 Native sexually compatible relatives

................................ ...................... 63 2.6.2 Feral and volunteer alfalfa

................................ ................................ ..... 63 2.7 FOOD, FEED AND OTHER ALFALFA USES

................................ ......................... 65 2.8 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ISSUE S

................................ ................................ . 66 2.9 SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH

................................ ................................ ....... 66

SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENT AL CONSEQ UE NCES

................................ ...................... 67

3.1 PLANT PATHOGENIC PROPERTIES AND UNINTENDED EFFECTS

................... 67 3.1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ........................... 67 3.1.2 Evaluation of intended effec ts

................................ ................................ 70 3.1.3 Evaluation of possible unintended effects

................................ .............. 71 3.2 WE EDINESS PROPERTIES AND FERAL CROPS

................................ ................ 73 3.2.1 We ediness properties of alfalfa

................................ .............................. 73 3.2.2 RRA and weediness

................................ ................................ .............. 74 3.2.3 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 75 3.3 IMPACTS OF RRA FORAGE CROPS ON CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FORAGE CROPS

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 75 3.3.1 Pollen sources in forage production fields

................................ .............. 75 3.3.2 Potential for gene flow in forage production fields

................................ .. 76 3.3.3 Potential consequences of gene flow in forage production fields

............ 77 3.3.4 Growing and marketing alfalfa

................................ ............................... 77 3.3.5 Potential for and consequences of mechanical mixing

........................... 78 3.3.6 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 79 3.4 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON NATIVE ALFALFA

.......................... 80 3.4.1 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 80 3.5 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON FERAL ALFALFA POPULATIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 81 3.5.1 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 82 3.6 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS TO RANGELAND ALFALFA CROPS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 83 3.6.1 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 83 3.7 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CRO PS TO CONVENTIONAL OR ORGANIC ALFALFA SEED PRODUCTION AREAS

................................ ............... 84 3.7.1 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 85 3.8 IMPACTS FROM RRA SEED PRODUCTION

................................ ......................... 86 3.8.1 Cross

- pollination

................................ ................................ .................... 86 3.8.2 Seed Mixing

................................ ................................ ........................... 87 3.8.3 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 87 3.9 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

................................ ................................ . 88 3.10 FOOD AND FEED

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 88 3.10.1 FDA au thority and policy

................................ ................................ ........ 89 3.10.2 FDA biotechnology consultation note to the file BNF 000084

................. 90 3.10.3 Health Canada approval 2005

................................ ............................... 94 3.10.4 CFIA approval 2005

................................ ................................ ............... 95 3.10.5 Japan approval

................................ ................................ ...................... 95 3.10.6 Au stralia

–

New Zealand approval

................................ ......................... 95 3.10.7 Other approvals

................................ ................................ ..................... 95 3.10.8 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 95

## Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report vii 8/5/2010 3.11 WE ED CONTROL AND GR

................................ ................................ .................... 97 3.11.1 We ed control with conventional alfalfa

................................ ................... 97 3.11.2 We ed control with RRA

................................ ................................ .......... 98 3.11.3 Herbicide

- resistant weeds

................................ ................................ ...... 99 3.11.4 GR weeds

................................ ................................ ............................ 100 3.11.5 Impac ts

................................ ................................ ................................ 102 3.12 PHYSICAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 103 3.12.1 Land Use

................................ ................................ ............................. 104 3.12.2 Air Quality and Climate

................................ ................................ ........ 104 3.12.3 Wa ter Quality

................................ ................................ ....................... 105 3.13 BIOLOGICAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 106 3.1 3.1 Animal and plant exposure to glyphosate

................................ ............. 107 3.13.2 Threatened and endangered species

................................ ................... 111 3.13.3 Potential impact of exposure to RRA

................................ ................... 113 3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

................................ ................................ ........... 113 3.14.1 Consumer health and safety

................................ ................................ 113 3.14.2 Hazard identification and exposure assessment for field workers

........ 114 3.15 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PARTIAL DEREGULATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 116

SECTION 4.0 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS

................................ ................................ .......... 120

4.1 CLASS OF ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED

................................ ............................ 120 4.2 GEOGRAPHI C AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE ANALYSIS

.............. 120 4.3 RESOURCES ANALYZED

................................ ................................ .................... 121 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF G LYPHOSATE RESISTANT WEEDS

................................ ................................ ... 121 4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL INCREASED GLYPHOSATE USAGE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 122 4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE, AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

............. 125 4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY

................................ .................. 125 4.8 CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

................................ ................................ 126 4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

............................ 131 4.10 CUMULATIVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

................................ ........... 131 4.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

................................ ......... 132

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ .......................... 133

## Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report viii 8/5/2010 APPENDICES
Appendix A Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agr eement (MT/SA) and accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG)
Appendix B National and Tier III Production Data and State Maps with County

- level Detail for

the Eleven Tier III States with Seed Production greater than 100,000 lbs.
Appendix C National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management Practices for Roundup

Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production.
Appendix D Orloff, S., D.H. Putnam, M. Canevari and W.T. Lanini, Avoiding Weed Shifts and

We ed Resistance in Roundup Ready Alfalfa Systems, University of California Divis ion of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8362 (2009).
Appendix E Effects of Glyphosate

- Resistant Weeds in Agricultural Systems (Appendix G from

Draft EIS).
Appendix F Selected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement from Farmers

Using Roundup Ready Alfalfa.
Appendix G Chart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA under Partial Deregulation, Prepared by

Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 2010).
Appendix H Roundup Ready Alfalfa Satisfaction Study (Study #091 113 1108) Prepared by

Market Probe, Inc. (December 2008).
Appendix I Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa

(full version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web site at: http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf (J anuary 1, 2009).
Appendix J Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study, Study # 3482 (originally submitted as

Appendix 6 to Monsanto/FGI comment to draft EIS).
Appendix K Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling

Coexisten ce. Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28

- 30, 2010.

TA BLES

Table 1

- 1 Alfalfa Seed and Hay Production Overview (State List) Table 1

- 2 Eight Seed Grower Consortia Table 2

- 1 Alfalfa Forage and Seed Produ ction by State Table 2

- 2 Organic Alfalfa Hay Harvested Acreage Table 2

- 3 Summary of FGI Idaho Gene Flow Studies Table 2

- 4 Seed to Seed Gene Flow Table 2

- 5 We eds in Alfalfa Table 2

- 6 Susceptibility of Broadleaf Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control Table 2

- 7 Susceptibility of Grass Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

## Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report ix 8/5/2010 Table 2

- 8 Susceptibility of Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Combination Control Table 4

- 1 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on

Fresh water Fish Table 4

- 2 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on

Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates Table 4

- 3 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on Aquatic

Plants (Algae and Duckweed) FIGURES
Fig ure 1

- 1 Table 3

- 9 from Draft EIS for RRA Figure 2

- 1 Gene Flow Figure 2

- 2 Herbicide resistance worldwide Figure 4

- 1 Growth in adoption of genetically engineered crops in U.S.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 1 8/5/2010 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Report (ER) examines the environmental impacts of cultivation of Roundup Ready® alfalfa (RRA) lines J101 and J163 (J101/J163) 1 

## for a temporary period subject to a range of measures, including geographic restrictions, stewardship requirements and other limitations. This ER is provided in connection with the petitioners’ supplemental request for non

regulated status in part (commonly known as “partial deregulation”) for RRA. This document is intended to provide information that may be utilized by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 2 

## and its applicable regulations 3 

## either in connection with partial deregulation of RRA or for any other regulatory or administrative action adopting the measures addressed herein. A partial deregulation or other administrative action adopting the measures may be superseded at a later date after APHIS completes the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and makes its determination regarding the pending petition for complete deregulation of RRA.
Alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) was planted on approximately 21 million acres in the U.S. in 2009. Overall crop value was $7.9 billion in the 2009

- 2010 crop year. Over 99 percent of the alfalfa planted in the U.S. i s planted for harvest as forage, with less than one percent harvested for seed. RRA, which has been genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, is currently cultivated on approximately 200,000 acres or less, (USDA NASS, 2010b; USDA
A PHIS, 2009), pursuant to permit or court order.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ER

1.1.1 Background
In April 2004, under the requirements of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) 4 

## and its implementing regulations, 5 

## Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI)

su bmitted a petition to APHIS for a determination of non

- regulated status for RRA (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). Monsanto is an agricultural company involved in the development and marketing of biotechnology

- derived agricultural products. FGI is an alfalfa seed company and a

1 

### The terms RRA and glyphosate tolerant alfalfa,or GT alfalfa are used interchangeably throughout this document. 2 

### NEPA of 1969, as amended; Title 42 of the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C.) §§4321

- 4347. 3 

### Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implement NEPA and are found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R.), Parts 1500 through 1508. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has implemented NEPA regulations, which are found at 7 C.F.R. part 1b, as has APHIS, and those are found at 7 C.F.R. part 372. 4 

### 7 U.S.C. §§7701

- 7786. 5 

### 7 C.F.R. Part 340.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 2 8/5/2010 wholly

- owned subsidiary of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a farmer

- owned food and agricultural cooperative representing the interests and needs of more than 300,000 direct and indirect members across the U.S. APHIS, through its Biotechnology Regul atory Service (BRS), is one of three federal agencies responsible for regulating biotechnology in the U.S. under the Coordinated Framework described in Section 1.4. APHIS regulates genetically engineered (GE) organisms that may be plant pests, the Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates plant incorporated protectants and herbicides used with herbicide

- tolerant crops, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food and animal feed. The FDA comp leted its consultation process for RRA in 2004 (Tarantino, 2004). EPA approved the use of glyphosate over the top of RRA on June 15, 2005. The use of glyphosate over the top of RRA did not require an increase in the existing glyphosate residue
tolerance of 400 ppm in the animal feed, non

- grass crop group. EPA issued a new glyphosate tolerance for alfalfa seed of 0.5 ppm on February 16, 2005. 6



## NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential impact of proposed major federal
actions and consider su ch impacts during the decision

- making process. After agency review for safety, including an evaluation of relevant scientific data and all public comments relating to potential plant pest risks and related environmental impacts, APHIS issued an Environmen tal Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA in 2005 (USDA APHIS, 2005). Based on that EA, APHIS reached a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on the environment from the unconfined cultivation and agricultural use of RRA and its progeny (USDA APHIS, 2005). Accordingly, in June 2005, APHIS granted non

- regulated status to RRA (USDA APHIS, 2005).
After RRA was deregulated, the seeds were sold and planted. During the growing season of 2005 and 2006, approximately 200,000 acres were planted in 1,552 counties in 48 states (Alaska and Hawaii were not included). Approximately nine months after APHIS granted non

regulated status to RRA, two alfalfa seed growers and seven associations filed a lawsuit against the USDA over its decision to deregulate RRA, claiming tha t APHIS’ EA failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by NEPA. In February 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that APHIS is required to prepare an EIS before approving it s deregulation of RRA, and vacated APHIS’ 2005 decision to deregulate RRA (U.S. District Court (USDC), 2007a). On March 12, 2007, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order in the case (USDC, 2007b). The order prohibited all sales of RRA seeds, effe ctive on the date of the order, pending the Court’s issuance of permanent injunctive

6 

### 40 C.F.R. §180.364; 70 Fed. Reg. 7864 (Feb. 16, 2005).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 3 8/5/2010 relief; and prohibited all future planting, beginning March 30, 2007. The Court also vacated APHIS’s deregulation determination. On March 23, 2007, APHIS published a not ice in the Federal Register describing the Court’s decision that RRA was once again a regulated article. 7 

## On May 3, 2007, the Court issued a permanent injunction regarding the control of the RRA that had been planted, and requiring APHIS to issue an admin istrative order specifying mandatory production practices that must be implemented by RRA growers (USDC, 2007c). The Court issued an amended judgment on July 23, 2007, further clarifying the mandatory production practices (USDC, 2007d). APHIS issued its administrative order on July 12, 2007 (USDA APHIS, 2007a). In August and September 2007, USDA, Monsanto, FGI and others filed an appeal, arguing that the injunction was improper. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court decisi on, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case. In June 2010, in Monsanto Co. et al. v. Geerston Seed Farms et al. , the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling, striking down the injunction.
Following issuance of the district court’s amended j udgment in July 2007, APHIS commenced work on the EIS for complete deregulation. The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2008. 8 

## The notice of availability for the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on Decembe r 18, 2009. 9 

## In the draft EIS, APHIS preliminarily concluded that there is no significant impact on the human environment due to granting nonregulated status to RRA (USDA APHIS, 2009). The comment period for the draft EIS, following an extension granted by APHIS, concluded on March 3, 2010. Approximately, 145,000 comments were submitted. APHIS is now preparing the final EIS.

1.1.2 Purpose of and need for action
This ER has been prepared to support an anticipated EA to be prepared by APHIS with respect to a pa rtial deregulation of RRA. The ER examines the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed measures laid out below, either through a partial deregulation of RRA or other administrative means. The proposed measures would allow commercialization and deregulation of RRA in limited areas and under specific cultivation conditions explained more fully below in Section 1.1.3. If APHIS concludes that an EA supports a FONSI for the proposed measures, APHIS could decide to implement such measures through “p artial deregulation”.

7 

### 72 Fed. Reg. 13735 (Mar. 23, 2007). 8 

### 73 Fed. Reg. 1198 (Jan. 7, 2008). 9 

### 74 F ed. Reg. 67205 (Dec. 18, 2009).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 4 8/5/2010 1.1.3 The proposed measures
Monsanto/FGI have proposed the following measures to be implemented through partial deregulation or other administrative means. The companies state that these measures would
allow a subset of alfalfa farmers to obtain the substantial benefits of RRA pending complete deregulation. For example, they expect RRA to (i) offer growers a wide

- spectrum weed control option that will enhance stand establishment and increase alfalfa forage; (ii) increase flexibility
to tre at weeds on an as

- needed basis; (iii) allow alfalfa production on marginal land with severe weed infestations; and (iv) provide growers with a weed control system that has a reduced risk profile for the environment. The proposed measures include a separat e set of restrictions for RRA forage production and RRA seed production. These restrictions are described in the
sections below.

FORA GE PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS
1) Grower Requirements : Each grower is required to abide by the terms specified in their
Monsa nto Technology / Stewardship Use Agreement (MT/SA) and accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG), which contractually obligates growers to comply with stewardship requirements related to growing RRA for forage. A copy of the MT/SA and TUG are included in Ap pendix A. 2) RRA Seed Licensing Requirements : All RRA seed is sold through a network of licensed seed companies and their retailers and dealers/distributors. Each seed company is required to have a current Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Commercial
Licen se Agreement to sell RRA seed. This agreement specifies the limited rights of the seed companies to market the product, including stewardship requirements associated
with RRA. 3) Seed Identification : RRA seed bag labeling and a unique purple seed coloran t will be required product identity mechanisms to notify all RRA forage growers of the presence of the RRA trait and the geographic limitations for product use. 10 

## 4) Crop Harvest (Forage only) : RRA fields, except as noted under “Seed Production
Restriction s” Section below, may be harvested for forage only. All growers shall adhere to limitations as outlined in the MT/SA and TUG (Monsanto TUG, attached as Appendix A). 11

10 

### Similar labeling and use agreements are typically used for the sale and stewardship of other GE crops, so growers are currently familiar with such contractual obligations. 11 

### Forage growers who have previously used RRA are familiar with this crop use limitation. See Appendix A.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 5 8/5/2010 5) Geographic Restrictions for Forage Planting based on Cropping Practices : Geographic r

estrictions will be placed on forage planting by state and county based on the amount of alfalfa seed produced (see Appendix B). Data on the amount of seed produced is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, as summarized in Figure 1

- 1 (for
additional detail s see Table 1

- 1 and Appendix B). Geographic restrictions for alfalfa forage plantings will be defined in three categories (Tiers I, II, and III) based on the amount of alfalfa seed production reported in each state. (See Appendix B for maps).

a. Tier I: States with no reported alfalfa seed production (2007); 27 States and all
counties within each.

i. New RRA forage production plantings are allowed in accordance with the requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® Roundup Ready®
Alfalfa Commercial Li cense Agreement.

ii. Forage growing is the only reported crop practice for alfalfa. No commercial alfalfa seed growth was reported in Tier I states in 2007. However, if conventional seed production fields are now present, then RRA forage grown near these new conventional seed production fields are subject to the requirement provided in Restriction Enhancement A (see Tier II.ii below).

b. Tier II: States with <100,000 lbs annual seed production (2007); 12 States and
all counties within each.
Commercial alf alfa seed production occurs in these states; however, the number of seed growers, seed acres and cumulative pounds are limited and widely dispersed. Only 0.51 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop is produced in these states (2007).

i. New RRA forage prod uction plantings are allowed in accordance with the requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Commercial License Agreement.

ii. Restriction Enhancement A applies if the RRA forage field is located
within 165 ft of a commercial , conventional alfalfa seed production field. Under Restriction Enhancement A, the RRA grower must harvest forage before 10 percent bloom.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 6 8/5/2010 1. Rationale for Restriction Enhancement A : In grower locations where an individual RRA forage field is within 165 ft of a conventional seed production field, the TUG requires the RRA grower to mitigate RRA flowering by harvesting not later than 10 percent bloom stage to mitigate pollen production. RRA forage grower compliance with the TUG’s 10 percent bloom stage
har vest has been high and rarely was it delayed by weather or other factors. (See Appendix J). This restriction will address mitigations at or near geographic (county, state and federal)
borders. The 165 ft distance is the science and market

- based,
industr y recognized isolation distance for certified alfalfa seed crops (see Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), 2009); and, the potential extent of gene flow of 10 percent bloom hay to nearby seed crops is de minimis at 165 ft (Teuber and F itzpatrick, 2007; Van Deynze et al., 2008).

c. Tier III: States each having >100,000 lbs annual seed production (2007); 11 States. Enhanced restrictions to be applied based on predominant county cropping practices. In the eleven states with greater than 100,000 acres of annual alfalfa seed production, additional by

- county geographic restrictions will apply. In many cases, within each state, seed acreage is geographically concentrated and typically localized to a few specific counties where climate is
suit able for seed growing. (See geographic maps for each of these states in Appendix B.) In these states, alfalfa seed is typically grown by professional growers under seed company contracts and official seed certification inspection programs are widely used by growers and the contracting seed companies. Alfalfa forage production is also a major enterprise in these states and in many cases it is geographically separate from seed crop acres.

i. By

- County criterion used to determine eligibility for new RRA fora ge plantings.

1. Counties without seed production reported (Appendix B).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 7 8/5/2010 a. New RRA forage production is allowed in accordance with the requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Commercial License Agreement.

b. Restriction Enh ancement A: If RRA forage field is located within 165 ft of a conventional alfalfa seed field, RRA grower must harvest forage at or before 10 percent bloom.

c. Restriction Enhancement B: All RRA forage growers are required to report GPS coordinates of al l RRA forage field
locations. GPS field location information is available for monitoring and enforcing the planting restrictions applicable to RRA forage fields.

d. Forage production is the only reported crop practice in
these counties. Commercial alfalf a seed growing is not reported.

2. Counties with seed production reported (Appendix B).

a. Restriction Enhancement C: New RRA forage plantings
are not allowed in counties with commercial alfalfa seed production.

b. Commercial alfalfa seed growing is a pre dominant activity
in these counties

c. 99.5 percent of U.S. alfalfa seed production is in these
counties.

6) Summary of Allowed Forage Production Scope:

a. Nationwide, the counties excluded from new RRA forage production under the requested partial deregul ation represent 99.5 percent and 21.84 percent of the alfalfa seed production pounds (lbs) and forage production acres, respectively (See Appendix B).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 8 8/5/2010

b. Nationwide, the counties where new RRA forage plantings are allowed (with various restrictions) includ e 0.5 percent and 78.16 percent of the alfalfa seed production (lbs) and forage production acres, respectively.

7) Monitoring and Enforcement of Forage Crop Restrictions Support and enforcement of the partial deregulation of RRA for forage production would be accomplished by the following mechanisms.

a. Education and Communication : Education and communication activities would be conducted with hay growers, seed dealers/sellers and seed companies. Examples of these activities include training and informati on sessions for dealers and sellers, detailing the requirements for selling RRA, sales meetings, periodic visits with growers and sellers, and computer based training modules that can be tailored to specific areas of focus related to the product and requir ements.

i. Training : Online training would be required for each seed company staff member handling RRA as well as the appropriate personnel at
Monsanto/FGI.

ii. The MT/SA

and accompanying Monsanto TUG : The MT/SA and accompanying TUG, a legal agreement bet ween growers who utilize Monsanto technologies and Monsanto, would be updated to include direct reference to the partial deregulation conditions, including the limitations pertaining to where RRA forage can be grown and hay and forage management practices.

iii. Packaging Updates : In addition to being clearly labeled as RRA seed, all bags of finished product would have an additional prominent tag that lists the states and counties in which the product could not be planted. In
addition the seed would have a unique coating color (purple) that identifies it as being RRA seed.

iv. Dealer Requirements : All dealers selling RRA would sign a dealer agreement legally binding them to adhere to the partial deregulation requirements.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 9 8/5/2010

v. Industry Communications : Alfal fa industry

- specific groups would be utilized to support communication of the partial deregulation requirements
in communications to their members. These include National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance (NAFA), American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), etc.

vi. RRA Information Line : A toll free number will be available for growers or other individuals to clarify information or answer questions regarding the partial deregulation.

b. Assessment and Verification : Multiple assessment and verification tools will
be utilized to monitor and verify adherence to the partial deregulation request.

i. Reconciliation of Sales Data : All sales to hay growers will be reconciled with remaining RRA seed inventory at the end of the planting season (twice per year). This reconci liation will be part of a legal commercial requirement of the seed companies and dealers selling RRA.

ii. GPS coordinates : GPS coordinates will be collected on all sales in the eleven (11) Tier III states. The GPS coordinates will be collected on all
fi e lds planted with RRA. Information will be validated at time of receipt; questionable data will be reviewed.

iii. Hotline : A toll

- free hotline will be available for individuals to report violations to the partial deregulation ruling.

c. Proactive Sampling , Testing and Review, inclusion of third parties : Various internal and/or third parties will be utilized to randomly review plantings and to determine grower compliance with the conditions of the partial deregulation.

d. Enforcement : Violations of the pa rtial deregulation decision will have the following impacts:

i. Grower : Takeout of the alfalfa field in violation would be required. Grower has the potential to lose access to RRA.

ii. Dealer : Any dealer incentive payments would be at risk. In addition, dealers would also risk losing their ability to sell RRA in the future.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 10 8/5/2010

iii. Seed Company : Any seed company incentive payments would be at risk. In addition, seed companies would also risk losing their ability to sell
RRA in the future.

e. Ongoing Measu rement : An annual report would be prepared by FGI for the USDA summarizing activities in all areas identified above. Additional data would be provided upon request.

f. An y potential additional investigation or action would be conducted in
accordance with all federal, state and local laws concerning individual property rights, inspections and sampling activities. Monsanto has demonstrated that it does not exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Figure 1

- 1. Table 3

- 9 from Draft EIS for RRA.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 11 8/5/2010 Table 1

- 1 Alfalfa Seed and Hay Production Overview (State List)

State Seed

-

Acres Hv std. Seed

- Operations Seed

- In

Po unds Alfalfa Hay

-

Acres Alfalfa Hay

-

Op er ations Alfalfa Hay

-

To ns Ex isting

Seed Production Ca tegory Re strictions on new

RRA forage plantings (a ll counties within state) Wi thin State By

- County Geographic Criteria and Re strictions on new RRA forage production

ALABAMA 7,526 340 16,944 No ne No t Applicable

ALASKA

- - - No ne

ARKANSAS 11,732 278 28,647 N one TUG restrictions, plus, if field is within 165 ft of conventional seed production, then <10% bloom cut required

CONNECTICUT 8,343 349 18,441 No ne Tier I: States with no
re ported al fa lf a seed production (2007) DELAW ARE 3,687 177 13,530 No ne

FLORIDA 6,951 141 14,993 No ne

GEORGIA 1,655 134 4,810 No ne

HAW AII 89 5 267 No ne

ILLINOIS 322,339 12,913 1,138,512 No ne

INDI ANA 241,129 10,775 665,767 No ne

KENTUCKY 269,610 10,538 524,565 No ne

LOUISIANA 2,164 52 4,768 No ne

MAINE 10,089 246 23,876 No ne

MARYLAND 40,576 1,429 120,402 No ne

MASSACHUSETT S 9,921 406 22,537 No ne

MISSISSIPPI 3,931 159 7,113 No ne

NEW HAMPSHIRE 5,373 218 13,475 No ne

NEW JERSEY 20,310 728 51,483 No ne

NORTH 10,322 758 16,755 No ne

## Events J10 1 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 12 8/5/2010

CAROLINA

PENNSYLVANIA 475,873 14,402 1,357,225

RHODE ISLAND 1,035 6 3 1,806 No ne

SOUTH CAROLINA 4,070 143 8,860 No ne

TENNESSEE 20,074 1,655 45,819 No ne

VERMONT 31,769 571 68,624 No ne

VIRGINIA 89,213 3,063 233,807 No ne

WEST VIRGINIA 28,465 1,185 62,484 No ne

WI SCONSIN 1,517,522 30,810 3,673,619 No ne

Subtotal

- - - 3,143,768 91,538 8,139,129

COLORADO 1,815 8

- 861,053 8,648 2,887,865 Minor No t Applicable

IOW A

- 5

- 830,440 22,040 3,054,729 Minor

KANSAS 342 5 22,430 793,140 9,643 2,986,134 Minor TUGrestrictions,plus,if fieldiswithin165ftofcon
ven tionalseedproducti on,then<10%bloomcut
re quired Tier II: States with <100,000 lbs seed production (2007) MICHIGAN

- 10 15,610 698,595 16,431 1,707,036 Minor

MINNESOTA 611 17 63,461 944,775 20,39 8 2,671,173 Minor

MISSOURI 399 19 40,540 295,021 8,229 782,847 Minor

NEBRASKA 545 29 21,216 1,085,921 14,820 3,955,881 Minor

NEW MEXICO 310 15 29,907 236,103 4,272 1,176,242 Minor

NEW YORK 27 3 6,180 450,144 7,707 1,119,421 Minor

NORTH DA KOTA

- 6 34,784 1,457,604 8,985 3,072,682 Minor

OHIO

- 1

- 437,658 15,354 1,256,174 Minor

TEXAS 546 24 79,885 153,763 2,391 721,303 Minor

## Events J10 1 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 13 8/5/2010

Subtotal 4,595 142 314,013 8,244,217 138,918 25,391,487 Minor

ARIZONA 5,206 53 1,902,669 257,407 943 1,968,043 Major No RRA forage planting allowed

CALIFORNIA 36,625 114 19,083,458 986,982 3,587 7,057,014 Major Tier III: States with >100,000 lbs seed (2007) IDAHO 12,788 92 9,346,709 1,037,520 8,817 4, 254,543 Major

MONTANA 10,338 80 3,729,635 1,868,756 9,711 3,936,445 Major

NEVADA 6,498 19 4,237,101 274,004 1,128 1,217,586 Major If 2007 census indicated NO in

county seed production, then:

See Census Criteria (See Appendix B for county list)

OREGON 4,959 32 3,183,375 428,812 3,569 1,777,894 Major If 2007 census indicated seed production in county, then:

TUG restrictions an d GPS coordinate
re porting; if new field is within 165 ft of conv.seed production, then 10% bloom cut
re quired

OKLAHOMA 2,004 29 281,121 334,990 3,781 1,131,938 Major

SOUTH DAKOTA 6,014 47 428,447 1,996,599 12,653 4,414,338 Major

UTAH 3,803 54 2,077,813 548,570 7,780 2,172,218 Major

WASHINGTON 17,127 82 10,860,608 448,588 4,294 2,192,001 Major

WY OMING 10,548 62 5,915,816 674,284 4,007 1,696,438 Major

Subtotal 115,910 664 61,046,752 8,856,512 60,270 31,818,458

Gra nd Total 120,505 806 61,360,765 20,244,497 290,726 65,349,074

## Events J101 and J163 Introducti on

Environmental Report 14 8/5/2010 RRA SEED PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS
The National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance (NAFA) used current science and extensive stakeholder input to design the “Best Management Practices (BMP) for Roundup Ready Seed Production” (See Appendix C in this ER for additional details on BMPs for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production). These BMP have been adopted b y the industry as standards for any future RRA seed production as part of an overall stewardship program designed to ensure coexistence of various alfalfa hay and seed markets. All RRA seed grower contracts require full adherence to the NAFA BMP, a type o f identity preserved process

- based seed stewardship, which includes but is not limited to the following measures:

 RRA seed field location reporting to official seed certification agencies

 Field and isolation zone inspection by official seed certification a gencies

 Equipment cleaning prior to and after use

 Segregated and uniquely identified seed handling and storage

 Planting stockseed labeling

 FGI RRA seed grower education and contracting

 Field termination reporting

 Seed company monitoring of compliance

 Annua l third

- party review of efficacy of BMP

 Other

FGI has individual seed

- producer farmer partners who have asked for the opportunity to produce RRA seed crops.
Partial deregulation of RRA would include seed production that is restricted to eight defined
seed grower consortia (Table 1

- 2). FGI has determined that each of these individual consortia could meet or exceed the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance BMP for RRA Seed Production (NAFA, 2008a) parameters and the proposed partial deregulation enhancements to isolation distance described below (See Appendix C and Table 1

- 2).
1) Seed Identification : Stockseed container to be clearly labeled as containing RRA trait seed. Grower seed contracts and official field reporting will notify each seed grower regarding t he measures imposed for seed growing.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 15 8/5/2010 2) Implement all NAFA BMP with Isolation Enhancement

a. All BMP measures will be followed, documented, monitored and enforced for compliance by FGI or its representatives. In addition, each field will be inspected

ann ually by the local seed certification agency, confirming minimum isolation standards for that production year.

b. Measures will set the enhanced, minimum, isolation requirements for RRA seed
fi elds as follows. The minimum required isolation from conventio nal, commercial seed fields will be 4 miles and 1 mile, when honeybees or leafcutter bees are the managed pollinating species, respectively.

c. The potential for gene flow at NAFA BMP isolation is de minimis (Van Deynze et al. 2008) and this measure’s prop osed enhancement of isolation distance would further ensure de minimis gene flow potential into conventional seed crops should they be present.

3) Geographic Restrictions :

a. Only eight pre

- authorized, physically

- isolated locations for RRA seed production will be allowed. Each location of proposed seed growing is composed of one to three large seed growers who will act together to manage isolation control within a local, informal RRA seed grower consortium.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 16 8/5/2010 Table 1

- 2 Eight Seed Grower Consortia

Grower Co nsortium Counties and State Nu mber of requesting growers Approximat

e number of initial acres (2010

- 2011) Managed

pollinator bee species Seed

harvest equipment status, ownership Current

isolation distance to conventio nal seed NAFA Best

Practices minimum iso lation distance Partial

Deregulatio n Isolation, minimum distance A. Northern California Lassen, CA 1 300 leafcutter On

- Farm >5mi 900 ft 1 mi

B. Central California Kings, Kern, Fresno,

CA 2 2,000 Honeybee +leafcutter On

- farm 4 mi 3 mi 4 mi

C. Colorado Me sa, CO 3 1,000 leafcutter On

- farm >10 mi 900 ft 1 mi
D. Eastern Idaho Oneida, Manidoka,

Twin Falls, ID 500 leafcutter On

- farm 1 mi 900 ft 1 mi

E. Western Idaho Ada, Canyon,

Payette, ID 3 2,000 leafcutter On

- farm 1 mi 900 ft 1 mi

F. Nevada Humbolt, Pers hing,

NV 2 600 leafcutter On

- farm 2 mi 900 ft 1 mi

G. Texas Carson, Castro,

Donley, Gray, Lamb, Ochiltree, Roberts, Swisher, TX 1 500 leafcutter On

- farm >10 mi 900 ft 1 mi

H. Utah Box Elder, Cache,

Mi llard, Weaver, UT 3 500 leafcutter On

- farm 5 mi 900 ft 1 mi

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 17 8/5/2010 1.2 RA

TIONALE FOR CREA

TION OF RRA
Alfalfa is a small seeded perennial forage crop that competes with annual weeds during establishment and with annual and perennial weeds in established stands. With irrigated alfalfa stands, weed seeds in irrigation w ater can reinfest the stand with weed seeds with every irrigation event. Weed infestation increases the risk of successful establishment and weeds generally compete with alfalfa for light, water, and nutrients. Weeds can have an adverse affect on the qual ity of harvested forage and effectively shorten the productive life of the alfalfa stand. RRA offers alfalfa growers a simpler, more effective, more flexible, and less expensive herbicide alternative for weed control. Current weed control programs in alf alfa production have serious limitations because certain weed species are difficult to control. Certain of these difficult to control weeds are poisonous and/or toxic to livestock. Glyphosate applications to RRA will offer
fl exibility in timing of weed c ontrol, including preplant, preemergence and/or postemergence applications. In contrast to most other commonly used alfalfa herbicides, glyphosate can safely be applied at virtually any stage of GT alfalfa development. The use of GT alfalfa can help
increa se alfalfa forage yield and forage quality through better weed control (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004, pp. 20

- 21; Medlin and Siegelin, 2001).
Glyphosate is not used for in

- crop weed control in conventional alfalfa (those without glyphosate tolerance) because it damages the plants. With GT alfalfa, growers have another option for
weed control.

1.3 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES A DDRESSED
During the lawsuit discussed above, certain specific issues were identified by the court as requiring additional NEPA analysis b y APHIS (USDC, 2007). These primary issues are
described below and are addressed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of this ER. Other issues identified by APHIS in the draft EIS are also addressed to the extent they are r elevant to the proposal for partial deregulation to ensure full disclosure and analysis of any potential impacts associated with partial deregulation of RRA under the proposed measures. Many of the citations herein are to the draft EIS discussions of
the basic facts regarding alfalfa, its weed threats and cultivation.

1.3.1 Gene transmission to non

- genetically engineered alfalfa
Alfalfa is a perennial crop and is typically replanted every three to six years. The crop is typically harvested for forage three to e ight times per year, depending on location and seasonal climate. Most alfalfa in the U.S. is harvested in the late vegetative stage (pre

- bloom) to optimize

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 18 8/5/2010 yield and nutritional quality. Forage quality begins to drop dramatically in hay harvested after
t he flowering stage, and continues to deteriorate as the crop further matures toward pod/seed set (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 40). Hay harvested after 10 percent bloom is generally of poor quality for feed and has low market value (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. G

- 6). Th is leaves little opportunity for pollination among forage crops. Alfalfa is exclusively pollinated by bees which normally pollinate other alfalfa plants growing in close proximity. However, pollinations at greater distances can occur (e.g, less than 1 to greater than 3 miles depending upon the bee species).
In contrast, growers promote flowering and seed ripening in commercial seed fields. In most
fi elds, flower buds begin to form on stems approximately 4 to 6 weeks after field mowing during long

- day phot operiods and warm weather. Once alfalfa begins flowering, it flowers indeterminately, and its duration depends on moisture, temperature, and other factors (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). Ripe seed, viable for germination, is formed 5 to 6 weeks after poll ination (i.e., 9 to 12 weeks total after mowing). Seed harvested before this stage is not
viable.

Cross

- pollination between RRA and conventional or organic alfalfa crops could potentially result in the inadvertent presence of GE material in conventional o r organic alfalfa hay intended for a market with specific or zero tolerance for the presence of GE material. Putnam (2006) estimated that the GE sensitive hay market is approximately 3 to 5 percent of the total market. He estimated that the majority of t he market (95 to 97 percent) is composed of growers that may either adopt RRA varieties and/or are not likely to be GE sensitive in their buying decisions.
Detailed analysis of the potential for gene transmission from RRA has been conducted. Potential imp acts from both hay and seed production on organic and conventional hay and seed production, other Medicago crops, and feral populations of alfalfa are analyzed in Sections 3.3 through 3.8 of this ER. A study of the topic was separately published (Van Deyn ze et al., 2008).

1.3.2 Socioeconomic impacts
The court found that APHIS failed to analyze in its initial EA the socio

- economic impacts of deregulating RRA on organic and conventional farmers. Therefore, further analysis was
conducted and is discussed in Sectio ns 3.15 of this ER.

1.3.3 Consumer’s choice to consume non

- GE food
The court found that APHIS failed to analyze the possibility that deregulation of RRA would degrade the human environment by eliminating a consumer’s choice to consume, or a grower’s

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 1 9 8/5/2010 choice to gr

ow, non
- GE food. Therefore, further analysis was conducted and is discussed in
Section 3.10 of this ER.

1.3.4 Potential for development of glyphosate

- resistant (GR) weeds
As the adoption of GT crops has grown, the use of glyphosate has increased (National
Resea rch Council [NRC], 2010, Figures S

- 1, S

- 2, and S

- 3; Young, 2006). Concerns have been expressed that increased use of glyphosate may lead to development of GR weeds. Further analysis was conducted and is discussed in Sections 2.4 and 3.11 of this ER.

1.3.5 Cumu lative effects of increased use of glyphosate
Further analysis of cumulative impacts from increased use of glyphosate was conducted and is
discussed in Section 4 of this ER.

1.4 FEDERA L REGULA TORY AUT HORITY

– COORDINA TED FRAMEWORK
Interagency coordination in s cientific and technical matters is the responsibility of the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which was established by law in 1976. A large part of the OSTP’s mission is “to ensure that the policies of the Executive Branch are
infor med by sound science” and to “ensure that the scientific and technical work of the Executive Branch is properly coordinated so as to provide the greatest benefit to society” (OSTP, undated).
In 1986, the OSTP published a “comprehensive federal regulatory p olicy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products”, the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology

(Coordinated Framework) (OSTP, 1986). The OSTP concluded that the goal of ensuring biotechnology safety could be achieved within existing laws (OSTP, 1986).
The Coordinated Framework specifies three federal agencies responsible for regulating biotechnology in the U.S.: USDA’s APHIS, the EPA, and the FDA. APHIS regulates GE organisms under the PPA of 2000. EPA regulates pla nt

- incorporated protectants and
herbicides used with herbicide

- tolerant crops under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). FDA regulates food (including animal feed, but not includi ng meat and poultry, which is regulated by USDA), including food and feed produced through biotechnology, under the authority of the FFDCA. Products are regulated according to their intended use and some products are regulated by more than one agency. To gether, these agencies ensure that the products of modern biotechnology are safe to grow, safe to eat, and safe for the environment. USDA, EPA, and

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 20 8/5/2010 FDA enforce agency

- specific regulations to products of biotechnology that are based on the specific nature of each GE organism.
In 2001, in a joint Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)/OSTP assessment of federal environmental regulations pertaining to agricultural biotechnology, the CEQ and OSTP found that “no significant negative environmental impacts have b een associated with the use of any previously approved biotechnology product” (CEQ/OSTP, 2001, p. 1).
For RRA, the plant is reviewed by USDA and FDA, whereas EPA is responsible for registering the use of the glyphosate herbicide and establishing a toleranc e for allowable glyphosate
residues. 12 

## As indicated herein, although certain issues such as weed resistance and impacts of glyphosate on animals or plants are addressed by EPA (not APHIS), this ER nevertheless
addresses those issues.

1.4.1 USDA regulatory author ity
The APHIS BRS mission is to protect U.S. agriculture and the environment using a dynamic and
science

- based regulatory framework that allows for the safe development and use of GE organisms. Under its authority from the PPA, APHIS regulates the introdu ction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of certain GE organisms and products. 13 

## A GE organism is presumed to be a regulated article if the donor organism, recipient organism, vector, or vector agent used in engineering the organism belongs to one of the taxa listed in the regulation 14 

## and is also presumed to be a plant pest. APHIS also has authority under these rules to regulate a GE organism if it has reason to believe that the GE organism may be a plant pest or APHIS does not have sufficient information to determine that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. 15



## Under APHIS’ regulations a person may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data and determine that a particular regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, and, therefore, should no longer be regulated. 16 

## The petitioner is required to provide information related to plant pest risk that the agency may use to determine whether the regulated article is unlikely to

12 

### Under the FFDCA and associated regulations, EPA sets a tolerance, or maximum residue limit, for pesticide treated food and feed items. A tolerance is the amount of pesticide residue allowed to rem ain in or on each treated food commodity. The tolerance is the residue level that triggers enforcement actions. That is, if residues are found above that level, the commodity will be subject to seizure by the government. 13 

### 7 C.F.R. §340. 14 

### 7 C.F.R. §340.2. 15 

### 7 C.F.R. §340.1. 16 

### 7 C.F.R. §340.6. entitled “Petition for determination of non

- regulated status”.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 21 8/5/2010 present a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism. 17 

## If the agency determines that the regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the GE organism will be granted non

regulated status. In such a case, APHIS authorizations (i.e. permits and notifications) wo uld no longer be required for environmental release, importation, or interstate movement of the non

regulated article or its progeny.
It was under these regulations that Monsanto/FGI submitted the petition for a determination of

non
- regulated status for ev ent J101/J163 (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). J101/J163 alfalfa were considered regulated because they contain non

- coding deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) segments derived from plant pathogens and the vector agent used to deliver the transforming DNA is a plant pathogen (See Section 3.1 for a discussion of these concepts) (USDA APHIS, 2005, p. 5).

1.4.2 EPA

regulatory authority
EPA is responsible for regulation of pesticides (including herbicides such as glyphosate) under
the FIFRA. 18 

## FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered before distribution, sale, and use, unless exempted by EPA regulation. Before a product is registered as a pesticide under FIFRA, it must be shown that when used in accordance with the label, it will not result in unreasonable
adverse effec ts on the environment.

Under the FFDCA, as amended, 19 

## pesticides added to (or contained in) raw agricultural commodities generally are considered to be unsafe unless a tolerance or exemption from
tolerance has been established. EPA establishes residue tole rances for pesticides under the authority of the FFDCA. EPA is required, before establishing a pesticide tolerance to reach a safety determination based on a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protec tion Act of 1996 (FQPA). The FDA enforces the tolerances set by the EPA. EPA approved the use of glyphosate over the top of RRA on June 15, 2005. The use of glyphosate over the top of RRA did not require an increase in the existing glyphosate residue to lerance of 400 ppm in the animal feed, non

- grass crop group; this tolerance supports the feeding of alfalfa forage that has been treated with glyphosate to livestock. EPA issued a new glyphosate tolerance for alfalfa seed of 0.5 ppm on February 16,
2005. 20

17 

### 7 C.F.R. §340.6(c)(4). 18 

### 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. 19 

### 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq. 20 

### 40 C.F.R. §180.364; 70 Fed. Reg. 7861 (Feb. 16, 2005).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 22 8/5/2010 1.4.3 FDA

regulatory authority
FDA, which has primary regulatory authority over food and feed safety, has published a policy statement in the Federal Register concerning regulation of products derived from new plant varieties, including those genetically engine ered (FDA, 1992). Under this policy, FDA uses a consultation process to ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) are resolved prior to commercial distribution of a bioengineered
food. Monsanto/FGI su bmitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary for RRA to FDA in October 2003. FDA completed its consultation process in 2004 (Tarantino, 2004; Hendrickson and Price, 2004). FDA’s analysis and related impacts are discussed in
Section 3 .10.

1.5 TH E NA

TIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Congress passed The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 to avoid the confusion and misrepresentation then taking place in the “organic” marketplace. 21 

## The OFPA required the
USDA to establish a Nat ional Organic Program (NOP) to develop uniform standards and a certification process for those producing and handling food products offered for sale as “organically produced.” 22 

## The OFPA requires certification under the NOP, which was finalized in 2000, to be process

- based. 23 

## “The certification process does not guarantee particular attributes of the end product; rather it specifies and audits the methods and procedures by which the product is produced” (Ronald and Fouche, 2006). The NOP defines certain “ex cluded methods” of breeding that cannot be used in organic production, describing them as “means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.” 24 

## Along with genetic engineering, three other modern breeding techniques are specified as “exclud ed methods” in the regulations. 25 

## Thus, a certified organic grower cannot intentionally plant seeds that were developed by these specific excluded methods. However, because “organic” is based on process and not product, the mere presence of plant material s produced through excluded methods in a crop will not jeopardize the integrity of products labeled as organic, as long as the grower follows the required organic production protocol. Also, other modern breeding methods

-

21 

### 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et se q. 22 

### 7 C.F.R. Part 205, announced at 65 Fed. Reg. 80548 (Dec. 21, 2000). 23 

### 7 U.S.C. §6503(a). 24 

### 7 C.F.R. §205.2. 25 

### Id

.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 23 8/5/2010 for example, induced radiation or chemical mutagenesis

- are not specified as excluded methods by the NOP (discussed in Section 3.1.1).
All organic growers’ production plans must be approved by an organic certifying agent before the farm can be certified as “organic.” 26 

## Such plans must in clude, among other things, steps the organic grower is taking to avoid what the NOP refers to as “genetic drift” from any neighboring crops using excluded methods. 27 

## Certification must include on

- site inspections of the farm to verify the procedures set fo rth in the organic production plan. 28



## Thus, the NOP recognizes the coexistence of organic growers with neighboring growers who may choose to grow products developed using certain methods of biotechnology. So long as an organic grower follows an approved or ganic method of production that seeks to avoid contact with these specific biotechnology

- derived crops, if some residue of the biotechnology

- derived plant material is later found in the organic crop (or food produced from it), neither the crop (or food) no r the organic farm is in danger of losing its organic status. According to the standards established by the NOP, no grower or seed producer should lose organic certification due to inadvertent transmission of genetic material from a genetically engineered crop. In the context of the genetic drift discussion, in the preamble of the NOP regulations, USDA emphasized that it is the use of excluded methods as a production method that is prohibited, not the mere presence of a product of excluded method:
It is pa rticularly important to remember that organic standards are process based. Certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices that meet the requirements of the Act and the regulations. This regulation prohibits the use of excluded methods in organic operations. The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of this regulation. As long as an organic operation has not u sed excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods should not affect the status of an orga nic product or operation. 29



## The NOP calls for testing only if there is “reason to believe” that a grower has used excluded
methods. 30 

## The preamble states that a “reason to believe” may be triggered by situations such

26 

### See 7 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpt. E. 27 

### See id . at 205.201; 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80556 (Dec. 21, 2000) (discussing “genetic drift”). 28 

### 7 C.F.R. §205.403. 29 

### 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80556 (Dec. 21, 2000). 30 

### 7 C.F.R. §205.670(b).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 24 8/5/2010 as a formal, written complaint to the ce rtifying agent regarding the practices of a certified organic operation; the proximity of a certified organic operation to a potential source of drift; or the product from a certified organic operation being unaffected when neighboring fields or crops

are infested with pests. 31



## This testing provision does not establish a zero tolerance standard for the presence of products of excluded methods in organically labeled food. Rather, it serves as a warning that excluded methods may have been used: “Any detectab le residues of. . . a product produced using excluded methods found in or on samples during analysis will serve as a warning indicator to the certifying agent.” 32



## [T]hese regulations do not establish a “zero tolerance” standard.

. . [A] positive detection of a product of excluded methods would trigger an investigation by the certifying agent to determine if a violation of organic production or handling standards occurred. The presence of a detectable residue alone does not necessarily indicate use of a pr oduct of excluded methods that would constitute a violation of the standards.” 33



## Only if the organic producer intentionally used excluded methods of crop production will that producer be subject to suspension or revocation of organic certification.
Indeed, since the time GE crops were introduced in the U.S. in the mid

- 1990s, organic markets have grown and expanded (Smith, 2010b, p. 10).

1.5.1 Non

- GM O Project working standard

The Non

- GMO 34 

## Project is a non

- profit organization created by leading members of the organi c industry to “offer consumers a consistent non

- GMO choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies” (Non

- GMO Project, 2010a). The Non

- GMO Project has created a working standard to impl ement its goal. The standard sets action thresholds for “GMO” (GE) adventitious presence for certain products. If these action thresholds are exceeded, the participant must investigate the cause of the exceedance and take corrective action (Non

- GMO Proje ct, 2010, p. 13). The standard sets a threshold of 0.25 percent for GE material for the presence of GE traits in non

- GE seeds (p. 28), and a 0.9 percent threshold for non

- GE food or feed (p.14).

31 

### See 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80629 (Dec. 21, 2000). 32 

### Id . at 80628. 33 

### Id . at 80632. 34 

### GM O stands for genetically modified organism.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 25 8/5/2010 1.5.2 Growth in organic and GE farming
Expansion of organic farmin g has succeeded at the same time as the growth of GE crops. Consumer demand for organically produced goods “has shown double

- digit growth for well over a decade” and organic products “are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and
three of fou r conventional grocery stores.” Organic products “have shifted from being a lifestyle choice for a small share of consumers to being consumed at least occasionally by a majority of Americans” (USDA Economic Research Service [ERS], 2009c).

1.6 COEXISTENCE IN U .S. A GRICULTURE

1.6.1 Coexistence and biotechnology
Coexistence of different varieties of sexually compatible crops has long been a part of agriculture, especially in seed production, where large investments are made in developing new varieties and high seed pur ity levels are required by the Federal Seed Act’s implementing regulations. 35 

## The aspect of coexistence most relevant to this document is that related to specific methods of crop production. In this context, coexistence refers to the “concurrent
cultivati on of conventional, organic, and genetically engineered (GE) crops consistent with underlying consumer preferences and choices” (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008). The differences among these crops that are particularly relevant to coexistence in this ER are in the types of breeding methods (sometimes referred to as “genetic modifications”) that are associated with each of these three types of crop production.

“ Genetic engineering ” is defined by APHIS regulations as “the genetic modification of organisms by r ecombinant DNA techniques.” 36 

## Recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques are discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this ER. While there are many ways to genetically modify a crop, the APHIS definition of GE crops applies only to those developed using rDNA techniques, whic h are among the more modern breeding methods.
Organic crops are those produced in accordance with the requirements of the NOP, discussed
in Section 1.5.
Conventional crops are simply those that are neither GE nor organic. They may be commodity crops (mass produced), or they may be identity preserved, with some characteristic tailored for a specific end user. Identity

- preserved usually refers to a “specialty, high

- value, premium or niche market” (Massey, 2002). One type of identity preserved product that has

35 

### 7 C.F.R. § 201 36 

### 7 C.F.R. §34 0.1

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 26 8/5/2010 been produced since the introduction of GE crops is “non

- GE”; however, there are no mandatory standards governing the use and/or marketing of “non

- GE” products. (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008).
Farmers who want to maximize their profitability must dec ide whether the higher prices (premiums) they may receive for organic or identity

- preserved crops are sufficient to offset the added managerial costs of producing these crops. As researchers have noted, “Although yields on organic farms are sometimes less than those of conventional systems, price premiums make it an attractive option for growers looking for specialized markets and a higher

- value product” (Ronald and Fouche, 2006).

1.6.2 USDA position on coexistence and biotechnology
It is USDA’s position that al l three methods of agricultural production described above can provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and the agricultural economy (Smith, 2010b).

1.6.3 Coexistence in U.S. agriculture
The USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21 st 

## Century Agricu lture who reported that “coexistence among the three categories of crops is a distinguishing characteristic of U.S. agriculture, and makes it different from some other parts of the world,” expressed its belief that U.S. agriculture supports coexistence, a nd recommended continued government support of coexistence (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008). Among the Committee’s findings:

 The U.S. is the largest producer of GE crops in the world.

 The U.S. is one of the largest producers of organic crops in the world.

 The U.S. is one of the largest exporters of conventionally

- grown, identity preserved, non

GE crops in the world.

 Some U.S. farmers currently are producing a combination of organic, conventional, and GE crops on the same farm.
Among the coexistence

- enabling factors the Committee identified is the existing “legal and regulatory framework that has enabled different markets to develop” without foreclosing the ability of “participants in the food and feed supply chain to establish standards and procedures (e.g., not setting specific mandatory adventitious presence (AP) thresholds and having process

based rather than product

- based organic standards).” At the same time, development of practices and testing methods that allow for voluntary thresholds has also enabl ed coexistence (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008).

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 27 8/5/2010 As APHIS has previously observed, “studies of coexistence of major GE and non

- GE crops in North America and the European Union (E.U.) demonstrated that there has been no significant gene flow from GE crops an d that GE and non

- GE crops are coexisting with minimal adverse economic effects” (Smith, 2010b, pp. 11

- 12) (citing Gealy et al., 2007; Brookes and Barfoot, 2003; Brookes and Barfoot, 2004(a) and (b), and Walz 2004). In addition, “the agricultural
markets and local entities have addressed coexistence through contractual arrangements, management measures, and marketing arrangements. This market

- based approach to coexistence has created economic opportunities for all kinds of producers of agricultural produ cts.” ( Id . p. 9). RRA is one of fifteen GT events previously deregulated by USDA. See APHIS, EPA, Petitions of Non

- Regulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of February 2, 2010, http://ww w.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html ).

1.7 ROLE OF THE NA TI ONAL A CA DEMIES IN A GRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
The analyses in this ER are based on published, peer

- reviewed scientific papers; federal government assessments; assessments from international agencies; info rmation from specialists from many universities; data collected by Monsanto/FGI under controlled conditions;
and information from other relevant sources. One resource used for this ER is the National Academies (NA), a private, non

- profit institution that advises the nation on scientific and technical matters. It consists of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine (IM) and the National Research Council (NRC) (NA, 2010). Scientists, engineers a nd health professionals are elected by their peers to the academy and serve pro bono . Reports are prepared by committees of members with specialized expertise and reviewed by outside anonymous experts (Alberts, 1999). NA reports,
as well as the scientifi c studies used in those reports, are used as applicable throughout this
document.
The NA has been active in studies related to agricultural biotechnology since the 1970s and works cooperatively with federal agencies, and its reports have provided guidance and recommendations for process improvement to regulatory agencies (Alberts, 1999). The NRC 1989 guidelines for field testing of genetically engineered organisms were used as the basis for agency procedures for field trials (Alberts, 1999; NRC, 1989). In studies in 1987 and 2000 the NRC emphasized that the characteristics of the modified organism should be the object of a risk assessment, and not the methods by which the modifications were accomplished; and that the
risks associated with recombinant DNA t echniques are the same in kind as risks from other types of genetic modification (NRC, 1987; NRC, 2000). This position was re

- iterated in a 2004

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 28 8/5/2010 study prepared jointly by the IM and the NRC. Whether such compositional changes result in
unintended health effects is dependent on the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population” (Institute of Medicine and
N ational Research Council [IM/NRC], 2004, p. 8). In a 2002 report, the NRC “found that the current standards used by the federal government to assure environmental safety of transgenic plants were higher than the standards used in assuring safety of other agricultural practices and technologies” (NRC, 2002). The NRC reports that, while biotechnology is not without risk, since the first commercial introduction of transgenic plants, “biotechnology has provided enormous benefits to agricultural crop productio n” (NRC, 2008). NRC’s latest report on biotechnology in agriculture evaluates the impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability (NRC, 2010). The authors concluded that an understanding of impacts on all farmers will help ensure
that GE te chnology contributes to sustainability and that commercialized GE traits to date, when used properly, “have been effective at reducing pest problems with economic and environmental benefit to farmers” (NRC, 2010).

1.8 ALTERNA

TI VES

In addition to the alternati ve of implementing the partial deregulation measures (Alternative 2), this ER considers the alternative of full regulation (Alternative 1).

1.8.1 Alternative 1

– No A ction
In conducting NEPA review, agencies consider a no action alternative, which provides a
bas eline against which action alternatives can be evaluated. This ER identifies the no action alternative as a return to full regulation

– or the status quo when the petition for deregulation of RRA was initially submitted. Under this alternative, the intro duction of RRA would be fully regulated and would require permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS until APHIS completes its EIS and issues a Record of Decision (ROD) regarding whether to deregulate RRA. For purposes of this analysis, we assu me that Alternative 1 would not involve widespread RRA cultivation, and instead would contemplate a return to conventional alfalfa crops or to crops other than alfalfa. 37

37 

### This ER does not address the acres of RRA planted prior to March 30, 2007, and cultivated pursuant to conditions required by the district court and implemented by APHIS by administrative order. These acres are reaching the end of their productive liv es and will be removed within the next few years under either Alternative. Because their acreage and expected lifespan is so small, and because their impacts would be identical under either Alternative, the analysis of these limited impacts would not be m eaningful within the scope of this ER.

## Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 29 8/5/2010 1.8.2 Alternative 2

– Partial Deregulation
Under this alternative APHIS would implement the proposed measures described in Section
1.1.3.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 30 8/5/2010 SECTION 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 ALFALFA CHARACTERISTICS
Alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) is a deep

- rooted and short

- lived perennial plant considered to be the “Queen of Forages” due to its high nutritional content for cattle , sheep and horses (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18).

2.1.1 Growth
Alfalfa is recognized as a widely adapted crop, growing in all continental States, as well as Alaska and Hawaii. Alfalfa initially grows from seed, but after each harvest or winter it will re

grow from buds arising from the perennial crown/root structure. As alfalfa grows, yield (i.e. above ground biomass) increases until alfalfa yield peaks at full bloom. However, juvenile vegetative alfalfa vegetative alfalfa plants have the highest nutritional value and that nutritional value decreases as the plant approaches full flower. The vegetative growth interval during most of the year is 22 to 40 days. The crop is typically harvested for forage three to eight times per year, depending on location and seaso nal climate. The alfalfa plant grows until stopped by a hard freeze. Fields grown for forage production are typically maintained for 3 to 6 years or longer in some areas (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18

- 19).

2.1.2 Pollination
Alfalfa is predominantly cross

- pollinated and the flowers depend entirely on bees for cross

pollination. Alfalfa requires bees to physically “trip” flowers to release pollen for egg fertilization and seed production (refer to Section 2.2.3) (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 19).
Alfalfa is exclusively insect pollinated (Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008). The flowers depend
on bees for cross

- pollination. Alfalfa seed farmers must stock bees to ensure pollination because most regions that cultivate alfalfa seed do not have naturally occurring populations of
eff ective alfalfa pollinators. Forage farmers do not stock bees, however, because they do not want or need pollination of their fields (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 94; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). Leafcutter bees (Megachile rotundata F.) are typically used to pol linate alfalfa seed production
fi elds in the cooler Pacific Northwest (PN W), and honey bees (Apis mellifera) are primarily used in the Desert Southwest. However, a few growers in niche regions like southern Washington use alkali bees (Nomia melanderi) due to their unique geography and climate (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 19). Alfalfa pollen is not carried by the wind; it is not wind

- pollinated. Severe environmental conditions such as, heavy winds in combination with drought, may sometimes

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 31 8/5/2010 cause flowers to trip and self

- pollinate. Although rare, self

- pollinated seeds have inferior vigor and germination due to genetic inbreeding depression in alfalfa (Teuber, 2007).

Pollen

- mediated gene flow decreases exponentially as the distance from the pollen source
increases (Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008). However, the type of pollinator determines the extent. All bees have a limited range over which they will search to efficiently collect pollen; most nectar or pollen foraging occurs close to the nest when flowers are p resent. The maximum foraging radius for each of the three commercially available bee species (honey bees, leafcutter bees, and alkali bees) depends heavily on the abundance of nectar and pollen resources. Leafcutter bees have the shortest routine foragin g radius of less than a 1/4 mile. The honey bee and alkali bee having a forging range of 1 to 3 miles (Arnett, 2003; Gathmann and Tscharntke, 2002; Hammon et al., 2006; Teuber et al., 2005). Honey bees may infrequently transport alfalfa pollen and effect pollination up to 3 miles from the source (St. Amand et al., 2000; Teuber et al., 2004; Hammon et al. 2006). Honey bees are predominantly nectar collectors and as such they tend to avoid the tiny alfalfa flowers when other sources of nectar
fl owers are av ailable. When visiting alfalfa flowers, honey bees are known as inefficient pollinators because they predominantly “side

- feed” solely for nectar, i.e., they leave the flower closed (un

- tripped) and un

- pollinated. Feral honey bees and native bees includin g Bombus
spp., Osmia spp., Agapostomen spp. and Megachile spp. can also be found visiting alfalfa
fl owers in varying numbers. These species may sometimes pollinate alfalfa flowers but their importance in alfalfa pollination is minor (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. O

- 5; Hammon et al., 2006; Arnett, 2002).

2.2 ALFALFA PRODUCTION

2.2.1 Forage production, general
Alfalfa is among the most important forage crops in the U.S., with more than 21 million acres in cultivation. Recognized as the oldest plant grown solely for forage, alf alfa has been used as livestock feed because of its high protein and low fiber content. Alfalfa is ranked fourth on the list of most widely grown U.S. crops by acreage and is ranked third among agricultural crops in terms of value (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 17 ). The harvested acreage of alfalfa harvested for forage (dry hay) was approximately 21 million acres in 2009, which generated 71 million tons of hay at an average yield of 3.35 tons per acre (USDA ERS, 2010a and 2010b). Over the last 60 years (since 1951 ), harvested alfalfa hay acreage in the U.S. has ranged between 20.7 acres (2010) and 29.8 million (1957) (USDA ERS, 2010a). From 1951 to 2009 (latest year available), total U.S. production (dry) has ranged between 46.8 million tons (1951) and 91.9 million tons

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 32 8/5/2010 (1986) (USDA ERS, 2010b). Since 1950, yields generally increased until about the mid

- 1980s; since then yields in most years have been around 3.3 tons per acre. The total acreage of harvested alfalfa has generally been declining since the mid

- 1980s, with 2010 the lowest year since 1950 (USDA ERS, 2010a). The production decreases are due to alfalfa’s use in crop rotation declining in the U.S., and the increased use of corn silage as a source of forage in dairy diets coupled with the decline in dairy ( milk) prices paid to farmers. Alfalfa requires different management, equipment, and labor schedules than other major cropping systems such as corn and soybeans. Transportation of bulky alfalfa hay or haylage to distant markets may be prohibitively expens ive (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 34). In the 2009/2010 season (May 2009 to April 2010), the average price farmers received for alfalfa hay was $115/ton, compared to $101/ton for other hay (USDA ERS, 2010c).
Alfalfa is grown for forage in almost every U.S. state. U.S. production of hay/haylage and seed
harvested for the 2006 season is shown in Table 2

- 1. Haylage is alfalfa that is chopped at higher moisture content than hay, and stored in silos, bunkers or plastic bags to enable controlled fermentation to preser ve the nutritional content. The major U.S. alfalfa producing regions include the Southwest, PNW, Inter

- Mountain, Plains, North Central, and East

- Central.
The North

- Central and the East

- Central regions are the highest acreage hay and haylage regions in th e U.S.; whereas, the Southwest and PNW regions produce the most seed in the U.S. (USDA NASS, 2010b).

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 33 8/5/2010

Table 2

- 1 Alfalfa Forage and Seed Production by State 2006 National A

gricultural Statistics Service Date

State Acres by State

(1000s) Hay and Haylage Har vested Dry Hay 2006 Hay and

Haylage 2006 Average

Yield T/A Forage

Tons Harvested Seed

Production Acres Average

Yield (lbs/A) Seed Lbs

Harvested

AZ 250 250 8.3 2,075 4 500 2,000,000 CA 1,050 1,070 6.9 7,426 38 550 20,900,000 NM 220 234 51 1,184 2 400 800,000 Southwest

Total 1,520 1,554 10,685 44 23,700,000

ID 1,180 1,230 4.5 5,523 28 700 19,600,000 NV 270 270 5.1 1,377 5 600 3,000,000 OR 430 430 4.4 1,892 5 650 3,250,000 WA 440 455 4.9 2,239 15 750 11,250,000 PNW

Total 2,320 2,385 11 ,031 53 37,100,000

CO 780 780 3.8 2,964 0.6 200 390,000 MT 1,550 1,550 2.1 3,255 5.5 200 3,025,000 UT 560 560 4 2,240 2.2 200 1,320,000 WY 500 500 2.8 1,400 7.5 400 4,125,000 Inter

Mountain

Total 3,390 3,390 9,859 15.8 8,860,000

KS 950 965 3.8 3,677 0.5 200 100,000 NE 1,250 1,265 3.3 4,212 0.4 200 80,000 OK 380 380 2.1 798 0.4 200 80,000 TX 150 160 4.4 707 1 400 400,00 Plains

Total 2,730 2,770 9,394 2.3 660,000

IA 1,180 1,230 4 4,908 0 0 0 MN 1,350 1,500 3.6 5,460 0 0 0 ND 1,450 1,450 1.2 1,740 0 0 0 WI 1,650 2,400 3.9 9,336 0 0 0 SD 1,800 1,820 1.6 2,930 7 250 1,750,000 North Central

Total 7,430 8,400 24,374 7 1,750,000

CT 7 7 2.1 15 0 0 0 DE 5 5 3.9 20 0 0 0 IL 440 460 4.2 1,918 0 0 0 IN 360 360 4.1 1 ,476 0 0 0 ME 10 10 1.9 19 0 0 0 MD 40 40 3.9 156 0 0 0 MA 13 13 2.3 30 0 0 0 MI 830 980 4 3.940 0 0 0 MO 390 400 3 1,184 0 0 0 NH 8 8 2.4 19 0 0 0 NJ 25 25 2.5 63 0 0 0 NY 370 610 3.3 2,019 0 0 0 OH 470 550 4 2,195 0 0 0 PA 500 660 3.8 2,515 0 0 0 RI 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 VT 45 90 3.6 322 0 0 0 East Central

Total 3,514 4,219 12,894 0 0

Source : USDA APHIS, 2009, Table 3

- 20


## Cultural practices
Seeding and planting . The objectives of seedbed preparation are to manage crop residue (the leftover veg etative matter from the previous crop), minimize erosion, improve soil structure, and eliminate early season weeds. Alfalfa requires a good establishment for a long

- lived productive

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 34 8/5/2010 stand. Results from seed failure include poor seedbed preparation, seedi ng too deep or too shallow, low moisture availability, freezing, diseases, insects, damage from herbicides, and excess competition for light and nutrients from a companion crop or from weeds. Slight differences in seeding may be in the equipment used, suc h as, drills, broadcasting, or aerial broadcasting. Seeding time during the year varies from region to region. Northern areas will generally seed in spring to avoid major freezing damage of young seedling plants whereas all
other areas will seed in the f all. Recommended seeding times are based on the previous crop, soil water availability throughout the year, and the time of year. The recommended soil preparations are similar in all regions unless no

- till planting is used and no

- till planting can be

use d in all regions (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 84). No

- till productions systems do not have any associated tillage where weed control is entirely through chemical means.
Fertilizing . The only differences in fertilizing among alfalfa growers occur in the composit ion of the fertilizer used because of the different soil types in different regions. All regions generally recommend good availability of phosphorus and potassium. Nitrogen fertilizer is generally not recommended unless considerable refuse from the previ ous crop exists (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 84).
Harvesting . Alfalfa grown for forage can be used for grazing or harvested as greenchop, haylage/silage or hay. The only major difference for harvesting in different regions is the total number of harvests per yea r. The northern regions typically have up to two or three harvests per year due to shorter growing seasons. Southern regions can have six or more harvests per year. The major differences are in the adaptation of different varieties to the different clim ates of the U.S. and differing levels of various pests (weeds, disease, and insects) (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 84).
Harvesting . Alfalfa grown for forage can be used for grazing or harvested as greenchop, haylage/silage or hay. The only major difference for ha rvesting in different regions is the total number of harvests per year. The northern regions typically have up to two or three harvests per year due to shorter growing seasons. Southern regions can have six or more harvests per year. The major differenc es are in the adaptation of different varieties to the different climates of the U.S. and differing levels of various pests (weeds, disease, and insects) (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 84).
Crop rotations . Crop rotations can help maintain soil fertility, re duce soil erosion, avoid pathogen and pest buildup, adapt to weather changes, avoid allelopathic effects (effects to reduce the growth of one plant due to chemical releases by another) and increase profits.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 35 8/5/2010 We eds can be a problem in alfalfa, but once alfa lfa is established, it acts as a suppressor of weeds and is commonly used in rotations for weed reduction. Alfalfa is also used in crop rotations because it provides nitrogen to the soil, which decreases fertilizer inputs in other rotations. Rotating pere nnials, such as alfalfa, with annuals also helps control weeds and improves soil tilth. Using other crops to rotate with alfalfa is likewise advisable because mature alfalfa is autotoxic to seedling alfalfa. (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 73 and 75).

2.2.2 Organic alfa lfa hay production
Between 2000 and 2005, the number of acres in certified organic alfalfa hay production
fl uctuated slightly, but overall showed an increasing trend. The percentage of total alfalfa hay acres certified as organic per year was between 0.51 to 0.92 percent nationally during this time period (see Table 2

- 2). During 2005 (the most recent year for which certified organic alfalfa acres are reported), there were 204,380 acres in certified organic production, which was approximately 0.92 percent of the U.S. alfalfa dry hay total (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 36 8/5/2010 Table 2

- 2 Organic Alfalfa Hay Harvested A creage.
Acreage 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total 113,157 116,608 155,437 135,717 175,260 204,380
Share of Total U.S. A creage 0.51% 0.49% 0.67% 0.58% 0 .81% 0.92%

Source: USDA

- ERS, 2005; USDA

- NASS, 2007; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48 

## Organic alfalfa hay production is similarly distributed geographically to conventional hay. However, production of organic alfalfa hay is a more significant proportion of total alfalfa hay production in some States. In 2005, for example, more than 4 percent of all alfalfa hay acreage in Idaho was organic, compared to just 0.92 percent nationally. Organic alfalfa, like organic dairy, also seems to occur in pockets, with 72 percent of organic acreage located in just 6
States

— Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California. These 6 States account for about 41 percent of total U.S. alfalfa acreage (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).
The increased price per ton of hay re ceived by organic growers is partially offset by a reduction in forage quality (due to increased weeds in the hay) and an approximately 12.5 percent reduction of alfalfa yield per acre (Long et al., 2007). The 2005 national average yield per acre
for all alfalfa hay production was 3.39 tons. Based on differences in organic and conventional alfalfa yield from Long et al. (2007), the total estimated U.S. organic hay production in 2005 was about 606,242 tons; the total U.S. production of alfalfa hay in 2005 was approximately 76,149,000 tons. The resulting eaverage organic alfalfa yield per acre, in 2005, was 2.97 tons. This estimate is approximate, however, and is only presented here for illustrative purposes (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).

2.2.3 Seed production

Maint aining seed purity, identity and quality
The Federal Seed Act and its implementing regulations 38 

## establish basic standards for certification of seed, which are carried out by state seed certifying agencies. A state seed certifying agency is created by stat e law, has authority to certify seed, and has standards and procedures approved by USDA “to assure the genetic purity and identity of the seed certified.” Seed certifying agencies’ standards and procedures must meet or exceed those specified in the

38 

### 7 C.F.R. §201.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 37 8/5/2010 USDA r egulations. 39 

## Federal law also allows for international seed certification. Through the certification process, the certifying agency “gives official recognition to seeds produced of a cultivar or named variety under a limited generation system which ensur es genetic purity, identity, and a given minimum level of quality” (USDA, 2009a). In the case of alfalfa, State Crop Improvement Associations (or sometimes Seed Grower Associations) provide certifications that seed production followed minimum standards, su ch as isolation between different alfalfa varieties, absence of prohibited noxious weeds in the field, inspection of conditioning (separation) facilities, maintaining traceability of seed lots, and seed testing (USDA APHIS, 2009).

The most common levels of certification that would normally be available for consumer purchase would be “registered seed” or “certified seed.” Breeder seed is controlled by the seed developer and is the source for the production of the other classes of certified seed, and
foundat ion seed is normally used to establish new production fields (USDA, 2009a and 7 C.F.R. § 201.2). Standards are highest for Breeder/Foundation seed, next highest for Registered; while “Certified” has the least stringent requirements of the certified catego ries. In all cases, the party seeking the certification is responsible for ensuring the requirements are met.
Certified seed must have a label indicating, among other things, the percent of pure seed, inert matter, other crop, and weed seed. Seed purity s tandards vary between states but remain high, particularly for foundation seed stock. At least 99 percent of each seed harvest must contain the pure seed variety (i.e. < 1 percent genetic off

- types), and there are strict limits on the allowable
amounts of other crops, weeds and inert matter. After seed crops have been evaluated by seed labs, they are tagged with seed labels in accordance with law. The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) requires that a representative sample from each su bmitted crop undergo multiple tests at a seed lab. All types of seed crops must be accurately labeled. The Foundation and Certified seeds are identified by a special tag that includes variety, kind, origin, net weight, percent pure seed, percent other mate rials, amount of noxious seed and weeds, and identification of the seed lab performing the analysis (USDA APHIS, 2009).
California, the leading producer of alfalfa seed, provides an example of typical rules for field eligibility (past use and spatial isola tion) and seed purity standards. These rules are followed by most states. For cultivating Foundation seed (seed of the highest purity), alfalfa must not have grown on the land in the previous four years. For Certified seed, alfalfa must not have been
grown on the land in the previous one to two years. These past use requirements may vary

39 

### 7 U.S.C. §1551(a)(25); 7 C.F.R. §201.67.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 38 8/5/2010 depending on the intervening crops. The boundaries of the field must be clearly set and all noxious weeds and volunteer plants must be eradicated before planting. Foundatio n seed fields must be isolated from alfalfa of different varieties by 900 feet (ft). Certified fields must be isolated by 165 ft However, a “10 percent rule” provides some flexibility for Certified fields. Under this rule, if 10 percent or less of the Cert if ied field is in the 165 foot isolation zone, then the entire field is considered Certified. However, if more than 10 percent is in the isolation zone, then that part of the field must be separated and not harvested as Certified seed (USDA APHIS, 2009).

S ummary of practices for alfalfa seed production
Unlike alfalfa hay production, alfalfa seed production is largely concentrated both geographically and in the number of producers. Seed production occurs primarily in niche areas of the western U.S. on approx imately 100 to 120 thousand acres under intensive management and irrigated
fi eld conditions (see Figure 1

- 1). It requires a long growing season with a very warm temperature, very low humidity during seed ripening, and specialized equipment. Most professio nal seed producers use cultured bees and specialized equipment associated with bee culture (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 68).
Based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the top three seed producing states, accounting for over 60 percent of production, were Californi a with 31 percent of produced seed, Washington with 17 percent, and Idaho with 15 percent. The remaining seed production was highly concentrated in the western states of Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah (USDA APHIS, 2009).

As shown in Table 3

- 9 o f the draft EIS (included as Figure 1

- 1 of this ER), within the seed producing states seed production is localized to certain counties. In the most recent USDA

NASS Census of Agriculture (2007), during 2002 and 2007, 1,234 and 806 farmers grew alfalfa
seed on 110.6 and 120 thousand acres, respectively. This is a small number of growers in comparison to those growing alfalfa for forage (i.e., 344,000 and 290,000 alfalfa hay growers in 2002 and 2007, respectively). During 2007, 90 percent of the U.S. seed cr op tonnage was grown by 304 seed growers operating farms with at least 100 acres of alfalfa seed (USDA

NASS, 2009). Therefore, most of the alfalfa seed production is managed by a relatively small number of large professional seed producers. Nearly all larg e growers have at least one proprietary seed production contract with one of the four national alfalfa seed production companies (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 68

- 69).

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 39 8/5/2010 Cultural practices used to produce seed are distinct from those used to produce forage.
Professio nal seed growers usually grow seed under terms of a two or three year term seed company contract, by variety name. The contracting seed company supplies the stock seed (e.g., foundation seed) to the seed producer and the genetic source variety of the seed is documented. In contrast, seed companies purchasing or growing “common seed” or “catch crop” seed typically use lower management and inputs, the genetic identity of the stock seed is often unspecified/unknown and the resultant product quality is highly v ariable and cannot be certified as to cultivar or variety identity (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 69).
Typically, seed fields are planted in the fall and clipped back in late spring so that bloom within the field is uniform, synchronous and optimally timed for the warm dry season and optimal pollinator activity. Weed and in

- crop volunteer controls (herbicides and cultivation) are applied mainly prior to the start of pollination or after seed harvest. Flowering begins in approximately
mid

- June. Insecticides (primaril y for Lygus control) and other pesticides are applied prior to bee release to avoid insecticide damage to the bees. At approximately 50 percent flower (early to
mid

- July), cultured bees are gradually moved into the seed field for pollination with their dom icile or hive for local shelter. The field is actively pollinated for approximately one month, allowed to ripen seed for approximately 4 weeks more, and then, chemically desiccated or swathed several days prior to combining the seed. At the end of the poll ination period and just prior to desiccation, the pollinating generation of bees is either at the end of their lifecycle (i.e., leafcutter or alkali bees), or are transported by the honeybee keeper to a different location to forage on fall

- flowering plant species. Seed is harvested in mid August to late September depending on geography. In long

- growing season regions, the cool

- season alfalfa forage growth between seed crops is sometimes mechanically harvested or grazed (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 69).

Stands of a lfalfa grown for seed production only are usually maintained for an average of three production seasons. The length of the seed stand is generally predetermined by the seed production contracts and AOSCA variety certification standards. In contrast to fora ge stands, most alfalfa seed planted for seed production purposes is planted at a low density in widely spaced rows and not cut monthly. Consequently, weeds in the seed fields have more open area and time to proliferate and compete with the alfalfa. Theref ore, weeds, insects, and pests are intensively managed in seed production systems. Weed seeds and weed debris in grower seed lots directly reduce the purity and yield of alfalfa seed and drive up growers’ costs to remove them (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 69

- 70).

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 40 8/5/2010 RRA seed production since 2005

In 2006

- 2007, RRA seed was produced in the U.S. on a widespread basis for the first time since deregulation in 2005. This presented an opportunity for FGI to implement an internal seed quality program to monitor the efficacy of the FGI Best Practices for RR Stewardship during Seed Production (“FGI Best Practices”). Conventional alfalfa seed lots grown and/or processed in proximity to RR seed in 2006 and 2007 were tested for the adventitious presence (AP) of the
RR trait. The data showed that the AP of the RR trait in FGI conventional seed lots occurred infrequently and, in all cases if detected, was at a very low level

— 0.004 to 0.180 percent. This was well within the FGI’s goal of <0.5 percent AP. This large

- scale commercial v alidation of FGI Best Practices supports research

- based isolation standards and demonstrates the effective implementation of quality control programs at both the grower and processor level. FGI believes that this, and more recent industry reviews together demonstrate that reasonable tools are available and are being used by seed producers to allow successful coexistence of diverse alfalfa seed market sectors and preserve conventional seed and hay market choices (USDA APHIS, 2009). In late 2007, following t he Court’s Decision, the FGI Best Practices were extensively reviewed by the Steering Committee of the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Peaceful Coexistence Workshop (October 10, 2007). The steering committee was composed of a broad array of alfalfa ind ustry stakeholders. In January, 2008, NAFA’s Board of Directors and all genetic suppliers of NAFA adopted the NAFA BMP (Appendix C) as requirements for RRA seed producers. A third

- party panel of State Seed Certification Agencies has reviewed 2008
and 200 9 conventional alfalfa seed crop year data and has stated that the NAFA BMP appear to be working to achieve coexistence, i.e., conventional and RRA varieties have been produced successfully during the period following widespread cultivation of RRA.

All alf alfa seed production since 2005
The latest information of total alfalfa seed production is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, when 121,467 acres of alfalfa seed were harvested producing approximately 62 million pounds of seeds at an average productivity of approximately 510 lbs/acre.
Alfalfa seed acreage and production increased between 2002 and 2007, reversing the trend of decreases in alfalfa seed production over the preceding few years. Economic, social and competitive challenges face both U.S. alfalf a seed and forage growers. These challenges include: changes in global seed demand and production, economics, environmental constraints, regulatory issues, and insect control and weeds. The presence of weeds can have a greater impact on costs in alfalfa seed production than alfalfa forage production. Post

- harvest

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 41 8/5/2010 separation of weed seed from the alfalfa seed is costly; therefore, the control of weeds in the
fi eld is a more desirable method of seed quality control. No primary or secondary noxious
weeds a re allowed for certified seed (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 43

- 44).
Seed availability
All four of the major U.S. seed genetic suppliers and seed production companies (FGI, Pioneer
Hi

- Bred, Dairyland Seeds and Cal/West Seeds) sell conventional and/or organic seed p roducts. Prior to the federal court injunction, these varieties were sold alongside of one or more RRA varieties. RRA was sold by more than 20 seed brands all of which continued to offer conventional cultivar products (USDA APHIS, 2009).
During the 2005

- 2 007 period of deregulation of RRA, approximately 200,000 and 18,000 acres of RRA hay and seed, respectively, were grown with no substantiated disruption of the market for conventional alfalfa hay or seed (USDAS APHIS, 2009; McCaslin, 2007).
Organically cer

tified and conventionally grown seed lots are routinely marketed to U.S. organic forage producers for the establishment of organic alfalfa forage fields. Although a small amount of organic alfalfa seeds used in the U.S. are purchased from U.S. seed distrib utors, little or none of the organic alfalfa seeds appear to have been originally grown in the U.S. (McCaslin, 2007). There is little information available to indicate if there are any certified organic alfalfa seed producers in the U.S. (USDA APHIS, 2009) . Organic alfalfa seed sold in the U.S. by U.S. seed companies is therefore most likely to have been wholly or largely imported from organic producers in Canada or elsewhere, where insect pests in alfalfa seed production are less catastrophic and base prod uction costs for seed are much lower (McCaslin, 2007).

2.3 GENE FLOW
This section provides background information on gene flow, which is relevant to the impacts analysis provided in Section 3 of this ER.

Gene flow

has been defined as the “incorporation of gene s into the gene pool of one population
fr om one or more populations” (Futuyma, 1998). Gene flow is a basic biological process in plant evolution and in plant breeding, and in itself does not pose a risk (Bartsch et al., 2003; Ellstrand, 2006, p. 116).

The re are several factors that influence the probability of gene flow between alfalfa fields. The following is a list of factors adapted from Putnam, 2006 (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 100):

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 42 8/5/2010  Probability of synchronous flowering (e.g., the percentage of days where sev eral plants
fl ower simultaneously);

 Relative availability and abundance of pollen from various sources (e.g., the percentage of bloom during each day of synchronous flowering);

 Presence of pollinators and pollinator types

 Pollinator activity on days of syn chronous flowering and placement of bee hives (e.g., influenced by timed bee release and weather);

 Distance between fields (alfalfa populations);

 Probability of seed maturation; and

 Probability of seed germination.

2.3.1 Hybridization
In plant biology, when gene flow occurs between individuals from genetically distinct populations and a new plant is formed, the new plant is called a hybrid (Ellstrand, 2003, p. 10). Hybridization is usually thought of as the breeding of closely related species or subspecies
resul ting in the creation of a plant that has characteristics different from either parent. Usually this occurs through deliberate human efforts; however, it can also occur indirectly from human intervention, or in nature. For example, when plants are moved t o a new environment (with or without human intervention), they may hybridize with plants of a closely related species or subspecies in that new location.
For natural hybridization to occur between two distinct populations, the plants from the two populatio ns must flower at the same time, they must be close enough so that the pollen can be carried from the male parent to the female parent, fertilization must occur, and the resulting embryo must be able to develop into a viable seed that can germinate and for m a new plant (Ellstrand, 2003, pp. 11

- 13).
Characteristics that favor natural hybridization between two populations when the above requirements are met include (Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008, p. 429):

 Presence of feral populations (domestic populations gone wild) and uncontrolled
volunteers

 Presence of a high number of highly compatible relatives

 Self

- incompatibility

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 43 8/5/2010  Large pollen source

 Large amounts of pollen produced

 Lightweight pollen

 Large insect populations (insect pollinated)

 Long pollen viability
Feral populations are discussed in Section 2.6. Volunteers are plants from a previous crop that are found in a later crop and are also discussed in Section 2.6.

There are no sexually compatible wild relatives of alfalfa present in the U.S. (Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008; Van Deynze et al., 2008, p. 7). Therefore, movement of the CP4 EPSPS gene found in RRA varieties can only occur within or among cultivated or feral alfalfa populations (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 94).
Alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) is predomina ntly self

- incompatible ; that is, fertilization does not occur between the male and female parts on the same plant. Self

- incompatible plants must be

cross
- pollinated (also known as “out

- crossed”) to form viable seed: that is, for fertilization to occur, t he female part of the flower (the stigma) must successfully receive pollen from the male part of a second plant (the anther). The majority of cross

- pollination in alfalfa is effected by bees visiting plants growing in very close proximity (i.e., within fo ur meters) (St. Amand et al., 2000).
As discussed in Section 2.1.2, alfalfa is exclusively insect

- pollinated , and, in seed production areas, farmers must stock bees to ensure economic levels of seed production.

Gene flow via seed mixtures
Nearly all alfalf a forage producers purchase seeds for planting, largely because grower

produced grower

- saved

- seed is only possible in the niche seed

- growing geographies. Commercially produced seed is generally produced under a contract from a seed company: the
foundatio n stock seed is provided to the contract grower by the seed company and seed lots are harvested, transported and conditioned by variety name and lot code. Such contracts and the typical use of official seed certification schemes maintain field and seed lo t segregation, identity and varietal purity. Seed certification standards set limits on the percentage of other variety off

types that are allowed. Therefore, seed growers and seed producers are aware of the importance of routine cleaning of field equipm ent, seed transportation containers and seed processing equipment as means to mitigate off

- types and weed seed presence to very low

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 44 8/5/2010 levels. Regardless of stringent management, commercial agricultural seeds are not and cannot be 100 percent pure. Therefor e, it is widely recognized that some seed admixtures may still inadvertently occur, and that, in all but exceptional cases they are likely to pose no safety, economic or regulatory issues.

2.3.2 Seed

- to

- seed gene flow studies
FGI performed gene flow studies in I daho from 2000 to 2002 using leafcutter bees for pollination, however, the presence of feral and native bees were also noted. These studies showed a mean gene flow of 1.39 percent at 500 ft and 0.0000 percent at 3⁄4 of a mile (Fitzpatrick et al., 2002). Tabl e 2

- 3 and Figure 2

- 1 below summarize the findings of these field
studies.

Table 2

- 3. Summary of FGI Idaho Gene Flow Studies (Fitzpatrick et al., 2002)

Notes: Isolation distance between trap and source, number of replicates per distance, replicate plot s ize (acres), trap plot cardinal direction from source and, interplot land cover a,b,c, the mean observed gene flow and the upper bound of true gene flow (i.e., the 99.9 percent confidence interval upper limit) are given. Interplot land cover:a various crop species typical for the area (e.g., onions, corn, wheat, etc.); b roadways, or c fallow. “

- ” indicates distance not tested.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 45 8/5/2010

Figure 2

- 1

– Gene Flow

UC

— Davis, Monsanto/FGI performed a gene flow study during the 2003 growing season using honey bees. The po llen

- mediated gene flow at isolation distances of 900 ft, 5,000 ft, and 2.53 miles were 1.49 percent, 0.2 percent, and ≤0.06 percent, respectively (Teuber et al., 2007).
A mixed honey bee and leafcutter bee gene flow study was performed in the San Joaquin Valley of California in 2006 and 2007 (Teuber et al., 2007; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Summary data
fr om t hose studies are presented in the Table 2

- 4 below.

Table 2

- 4 Seed to Seed Gene Flow (Teuber et al., 2007)

Distance Gene Flow

(% adventitious presence) 165 ft. 2.3
900 ft. 0.9 4,000 ft. 0.6
1 mile 0.2
3 miles 0.03
5 miles Not detected

FGI conduct ed a gene flow study subsequent to the 2006 growing season which validated the FGI Best Practices (FGI, 2007). The observed gene flow ranged from 0.09 percent at an isolation distance of one mile to 0.01 percent at an isolation distance of three miles. At distances of 5 miles or greater, the gene flow was not detected.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 46 8/5/2010 To summarize, data collected under actual seed production conditions found gene flow ranging
fr om 0.00 to 0.18 percent when FGI Best Practices were used. This is well below the FGI Company’s domestic market goal of less than 0.5 percent adventitious presence. As required by the NAFA BMP (2008a), a third

- party review panel has annually conducted a review of conventional seed crop gene flow data. In each of the two annual reviews, the panel ha s validated that NAFA BMP are working on a commercial scale to enable coexistence among conventional and RRA seed producers (NAFA, 2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010).

2.3.3 Gene flow potential
This ER addresses potential gene flow pathways as follows:

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to conventional and organic forage crops (Section 3.3)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to native alfalfa (Section 3.4)

 Potential for gene flow due to feral alfalfa populations (Section 3.5)

 Potential for ge ne flow from RRA forage crops to rangeland alfalfa (Section 3.6)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to conventional or organic alfalfa seed production areas (Section 3.7)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA to any of the above receptors, in alfalfa seed production (Section 3.8)

2.4 ALFALFA WEED MANA GEM EN T

2.4.1 Weed characteristics and concerns

Wh ile a weed can be defined as any unwanted plant, problem weeds are those that are competitive and persistent. Healthy, productive stands of alfalfa require attentio n to manage pests (including weeds), fertilizer inputs, irrigation (if applicable), and harvest timing. Weeds can be a problem in alfalfa particularly at establishment of a new stand and after the stand has
started to thin toward the end of its life. Onc e a dense stand of alfalfa has been established, the competition of the alfalfa plants with weeds and the fact that alfalfa is cut at regular intervals during the production season act as suppressors of weeds. Weed control at establishment is a particular ly important time since good weed control at this time leads to the establishment of a dense, healthy stand for the life of the crop.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 47 8/5/2010 Several years after sowing alfalfa when plants weaken and stands become thin weeds become more competitive with alfalfa an d can contribute to a significant decline in alfalfa yield and forage value. Certain weed species found in alfalfa stands are particularly difficult to control, are poisonous to livestock, negatively affect palatably or livestock performance, impart off f lavors to milk products, and may be noxious regulated species (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 73).
Competition for light, water and nutrients. A grower tries to capture the plant resources on
his land

- primarily light, water, and nutrients

- for his crop; however, competitive weeds often secure some of these resources for their growth, at the expense of the crop. Some common characteristics of competitive weeds are rapid seedling establishment, high growth rates, prolific root systems and large leaf areas.
Weed pe rsistence. Persistent weeds are able to survive year after year on a given piece of ground, in spite of a farmer’s efforts to control them. Some plants are both competitive and persistent through the production of large numbers of seeds. The bushy wild p roso millet, for example, shatters upon contact when mature, and can produce 400 to 12,000 seeds per square foot. While high reproductive rates also contribute to a weed’s persistence, seed dormancy is also an important trait in persistence. Cultivated s oils typically contain thousands of seeds per square meter, waiting for the opportunity to germinate. Some seeds, for example, velvetleaf, can remain viable in the soil for up to 50 years. Many perennial weed species have the ability to reproduce from ro ot fragments. Canada thistle, for example, has a deep, spreading root system that can continue to send up shoots after the surface plant has been removed multiple times. Some weeds have the ability to alter their characteristic in response to stress; for example, some weeds respond to drought by flowering and going to seed early (Tranel, 2003; McDonald et al., 2003, pp. 9

- 12).

We eds are controlled in conventional alfalfa and RRA with chemicals (herbicides), cultural methods (rotation, mowing, companion cr ops, monitoring), and mechanical methods (tillage). The cultural and mechanical methods are permitted for organic farmers. RRA systems allow for the use of one additional herbicide, glyphosate.

2.4.2 Problem weeds in alfalfa production
The following weeds have been identified as problem weeds in alfalfa that prevent production of maximum yields: Barnyardgrass, Bermudagrass, Bluegrass (annual), Bromes, Buckhorn plantain, Bulbous bluegrass, Burning nettle, Canarygrass, Chesseweed, Chickweed (common),
Coastal fid dleneck, Cupgrass, Dandelion (common), Dodder, Filarees, Field bindweed,

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 48 8/5/2010 Flixweed, Foxtail (green), Foxtail (yellow), Foxtail barley, Goosegrass, Groudsel (common), Hare barley, Johnsongrass, Junglerice, Knotweed, Lambsquarter (common), London rocket,
Mine r’s lettuce, Mustards, Nettleleaf, Nightshade, Nutsedges, Palmer Amaranth, Pepperweeds, Prickly lettuce, Quackgrass, Redmaids, Russian thistle, Ryegrass, Shepardspurse, Sowthistle, tinkgrass, Wild oats, Wild Radish, Witchgrass, and Yellow starthistle (UC IPM, 2006) . These
weeds are summarized in Table 2

- 5. Most of these weeds, and others, are present throughout all the alfalfa growing regions. Certain weeds are classified as annual, biennial or perennial. An annual or biennial is a plant that completes its life cycle to produce seed in one or two years (or less), respectively. Perennials are plants that live for more than two years. They may reproduce by seeds, rhizomes (underground creeping stems) or other underground parts. Weeds are
further classifi ed as broadleaf (dicots) or grasses (monocots).

Table 2

- 5 Weeds in Alfalfa

Common Name Scientific Name and Synonyms GR

Biotype Reported in U.S. Types SeasonEast CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter HardyInter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

Ba rnyard grass Echinochloa

crus
- galli
, cockspur grass, Japanese millet watergrass cockspur watergrass NA Gra ss SA X X X X X X

Be rmudagrass Cynodon spp

. NA Gra ss P X X X Bluegrass (a nnual) Poa annua

walkgrass, annual bluegrass NA Gra ss WA X X X

Bromes Bromus spp. NA Gra ss WA X Buckhorn plantain 1 Plantago

lanceolata No Broadleaf P X X

Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa NA Gra ss P X
Burning nettle Urtica dioic

Ca lif or nia nettle slender nettle stinging nettle t al l nettle NA Broadleaf A X

Ca narygrass Phalaris

arundinacea canary grass reed canarygrass Phalaris canariensis canary grass Phalaris minor canarygrass littleseed canarygrass NA Gra ss WA X

Chesseweed Malva neglecta

buttonweed NA Broadleaf WA

- P X X

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 49 8/5/2010 Common Name Scientific Name and Synonyms GR

Biotype Reported in U.S. Types SeasonEast CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter HardyInter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

cheeseplant li ttle mallow common mallow Chickweed (common) Stellaria media NA Broadleaf WA X X X X X

Coastal fiddleneck Amsinckia

menziesii

var. intermedia coast buckthorn coast fiddleneck
common fiddleneck fiddleneck NA Broadleaf WA X

Cupgrass Eriochloa

gracilis southwestern cubgrass ta pertip cupgrass Eriochloa contracta prairie cupgrass Eriochloa villosa wooly cupgrass NA Gra ss SA X X

Da ndelion (common) Taraxacum

officinale blowball
common dandelion fa ce clock NA Broadlea f P X X X X X

Do dder Cuscuta

50 common names for the species in the genus NA Broadleaf SA X X X X

Filarees Erodium spp. NA Broadleaf WA X X X X X X X X Field bindweed Convolvulus

arvensis creeping jenny European bindweed morningglory perennial
mo rningglory Smallflowered morningglory NA Broadleaf P X X

Flixweed Descurainia

sophia flixweed pinnate ta nsymustard NA Broadleaf WA X X X

Foxtail (green) Setaria viridis

bottle grass green bristlegrass green foxtail green millet pigeongrass wil d millet NA Gra ss SA X X X X X X X

Foxtail (yellow) Setaria glauca

pearl millet pigeongrass NA Gra ss SA X X X X X X

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 50 8/5/2010 Common Name Scientific Name and Synonyms GR

Biotype Reported in U.S. Types SeasonEast CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter HardyInter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

wild millet yellow bristlegrass yellow foxtail Foxtail barley Hordeum

jubatum NA Gra ss P X X
Goosegrass 1 Eleusine indica

crowsfo ot grass Indian goosegrass manienie alil’l silver crabgrass wiregrass No Grass SA X X

Gro undsel (common) Senecio vulgaris

ra gwort old

- man
- in

- the

Spring NA Dicot WA X

Ha re barley Hordeum

leporinum hare barley le porinum barley wild barley NA D icot WA X X X

Johnsongrass 1 Sorghum

halepense aleppo milletgrass herbe de cuba sorgho d’ Alep sorgo de alepo zacate johnson Yes (1)

State Grass P X X

Junglerice 1 Echinochloa

colona Junglerice watergrass No Grass SA X

Knotweed Polygonum

arenastrum
common knotweed doorweed matweed ovalleaf knotweed prostrate knotweed NA Broadleaf SA X X

Lambsquarter (common) Chenopodium

album Lambsquarters Wh ite goosefoot Yes Broadleaf SA X X X X X X X X

London rocket Si

symbrium irio NA Gra ss WA X Miner’s lettuce Claytonia

perfoliata NA Dicot WA

- P X

Mustards Brassica spp. NA Broadleaf WA X X Mustards Brassica spp. NA Broadleaf SA X Ne ttleleaf Chenopodium

murale NA Broadleaf SA X
Nightshade Solanum

sarrachoides Ha iry nightshade NA Broadleaf SA X X

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 51 8/5/2010 Common Name Scientific Name and Synonyms GR

Biotype Reported in U.S. Types SeasonEast CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter HardyInter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

Hoe nightshade Nutsedges Cy perus

esculentus yellow nutgrass yellow nutsedge Cyprus rotundus chaguan Humatag cocograss kili’o’opu nutgrass pakopako purple nutsedge NA Gra ss P X

Palmer Amaranth 1 Amaranthus

palmeri carelessweed (type of pigweed) Yes (8)

States Broadleaf SA X

Pe pperweeds Lepidium

densiflorum Co mmon pepperweed Greenflower pepperweed peppergrass NA Broadleaf WA X X

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

China lettuce wild lettuce NA Br oadleaf WA X X X

Quackgrass El

ytrigia repens couchgrass quackgrass quickgrass quitch scotch twitch El ymus repens couchgrass dog grass NA Gra ss P X X X X

Re dmaids Calandrinia

ciliate NA Broadleaf WA X X

Russian thistle Salsola kali

tumblew eed Salsola iberica prickly Russian thistle tumbleweed tumbling thistle NA Broadleaf SA X X X X

Ryegrass 1 Lolium

multiforum Italian ryegrass annual ryegrass Yes (3)

States Grass WA X X

Shepardspurse Capsella

bursapastoris Shephardspurse NA Broa dleaf WA X X X X X X X X

Sowthistle Sonchus spp. (5

species) NA Broadleaf P X
Stinkgrass Eragrostis

cilianensis candy grass lovegrass strongscented NA Gra ss SA X

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 52 8/5/2010 Common Name Scientific Name and Synonyms GR

Biotype Reported in U.S. Types SeasonEast CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter HardyInter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

lovegrass Wi ld oats Avena fatua

flaxgrass oatgrass wheat oats NA Gra ss SA

- WA X X X X

Wi ld Radish Raphanus

raphanistrum NA Broadleaf SA X X X

Wi tchgrass Panicum

capillare panicgrass ticklegrass tumble panic tumbleweed grass witches hair NA Gra ss SA X X

Yellow starthistle Cantaurea

solstitialis NA Dicot WA X X



### 1

– Glyphosate resistant weed Note: Refer to Table G

- 8 in the draft EIS for Glyphosate resistant weed infestations by state Source: ( UC IPM. 2006), (USDA APHIS, 2009, Tables G

- 3 and G

- 7), and (USDA, 2010b)



## 2.4.3 Use of herbicides to control weeds

Herbicides are used at three different phases in conventional alfalfa farming, which include stand establishment (to prepare the ground), established stands (to control weeds), and during stand removal (to kill alfalfa). The 17 EPA

- registered herbicides that are us ed for stand removal
or to control volunteer alfalfa include:

Herbicide Mode of A ction 2,4

- DB (Butyrac, Butoxone)

- Synthetic Auxin; Growth regulator Benfluralin (Balan)

- Dinitroanalines; Microtubule assembly inhibition Bromoxynil (Buctril)

- - N itriles; Photosystem II inhibitors Clethodim (Prism, Select)

- Acetyl

- CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors Diuron (Karmex, Direx)

- Ureas, Amides; Photosystem II inihitors EPTC (Eptam)

- Thiocarbamates; Seed growth inhibitors (shoot) Hexazinone (V elpar)

- Photosystem II inhibitors Imazamox (Raptor)

- Acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors Imazethapyr (Pursuit)

- ALS inhibitors Metribuzin (Sencor)

- Photosystem II Inhibitors Norfluzaon (Solicam)

- Carotenoid biosynthesis inhibitors Paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon)

- Bipyridiliams; Cell membrane disruptor

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environment al Report 53 8/5/2010 Pronamide (Kerb)

- Dinitroanilines; Microtubule assembly inhibition Sethoxydim (Poast)

- ACCase Inibitors Terbacil (Sinbar)

- Photosytem II Inhibitors Trifluralin (Treflan/TR

- 10)

- Dinitroanilines; Microtubule assembly inhibition

Source: (USDA APHIS, 2009, Table G

- 1) and (Heap, 2010)



## Table 2

- 6 summarizes the effectiveness of the herbicides on broadleaf weeds in seedling alfalfa, Table 2

- 7 summarizes the effectiveness of th e herbicides on grass weeds in seedling alfalfa, and Table 2

- 8 summarizes the effectiveness of herbicide combination control on weeds in seeding alfalfa.
Alfalfa stands are usually thinning and vulnerable to weeds after 2 to 8 years. Alfalfa stands are ty pically removed by killing the alfalfa by either tillage, herbicide application, or both. RRA cannot be removed using glyphosate; therefore, just like conventional alfalfa, RRA can be removed using tillage and/or labeled, non

- glyphosate herbicides.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 54 8/5/2010 Table 2

- 6 Susceptibility of Broadleaf Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

POSTEMERGENT

BROADLEAF WEEDS 24DB *1 24DB *3 24DB *4 BRO 1 BRO 2 CLE 1 CLE 2 GYL + HEX IMA 1 IMA 2 IMZ 1 IMZ 2 PAR *1 PAR *2 PR O SET 1 SET 2

burclover N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N N N N but te rcup N N N N N N N

- - C C P C P C

- N N celery, wild N N N N N N N C P N N N N N P

- N N chickweed N N N N N N N C P C C C C P C N N N cocklebur C C C C C N N C C C C C C N P N N N dock, curly (seeding) P C C N N N N C N N P N N N N P N N

doverfoot N N P N N N N C

- C C C C P C N N N fiddleneck N N N C C N N P P N P N P N P N N N fillarees N N N N N N N P P P C P C N P N N N groundsel,
common N P C P C N N C C N N N N N P N N N

henbit N N N N N N N C N N P P C N N C N N jimsonweed P C C C C N N C

- C C C C C C

- N N knotweed (seedling) N P C P P N N C C P C P C N N C N N
lambsquarters C C C C C N N C C N N P C P C C N N le ttuce, miners N N N N N N N C P C C P C P C C N N le ttuce, prickly P C C P C N N C N N N N N P C C N N mallow, little (c heeseweed) N N N N N N N P N P C P C N N N N N

milkthistle N N P N P N N C

- N N N N P P N N N mustard, black N P C C C N N C P C C C C N P N N N nettle, burning N N P N N N N P N P C P C N N N N N nightshade, hairy P C C C C N N C C C C C C

- C C N N
oxtongue, bristly - P P P C N N

- - N P

- - - - - N N
pineappleweed N N N N P N N C P N N N N P C N N N pigweed,
re droot C C C N P N N C C C C C C N N C N N

ra dish, wild N P C N P N N C P P C P C N P N N N
ro ckpurslane, desert N N N N N N N C N C C N N P C P N N

ro cket, London P C C P C N N C P C C C C C C C N N rush, toad N N N

- - N N C C C C

- - N N C N N shepherd’s

purse N P P C C N N C P P C C C N P N N N

smartweed, swamp P C C P C N N C C C C

- C N P N N N

sowthistle P C C C C N N C N N N

- - N C N N N speedwell, thymeleaf N N N N N N N C N N N N N N N P N N

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 55 8/5/2010 spurge, petty N N N N

- N N

- - C C

- - C C

- N N spurry, corn N N N N N N N C C N N

- - - C C N N starthistle, yellow N N N P C N N

- C N N

- - - C N N N
sunflower, wild C C C C C N N C C C C C C N P N N N swinecress N N P N P N N C C C C

- - N P N N N willowherb, panicle P C C N

- N N

- - C C

- - N N

- N N



### Source: (UC IPM, 2009)

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 56 8/5/2010 Table 2

- 7 Susceptibility of Grass Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

POSTEMERGENT

GRASS WEEDS 24DB *1 24DB *2 24DB *3 24DB *4 BRO 1 BRO 2 CLE 1 CLE 2 GYL + HEX IMA 1 IMA 2 IMZ 1 IMZ 2 PAR *1 PAR *2 PR O SET 1 SET 2

barley, hare N N N N N N C C C N N N C C P P C C C barnyardgrass N N N N N N C C C N C C C C P P N C C bluegrass, annual N N N N N N P C C P N P N P P C C N N

brome, ripgut N N N N N N C C C N N N C C P P C P

-
canarygrass, hood N N N N N N C C C N N P C C N P N C C

fe scue, rattail N N N N N N

- C C N N N P P P P

- N P foxtail, yellow N N N N N N P C C N N P C C P P N C C

goosegrass N N N N N N P P C N N N N N N N N P P
oat, wild N N N N N N C C C N P P C C P P C C C

punagrass N N N N N N P C P N N N N N N N

- P C

ryegrass, Italian N N N N N N C C C/P^ N N N C C P C C C C

wheat, volunteer N N N N N N C C C N N P C C P C C C C



### Source: ( UC IPM, 2009) 

## Ratings Legend
C = control (100

- 80% control) P = partial control (79

- 65% control) N = no control (less than 65% control)

- = no information
Chemical Legend

24DB* 1 

## = 2,4

- DB* (Butoxone 0.5, etc.) IMA 1 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) 24DB* 2 

## = 2,4

- DB* (Butoxone 0.75, etc.) IMA 2 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.094)

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environme ntal Report 57 8/5/2010 24DB* 3 

## = 2,4

- DB* (Butoxone 1.0, etc.) IMZ 1 

## = imazamox (Raptor 0.032) 24DB* 4 

## = 2,4

- DB* (Butoxone 1.5, etc.) IMZ 2 

## = imazamox (Raptor 0.047) BRO 1 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) PAR* 1 

## = paraquat* (Gram oxone 0.125) BRO 2 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) PAR* 2 

## = paraquat* (Gramoxone 0.25) CLE 1 

## = clethodim (Prism 0.1) Pro* = pronamide (Kerb 1.0) CLE 1 

## = clethodim (Prism 0.1) Set 1 

## = sethoxydim (Poast 0.375) GLY+ = glyphosate (Roundup WeatherMax) Set 2 

## = sethoxydim (Poast 0.5) HEX = hexazinone (Velpar 0.25)

Comments

NOTE : W eed size and spray coverage impact weed control as will herbicide rate, adjuvant type, spray volume, and environmental conditions. * Permit required from county agriculture commissioner for purch ase or use. + for Roundup

- ready (RR) alfalfa only ^ glyphosate (Roundup) resistance developing in many crops

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environ mental Report 58 8/5/2010 Table 2

- 8 Susceptibility of Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Combination Control

POSTEMERGENT COMBINA TI ON S

BROADLEAF WEEDS BRO

IMA 1 BRO

24DB *2 BRO

SET 3 BRO

CLE 4 BRO

HEX 5 IMA

24DB *6 IMA

CLE 7 IMA

SET 8 SET

24DB *9 IMA

PAR *10 IMA

HEX 11 burclover N N N N P N N N N N P buttercup C N N N N C C C N C C celery, wild N N N N N N N N N P P chickweed C N N N C C C C N C C cocklebur C C C C C C C C C C C dock, curly (seeding) C C N N N P N N C N P

doverfoot C P N N N C C C P C C fiddleneck C C C C C N N N N P P fillarees C N N N P P P P N C C groundsel,
common C C C C C N N N C C C

henbit P N N N P N N N N N N jimsonweed C C C C C C C C C C C kn otweed (seedling) P P P P P C P P P P C
lambsquarters C C C C C C N N C C C le ttuce, miners C N N N P C C C N C C le ttuce, prickly C C C C C C N N C C N mallow, little (cheeseweed) C N N N N C P P N C C

milkthistle P P N N N N N N P P

- mustard, blac k C C C C C C C C P C C nettle, burning C N N N N C P P N P C nightshade, hairy C C C C C C C C C C C
oxtongue, bristly P P C C P

- N N P

- P
pineappleweed P C C C

- P N N C C

- pigweed,
re droot C C P P C C C C C C C

ra dish, wild C P P P P P P P P P C
ro ckpurslane, desert C N N N N C C C N C C

ro cket, London C C C C P C C C C C C rush, toad C

- - - C C C C N C C shepherd’s

purse C C C C C P P P P P C

smartweed, swamp C C C C C C C C C C C

sowthistle C C C C C N N N C C N speedwell, thymeleaf N N N N N N N N N N N
spurge, petty C N N N N C C C N C C spurry, corn N N N N C N N N N C C starthistle, yellow C C C C C N N N N C

- sunflower, wild C C C C C C C C C C C swinecress C N P P

- C C C P C C willowherb, panicle C C

- - - C C C C C C

GRA SS WEEDS barley, hare N N C C N N C P C P N barnyardgrass C N C C N C C C C C C bluegrass, annual N N N P N N C N N C P
brome, ripgut N N P C N N C P P P N canarygrass, hood P N C C N P C C C P P

fe scue, rattail N N N

- N N

- N N P N foxt ail, yellow P N C C N N C C C P P

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 59 8/5/2010 BROADLEAF WEEDS BRO

IMA 1 BRO

24DB *2 BRO

SET 3 BRO

CLE 4 BRO

HEX 5 IMA

24DB *6 IMA

CLE 7 IMA

SET 8 SET

24DB *9 IMA

PAR *10 IMA

HEX 11 goosegrass N N P N N N P P P N N oat, wild P N C C N P C C C P P punagrass N N P

- N N P P P N N ryegrass, Italian N N C C N N C C C C N

wheat, volunteer P N C C N N C C C P P



### Source: (UC IPM, 2009) 

## Ratings Legend
C = control (100

- 80% control) P = partial control (79

- 65% control) N = no control (less than 65% control)

- = no information
Chemical Legend

1 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.064) 2 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + 2,4

- DB*(Butoxone 1.0, etc.) 3 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) + sethoxydim (poast 0.375) 4 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) + clethodim (Prism 0.25) 5 

## = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + hexazinone (Velpar 0.125) 6 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + 2,4

- DB*(Butoxone 0.5, etc.) 7 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + clethodim (Select Max 0.1) 8 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + sethoxydim (Poast 0.375) 9 

## = sethoxydim (Poast 0.375) + 2,4

- DB*(Butoxone 1.5, etc.) 10 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + paraquat* (Gramoxone 0.25) 11 

## = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.094 ) + hexazinone (Velpar 0.25)

Comments

NOTE : W eed size and spray coverage impact weed control as will herbicide rate, adjuvant type, spray volume, and environmental conditions. * Permit required from county agriculture commissioner for purchase or use.

2.4.4 Non

- herbicide weed management practices

We eds can also be controlled through cultural and mechanical methods. Weed management options include:

 Rotation of crops

 Wi nter crops in rotation

 Mowing or flash grazing

 Companion crops/co

- cultivation/interseeding/nurs e crop

 Cover crops (smother crops) (prior to planting alfalfa)

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 60 8/5/2010  Field scouting for early detection

 Monitor for weed species and population shifts

 Mechanical removal

 Adjusting harvest frequency

 Burning

 Tillage cultivation (seed production only)
Forage harves t removes weed biomass and developing weed seedlings. Regular forage harvest at late vegetative/mid bud stage combined with healthy competitive stands, effectively manage many key weed species, especially during the middle stages of a specific stand. Cro p rotations can help maintain soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, avoid pathogen and pest buildup, adapt to weather changes, avoid the effects to reduce growth of one plant due to chemicals released by another, and increase profits. Alfalfa is also used in crop rotation because it provides nitrogen to the soil, which decreases fertilizer inputs in other rotations. Perennials and annuals promote and restrict different weeds, so rotating perennial and annual crops helps control weeds in general. Rotating alfalfa is also advised because mature alfalfa is autotoxic to seedling alfalfa (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 74

- 75).

2.5 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE
Herbicide resistance is “the inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type” ( WS SA, 1998).
Herbicide resistance is a result of natural selection. Plants within a population of a given species are not all identical; they are made up of “biotypes” with various genetic traits. Biotypes possess certa in traits or characteristics not common to the entire population. Herbicides, that suppress or kill weeds, can exert selection pressure on weed populations. When a herbicide is applied, the plants with genes that can confer resistance to it, which had no special survival qualities before the herbicide was introduced, become the survivors who are then able to reproduce and pass on their genes. With repeated application of the same herbicide and no other herbicide or weed control practice, the resistant bi otype becomes the dominant biotype in that weed community. In the mid

- 1950s, Harper (1957) theorized that annual, repeated use of any herbicide could lead to shifts in weed species composition within a crop

- weed community. Similarly, Bandeen et al. (1982 ) suggested that a normal variability in response to herbicides exists among plant species and tolerance can increase with repeated use of an herbicide.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 61 8/5/2010 Indeed, as of June 27, 2010, 341 herbicide resistant weed biotypes have been reported to be
resistant to 19 different herbicide modes of action (Heap, 2010). Glyphosate

- resistant weeds account for 5 percent of the herbicide resistant biotypes (as documented on the www.weedscience.org website) while weeds resistant to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate

s ynthase (ALS), such as Raptor and Pursuit, account for 31 percent of the herbicide resistant biotypes (Wilson, 2010a, p. 6).
Figure 2

- 2 shows the increase in herbicide resistant biotypes with time. Among the herbicides commonly used in conventional alfalf a, Prism, Poast and Select are ACCase inhibitors; Raptor and Pursuit are ALS inhibitors; Butyrac and Butoxone are growth regulators, and Karmex and Direx are in the category of photosynthesis inhibitors. Figure 2

- 2 shows only the number of
confirmed resis tant biotypes. The total extent and distribution of resistant biotype varies widely.
Details of herbicide resistant weed in alfalfa are discussed in Section 3.11.
For as long as herbicide resistance has been a known phenomenon, public sector weed
scienti sts, private sector weed scientist and growers have been identifying methods to address the problem. For instance, when a farmer uses multiple weed control tools, each effective on a particular species, herbicide resistance biotypes will be controlled and the resistance biotype generally will not become the dominant biotype within a population (Gunsolus, 2002; Cole, 2010a, p. 4). By contrast, weed resistance is known to occur most rapidly in areas where there
is a sole reliance

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 62 8/5/2010 Figure 2

- 2. Herbicide re sistance worldwide
on a single herbicide used repeatedly over multiple crop generations for the management of a specific weed spectrum.

Wh en a grower encounters a biotype that is resistant to an herbicide he is using, the grower
must use an alternate metho d of weed control. Management practices that can be used to retard the development of resistance, such as those routinely used by alfalfa growers, include herbicide mixtures, herbicide rotation, mowing, and crop rotation.. The WSSA reports: “Weed
scienti sts know that the best defense against weed resistance is to proactively use a combination of agronomic practices, including the judicious use of herbicides with alternative modes of action either concurrently or sequentially” (WSSA, 2010b).

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 63 8/5/2010 2.6 SEXUA LLY COMPA TIBLE RELA

TIVES INCLUDING CONSPECIFIC FERAL AND VOLUNTEER A LFA LFA

2.6.1 Native sexually compatible relatives
There are no sexually compatible native relatives of alfalfa present in the U.S. (Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008; Van Deynze et al., 2008, p. 7). No na tive members of the genus Medicago are found in North America (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 20).

2.6.2 Feral and volunteer alfalfa
Feral crops are those that have become de

- domesticated. Based on available data, de

domestication has occurred in only a few crops. These feral crops are of minor importance compared with other weeds (Gressel, 2005). In North America, the feral plants that cause much of the economic damage are imported horticultural plants; for example, Japanese privet, Japanese honeysuckle and kudzu (Gres sel, 2005).
For purposes of this ER, unmanaged alfalfa planted for pasture, grazing or road

- side reclamation (and similar uses) is also considered feral as, once established, they receive no or minimal agronomic inputs (e.g., clipping). Cultivated and fer al alfalfa populations source to the

same Medicago sativa L. germplasms that were repeatedly introduced to North America over a 400 year period.
Rogan and Fitzpatrick (2004) summarize the extent of feral populations in six major alfalfa

producing States

— Ca lifornia, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Montana

— confirming that minor feral populations do exist in areas where alfalfa seed or forage is produced (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 22). Compared to cultivated alfalfa, feral alfalfa occurs at a relatively lo w density and scale. Kendrick et al. (2005) performed a biogeographic survey of five states (California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) in 2001 and 2002 and found that feral plants were not present or were sparse in most agricultural ar eas. Approximately 22 percent of the surveyed sites had dispersed or patches of feral alfalfa within 1.25 miles of cultivated alfalfa (Kendrick et al. 2005; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Relative to the geographies in which only forage is grown, areas with seed production fields were found to have fewer feral alfalfa plants growing in roadsides. Using herbicides or mechanical means, feral alfalfa can be and is controlled by certified alfalfa seed growers as a standard method to help
assure isolation from o ther sources of pollen during varietal seed production (AOSCA, 2009).
Feral, or naturalized, alfalfa populations can escape agricultural fields and multiply by natural regeneration throughout the U.S. Feral alfalfa can be found at air fields, canals, ceme teries,

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 64 8/5/2010 ditch banks, fence rows, highways, irrigation ditches, pipelines, railroads, rangeland, right

- of

ways, roadsides, and wastelands. Alfalfa plants that are not part of cropping systems generally have no regular external inputs like irrigation, herbi cides, insecticides, and fertilizers. All feral alfalfa in the U.S., like alfalfa under cultivation, originated from introduced varieties.
In general, survival without management inputs requires feral plant populations to have traits that may differ from those of cultivated plants. The most common traits include:

 variety of pollinators,

 continuous seed production,

 considerable seed output,

 seeds produced in several habitats,

 seed dispersal over short and long distances,

 seed dormancy (ability to form a se edbank),

 broad germination requirements,

 discontinuous germination,

 rapid vegetative growth,

 ability to withstand competition,

 tolerance to unfavorable biotic and abiotic conditions, and

 rapid flowering
A portion of alfalfa seeds may be temporarily impervi ous to water; these are “hard” seeds. The hard seeds may decay in soil or lay un

- germinated (dormant) for a period of time (e.g., a few weeks to several years). Gradually, the hard seed coat ages and the seed will germinate or decay. Alfalfa develops sm all fragile seedlings that if successfully established may become volunteers in subsequent crops or in unmanaged areas. Hard seed likely contribute few volunteer plants after one year, as, alfalfa seeds generally do not persist for more than one year
in f ield soil (Albrecht et al., 2008). Data for persistence of hard seed in seed production fields is given and discussed in Van Deynze et al. (2008), this confirms Albrecht et al. where studies were done in forage plantings in the Midwest. To guard against h ard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting (Putnam and Undersander, 2009, attached as Appendix I). AOSCA varietal purity standards (2009) require

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 65 8/5/2010 land history of 2 or 4 years without alfalfa cult ivation, for the Certified and Foundation alfalfa seed generations, respectively. Little to no secondary seeds are formed on hay crop stems because they are harvested in their juvenile stage (weeks before any new, viable seed is formed). A mature alfalfa stand is highly competitive and highly autotoxic to fragile, emerging secondary seedlings. Therefore, secondary seedlings are a very unlikely avenue for effective gene flow into existing solid

- seeded alfalfa plantings. The autotoxic reaction and inter

- pl ant competition severely limit germination and seedling vigor of alfalfa sown or dropped into existing or newly terminated alfalfa stands. Solid

- seeded cultivated alfalfa fields do not successfully self

seed. Attempts to thicken existing alfalfa stands by deliberately inter

- planting new seed into them typically fail, which is why most agronomists do not recommend the practice (Canevari et al., 2000; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18

- 19, 100).
Several scientists have reported that volunteer GT plants could become a pr oblem in rotational crops when both rotational crops are GT, however none provided specific information or data (e.g., Cerdeira and Duke, 2006; Owen and Zelaya, 2005; York et al, 2004; NRC, 2010). RRA volunteers would be expected to be more of concern in crops grown for seed, such as corn and soybeans. Volunteer alfalfa plants

— whether conventional or RRA

— are controlled by use of mechanical means (e.g., tillage) or by application of several registered non

- glyphosate broad

leaf herbicides. Feral alfalfa ca n also be controlled using these practices, or with glyphosate.

2.7 FOOD, FEED AND OTHER A LFALFA USES
Both food (sprouts, dietary supplements, and herbal or homeopathic medicine) and animal feed (hay, haylage, or silage) are derived from alfalfa.

Alfalfa for age, primarily harvested as hay or haylage, is used as a source of fiber and protein in animal diets. Most alfalfa forage is fed to dairy or beef cattle, but can also be an important part of the diet for horses, sheep and goats.

A small fraction of alfalf a seeds are used to produce sprouts for human consumption. Any alfalfa seed for sprouts must be certified as having been produced to food

- grade specifications
and therefore food

- grade seed is grown and distributed in an entirely separate channel from that for general use, non

- food

- grade planting seeds. Food

- grade seeds for sprouts are produced throughout the world, but the major suppliers are Canada, Italy, U.S. and Australia. Sprouts are cultivated from clean raw (non

- coated, untreated) seeds in control led environment sprouting chambers for approximately 5 to 10 days before sale to consumers.

## Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 66 8/5/2010 FDA and equivalent regulatory bodies in Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, etc., have granted full approval for the use of RRA as a food (see Section 3.11 ). Monsanto and FGI have developed the RRA varieties for field planting purposes (only), and as such the companies do not intend nor allow (give license to) any seed growers or seed purchasers to use RRA
varieties for food

- grade sprout production (Hubbard , 2008; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18).

2.8 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ISSUES
The affected environment for land use, air quality, water quality, ecology, threatened and endangered species, and other sensitive wildlife is the alfalfa producing areas and the seed produci ng regions. The affected environment for climate is global, as impacts on climate change are a global issue.

2.9 SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH

The affected environment for socioeconomic issues includes those individuals who could potentially be economically impac ted if their food or agricultural products are adversely affected by RRA, and those who could be economically impacted if RRA becomes a deregulated article. Potential impacts to the first group are discussed primarily in Section 3.10 and impacts to the

se cond group are discussed in Section 3.15. The potential for health impacts to individuals who may come into contact with RRA or alfalfa seeds or other products derived from RRA is discussed in Sections 3.10 and 3.14. Health effects of potential exposure to herbicides are
discussed in Section 3.14.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 67 8/5/2010 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENT AL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 PLANT PA

TH OGENIC PROPERTIES AND UNINTENDED EFFECTS
APHIS previously determined, based on scientific analysis and in accordance with its obligations under the PPA, that RRA does not ex hibit plant pathogenic properties (USDA APHIS, 2009).
APHIS considered the potential for the transformation process, the introduced DNA sequences, or their expression products to cause or aggravate plant disease symptoms in RRA and its progeny or in other plants.

APHIS also considered whether data indicate that unintended effects would arise from the genetic engineering of these plants. APHIS considered information from the scientific literature as well as data provided by Monsanto/FGI in their petition tha t was developed from their field trials (USDA APHIS, 2009).
Based on the analysis summarized below, there are no impacts resulting from plant pathogenic properties, introduced or aggravated disease symptoms, or unintended effects under any of the
alternati ves. Details of the Monsanto/FGI studies are included in the petition (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

3.1.1 Background
Plant genetic modification
Plant genetic modification by humans ranges from the simple approach of directed selection

– where seeds of plants w ith desired traits are saved and replanted

– to complex methods such as the use of rDNA (see definitions on next page). APHIS regulations define genetic engineering as genetic modification through the use of rDNA technology. 40 

## Crossing (and then
recrossin g) two sexually compatible plants by taking the pollen from one plant and brushing it onto the pistil of another remains the mainstay of modern plant breeding (IM/NRC, 2004). Both more traditional, “conventional breeding” and rDNA methods can involve chan ges in the
fr equency, sequence, order, and regulation of genes in a plant and can use many of the same enzymes. However, with conventional breeding all the tens of thousands of genes in the plant are involved, and with the rDNA method only a few genes are involved. In classical breeding, crosses can be accomplished only between closely related species, and therefore only traits that are already present in those species can be targeted. In contrast, the rDNA approach can

40 

### 7 C.F.R. § 340.1.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 68 8/5/2010 use genes from any living organism , thus opening the door to vast potential in trait development (Lemaux, 2008, p. 774; AMA, 2000).
Other examples of plant genetic modification include cell fusion (the protective cell wall is stripped and cells are fused by some external force) and induced mutagenesis (inducing mutations in seeds by ionizing radiation or carcinogenic chemicals) (Ronald and Adamchak p. 88). Mutagenic techniques, which have been in use since the late 1920s, create random mutations and are limited by their inability to target a desired trait (FDA, 1992; Lundqvist, 2009, p. 39).
Agrobacterium
Agrobacterium tumefaciens ( Agrobacterium ) is a soil microbe that has been called “nature’s own genetic engineer” because of its ability to transfer a fragment of its own DNA into a host
p lant (AMA, 2000). (See definitions at right.) The transferred DNA is stably integrated into the plant DNA, and the plant incorporates and expresses the transferred genes. The transferred DNA (T

- DNA) reprograms the host plant cells to grow into callus ti ssue and produce certain
amino acid derivatives that are a food source for the Agrobacterium . On a macro scale, the callus tissue growth is called crown gall disease. In the early 1980s scientists developed strains
of Agrobacterium with T

- DNA that lacked the disease

- carrying genes (“disarmed” Agrobacterium ). Agrobacterium transformation system has been utilized in the development of a large number of genetically engineered plants in commercial production (IM/NRC, 2004, pp.
28

- 29). The method uses a DNA molecule called a vector that serves as a carrier to insert T

DNA that contains specific genetic elements. These genetic elements are organized into a gene cassette , which consists of a gene encoding for a single biological function plus other genetic ele ments necessary for the expression of that gene when introduced into the plant. Other elements in the gene cassette include a promoter , which can be thought of as the “on switch” for the gene encoding for the desired trait; and a targeting sequence, which makes sure the gene product, typically a protein, ends up in the right location within the cell (such as the chloroplast).

Un intended effects from breeding
Most crops naturally produce allergens, toxins or other antinutritional substances; these often

ser ve the plant as natural defense compounds against pests or pathogens (FDA, 1992). Plant breeders may monitor the levels of antinutritional substances relevant to their crop. For

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 69 8/5/2010 example, lignin is an indigestible cell wall component that limits forage di gestibility. Alfalfa breeders typically monitor lignin content of plants in their breeding programs.
Scientists from the Institute of Medicine (IM) and the National Research Council (NRC) ranked breeding methods according to their relative likelihood of p roducing unintended effects, which they hypothesized would correspond to the degree of genetic disruption associated with the method. Selection from a homogeneous population was ranked at one end of the spectrum (less likely to produce unintended effects) and induced mutagenesis (from chemicals or radiation) was ranked at the other end (more likely). Agrobacterium transfer of rDNA was among the methods ranked in between (IM/NRC, 2004, Figure ES

- 1). Recent studies in Europe comparing transgenic and conven tional barley suggest that conventional breeding may cause more unintended effects than rDNA methods, likely because of the very large number of genes that are affected in conventional breeding techniques (Sonnewald, 2010).
Glyphosate tolerance

As discusse d in Section 2, glyphosate acts by inhibiting the action of the enzyme EPSPS, in plants. EPSPS is a catalyst for a reaction necessary for the production of certain amino acids essential for plant growth. When plants are treated with glyphosate the EPSPS enzyme is inhibited, they cannot produce the amino acids needed for continued growth and eventually die. The EPSPS protein and the reaction it catalyzes are present in all plants and microbes. There are variations in the amino acid sequence of EPSPS amon g different plants and bacteria. GT is achieved by introducing an EPSPS enzyme, termed CP4 EPSPS, that is not inhibited in the presence of glyphosate. An Agrobacterium strain (designated CP4) was the source of the CPR EPSPS gene that encodes for the CP4 EPSPS enzyme (Rogan and Fitzgerald, 2004). The CP4 EPSPS enzyme carries out the same enzymatic reaction in the plant as the native EPSPS; however, when plants that contain the CP4 EPSPS are sprayed with glyphosate, they are able to continue to produce the essential amino acids needed for plant growth. The objective of the genetic modification in RRA was to simplify and improve weed management practices in alfalfa by the addition of the CP4 EPSPS enzyme to confer tolerance to glyphosate (USDA APHIS, 2005).
Transformation system
RRA was developed using a disarmed Agrobacterium

- mediated transformation system of sterile
alfalfa leaflets. Post

- transformation, the Agrobacterium were eliminated from tissues by a 7

- week culture on antibiotic

- containing medium. Gly phosate was used to select for transformed

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 70 8/5/2010 tissues containing the EPSPS gene construct. This technique of using a disarmed Agrobacterium strains followed by selection has a 20

- year history of safe use and has been used for transformation of a variety of pl ant species and tissues. The plant material used for development of RRA was FGI proprietary alfalfa clone R2336 from a high yielding, fall dormant breeding population. The initial plants, selected for tolerance to glyphosate, were designated J101/J163, and various populations were developed from these events to provide the data presented in the petition (USDA APHIS, 2005).
DNA sequences inserted into RRA
Data supplied in the petition and reviewed by APHIS indicate that the CP4 EPSPS expression
cassette inse rted into alfalfa events RRA contains the CP4 EPSPS coding sequence under the regulation of the 35S promoter, a heat shock protein intron (HSP70), a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP2) sequence and a E9 3’ polyadenylation sequence. The CTP2 CP4 EPSPS coding region used to produce events J101/J163 is the same as that employed in several other RR crops such as soybean, which have been previously reviewed and granted non

- regulated status by the USDA. The CP4 EPSPS gene does not cause disease and has a history o f safe use in a number of GE plants (e.g., corn, cotton, and soybean varieties).

3.1.2 Evaluation of intended effects
Analysis of inheritance
Data were provided by Monsanto/FGI and reviewed by APHIS that demonstrate stable integration and inheritance of the EPSP S gene cassette over several breeding generations. Statistical analyses show that GT is inherited as a dominant trait in a typical Mendelian manner (M).
Analysis of gene expression
Monsanto/FGI collected data on EPSPS protein concentrations from field tria ls conducted at several locations. The companies determined EPSPS protein concentrations using standard laboratory techniques. EPSPS concentrations on a fresh weight basis averaged 257 micrograms (μg)/gram in plants with event J101, 270 μg/gram in plants w ith event J163, and 252 μg/gram in plants from the population containing both events J101/J163. EPSPS is ubiquitous in plants and microorganisms and has not been associated with hazards from consumption or to the environment. Crops that contain this protei n and have been granted non

regulated status have included corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed, and sugar beet (USDA APHIS, 2010a). In 2009, significant acreages of corn (59 million acres or 68 percent of the total), upland

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 71 8/5/2010 cotton (6.3 million acres or 71 perc ent of the total) and soybean (70.5 million acres or 91 percent of the total) grown in the U.S. were planted with herbicide tolerant varieties (USDA NASS, 2010c). Although these acreages include all herbicide tolerant varieties, GT ones (containing CP4 EP SPS) predominate. All have also undergone FDA review (FDA, 2010).
Analysis of the intended trait

Monsanto/FGI conducted numerous field trials to evaluate RRA in different environments. Standard field trials evaluated (1) agronomic performance, (2) disease and pest resistance performance, and (3) seed multiplication. Agronomic practices used to prepare and maintain each field trial were characteristic of each representative region. Where the glyphosate herbicide Roundup® was used in trials, no negative impac ts from application were noted (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

3.1.3 Evaluation of possible unintended effects
Disease and pest susceptibility
On the basis of pest and disease susceptibility data reviewed by APHIS, RRA populations were
no different from control o r conventional alfalfa populations in the prevalence of or response to diseases or pests. Since the deregulation of RRA in 2005, there have been no reports of any change in disease or pest interactions in RRA compared to conventional alfalfa (USDA APHIS
20 09).
During field trials from 1999 to 2003 and after deregulation of RRA in 2005, RRA has been grown over a broad geographic distribution of sites in the U.S. This has exposed RRA to a wide range of naturally occurring diseases. The principal alfalfa disea ses in the U.S. affect the foliar, crown, root, vascular, and seedling health of alfalfa plants. Fungi are the primary pathogen type involved in most alfalfa diseases. Nematodes, bacteria, viruses, and other microbes can also reduce alfalfa production. The major economic diseases that occurred during field trials included: seedling damping

- off (fungal genera such as Pythium
, Phytophthora
, Aphanomyces ); foliar diseases (fungal genera such as Leptosphaerulina
, Colletotrichum

, Peronospora
, Phoma
, Stemphylium

, Cercospora , and stem nematodes like Ditylenchus ); and root rots, vascular wilts and crown diseases (fungal genera such as Phytophthora
, Aphanomyces
, Verticillium
, Fusarium
, Phoma , and bacterial wilt caused by Clavibacter ) (USDA APHIS, 2009).
The major ins ect pest species affecting alfalfa vary between regions in the U.S. During field trials and after deregulation of RRA in 2005, RRA has been exposed to a wide range of naturally occurring insect pests. The principal economic insects included: potato leafh oppers

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 72 8/5/2010 ( Empoasca fabae ), aphids [pea ( Acyrthosiphon pisum ), blue (A. kondoi) and spotted alfalfa aphids ( Therioaphis maculata )], alfalfa weevil ( Hypera postica ), lygus bugs ( Lygus species), other plant bug species (family Miridae ) and alfalfa caterpillars (various Lepidopteran species). The disease and pest susceptibility observations for the field trials were provided to APHIS. These observations consistently showed no significant differences in the disease and insect susceptibility between events J101/J16 3 (or synthetic populations developed using both events) and the conventional control lines or commercial reference varieties. Although occasional differences were noted at some field sites, there were no concurrent trends of differences
across field sites or years. This suggests that these differences were likely due to random variation. Additional disease ratings taken as part of the phenotypic comparative studies also indicate that diseases and pest incidence are unchanged in RRA compared to the control and that RRA is not more or less susceptible to pests or diseases than conventional alfalfa. Commercial experience and additional research conducted since the 2005 deregulation decision are consistent with the findings from field trials during the regulate d period (USDA APHIS, 2009).
Gene silencing
In evolutionary biology, a homologous trait is one derived from a common ancestor that appears in multiple species. Homology may be manifested on a macro scale, for example, in the similarity in mammal forelimbs , and on a genetic scale, in DNA sequences. Al

- Kaff et al. (1998) have noted gene silencing effects when transgenic plants have been infected by a virus with DNA sequence homology to a portion of the introduced genes. The only virus

- derived DNA in
the in troduced gene cassette is the promoter, which is from the figwort mosaic virus. None of the viral diseases of alfalfa is related to figwort mosaic virus ( Whitney and Duffus, 1986), so silencing of the EPSPS gene would not be expected and has not been obse rved.
Compositional changes
The composition of forage produced by RRA plants containing either event J101, J163, or the paired events J101 X J163 was measured and compared to the composition of control and conventional alfalfa forage (Rogan and Fitzpatrick , 2004). Monsanto/FGI analyzed alfalfa for compositional changes as part of their submission to FDA in the consultation process. While FDA uses these data as indicators of possible nutritional changes, APHIS views them as general indicators of possible uni ntended changes.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 73 8/5/2010 Compositional analyses evaluating carbohydrates, protein, ash, minerals, fiber, lignin, fat, and 18 amino acids (a total of 35 different components) identified three statistically different values compared with the control population for J 101, seven statistically different values for J163, and 11 statistically different values for the paired J101 X J163 population. However, all analyses fell within the 99 percent tolerance interval developed from the conventional varieties grown in the

same locations, providing additional evidence that J101, J163 and the paired J101 X J163 populations do not exhibit unexpected or unintended effects (USDA APHIS, 2005).

3.2 WEEDINESS PROPERTIES AND FERAL CROPS
This section addresses two questions:

1. W hat are the weediness properties of alfalfa?

2. Is RRA any more likely to become a weed than conventional alfalfa?

For information on feral alfalfa or volunteer alfalfa, refer to Section 2.6.2.

3.2.1 Weediness properties of alfalfa
Alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) is not lis ted as a serious weed in A Geographical Atlas of World
Weeds (Holms et al., 1991) or as a weed in World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holms et al., 1997), Weeds of the North Central States (http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/html_pubs/WEEDS/list. html ), Weeds of the Northeast (Uva et al.,1997), or Weeds of the West (W hitson et al., 1992). Alfalfa is not listed as a noxious weed species by the U.S. Federal Government (7 C.F.R. Part 360) and is not listed as a weed in the major weed references (Croc kett, 1977; Holm, Pancho et al., 1979; Muenscher, 1980) (USDA APHIS, 2009).
Although feral (free

- living) populations of alfalfa are fairly common and volunteers may occur among succeeding crops, alfalfa is not considered a serious weed, a noxious weed, or an invasive species 41 

## in the U.S. The Interactive Encyclopedia of North American Weeds, Version 3.0, includes alfalfa (NCWSS, 2005). But this reference does not indicate why alfalfa is considered a weed. It may be included based on its potential occurrence as an unwanted volunteer in agricultural settings (USDA APHIS, 2009 p. H

- 13).

41 

### A species that is not native to a particular ecosystem and whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic damage or environme ntal harm or harm to human health. Executive Order 13112

– Invasive Species (1999); USDA National Agricultural Library, 2010.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 74 8/5/2010 3.2.2 RRA

and weediness
Some scientists, for example, Ellstrand (2006), have raised the question of “unintended crop descendents from transgenic [GE] crops.” Ellstrand states (p. 116) : “The possibility of unintended reproduction by transgenic crops has raised questions about whether their descendents might cause problems. These problems have fallen into two broad categories: first, the direct feral descendents of the crops may prove to be new weeds or invasives, and second, that unintended hybrids between transgenic crops and other plants could lead to certain problems.” This section discusses the weediness properties of RRA, and addresses the
concern of direct descendents of the cr op that “may prove to be new weeds or invasives.” Hybridization is addressed in several later sections.
Alfalfa does not naturally hybridize with any wild relatives in North America. Having established that there are no related, sexually compatible wild relatives in the U.S., movement of the CP4 EPSPS gene can only occur to cultivated or feral alfalfa populations through pollination by bees, dropped seeds or seed admixtures.
RRA events J101/J163 were field tested in North America from 1999 to 2003 and pla nted commercially after deregulation in 2005. APHIS reviewed data on characteristics that might relate to or have an effect on increased weediness. These included seed dormancy, seed germination, seedling emergence, seedling vigor, spring stand, spring vig or, seed yield, vegetative growth or plant vigor, plant dormancy, growth habit, flowering properties, and effect on symbiotic organisms (USDA APHIS, 2009). No unusual characteristics were noted that would suggest increased weediness of J101/J163 plants rel ative to the control populations.
In a separate evaluation, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), whose responsibilities include regulation of the introduction of animal food and plants (including crops) to Canada,
reached the same conclusion about t he weediness potential of events J101/J163 compared with

non
- transgenic alfalfa. In 2005, the CFIA authorized the “unconfined release into the environment and livestock feed use of alfalfa events J101/J163” (CFIA, 2005). In its evaluation
of events J101/ J163, CFIA “determined that stand establishment, enhanced growth, vigour or stand longevity; changes in susceptibility to plant pests and diseases common to alfalfa; increases in forage and seed yield and increases in seed dormancy were within the normal

r ange of expression of these traits currently displayed by commercial alfalfa varieties” (CFIA, 2005). The CFIA reached the following conclusions (CFIA, 2005):
No competitive advantage was conferred to these plants, other than that conferred by tolerance t o glyphosate herbicide. Tolerance to Roundup®

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 75 8/5/2010 agricultural herbicides will not, in itself, render alfalfa weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.
The above considerations, together with the fact that the novel traits have no intended effects on alfalfa weediness or invasiveness, led the CFIA to conclude that alfalfa events J101/J163 have no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to currently commercialized alfalfa.

3.2.3 Impacts

Altern ative 1: No A

ction
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts from RRA on weediness properties of alfalfa or feral alfalfa because new RRA would not be grown commercially.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

APHIS has concluded that alfalfa do es not exhibit weediness properties, and that RRA does not exhibit any altered weediness properties when compared with conventional alfalfa. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not impact the weediness characteristics of alfalfa.
Feral, non

- RRA exists throughou t the U.S. RRA does not exhibit any increased feral growth potential when compared to conventional alfalfa. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not affect the feral growth potential of alfalfa.
Under Alternative 2, RRA volunteers in crop production would be con trolled by mechanical means (e.g., tillage) or by application of one of several registered non

- glyphosate herbicides.

3.3 IMPACTS OF RRA FORA GE CROPS ON CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FORAGE CROPS
This section considers the possibility of impacts from RRA forage cro ps on conventional and organic forage crops through gene flow (refer to Section 2.3 for a general discussion of gene
fl ow), or by mixing in harvesting or transportation.

3.3.1 Pollen sources in forage production fields
As discussed in Section 2.3, alfalfa is a s hort

- lived perennial crop plant that peaks in forage yield during the second and third year. In the hay production fields, alfalfa is grown for its high nutritional value for cattle and horses. The nutritional value is at its highest during the plant’s
y oung vegetative state. As the plant approaches full flower, its nutritional value decreases. Therefore, alfalfa grown for hay is managed to limit growth to the juvenile state. Most alfalfa hay in the U.S. is harvested before 10 percent of the stems have one or more open flowers. Thus, most forage fields are cut before most plants have produced any pollen and prior to when they

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 76 8/5/2010 could be pollinated. This practice is widely recommended so that hay production and nutritional quality of the hay are optimize d to maximize the farmer’s economic productivity (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18

- 19, 100).

3.3.2 Potential for gene flow in forage production fields

Cross

- pollination, if it occurred could potentially result in adventitious (inadvertent) production of embryos with the GT gene in a conventional or organic hay production field. Because alfalfa forage is typically managed for high quality and harvested before 10 percent bloom, and RRA forage producers are concerned with high quality, there is little potential for cross

- po llination because the availability of pollen is minimized as a consequence of normal harvest activities. Furthermore, as mentioned in Section 3.3, in all but exceptional cases, native populations of
bees are insufficient to effect economic levels of alfal fa seed pollination so they are augmented using cultured bee colonies. Unlike seed farmers, forage producers do not stock bees to produce the forage crop because they do not want or need pollination of their fields (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 94; Rogan and Fitz patrick, 2004). 42



## Nonetheless, if cross

- pollination occurs in forage fields, the inadvertently pollinated plants are without gene flow consequence because they are almost always harvested before developing embryos mature to become viable seed. For effectiv e gene flow from a RRA hay field to a conventional/organic hay field, each of the following must occur: (1) cross pollination between RRA and conventional plants; (2) delayed harvest allowing mature seed to form in the conventional/organic field; (3) matu re RRA seed shattering and falling to the ground rather than being removed in forage harvest; (4) successful establishment of the new RRA seedling in the established conventional/organic alfalfa stand. Each of these requirements are unlikely and the
combi nation of all of them happening is remote (Putnam, 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Even in instances where weather or equipment failures delay harvesting of GT or non

- RRA hay fields, there is little risk of unwanted GT gene flow into alfalfa production (V an Deynze et al., 2008). Alfalfa hay normally is harvested at or before first flower, 6 to 9 weeks before the ripe seed stage (Putnam, 2006; USDA APHIS, 2009 p.100). Regardless of proximity and management of a potential neighboring RRA hay field, a conven tional/organic hay producer can eliminate any risk of potential pollen

- mitigated RRA gene flow by simply harvesting prior to ripe seed stage.

42 

### An exception to the foregoing are an unknown number of conventional alfalfa forage producers who inadvertently or by agreement allow a honeybee keeper to forage bees on the alfalfa field to produce a honey crop or brood. (See USDA, 2009 at Appendix O.) This would be unlikely for RRA forage producers because producers generally cut before blooms are useful for honey production. H oneybees would be unlikely to forage on RRA forage fields because bloom would be managed to maintain high quality forage.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 77 8/5/2010 3.3.3 Potential consequences of gene flow in forage production fields
As discussed above, because alfalfa hay is harvest ed well before ripe seed is produced, gene
fl ow into or between RRA and conventional forage crops is expected to be de minimis.

3.3.4 Growing and marketing alfalfa
Dairy farmers would be the most likely users of RRA hay because they often depend on pure
alfalfa stands that are free of weeds and grasses, whereas, beef cattle producers and horse owners typically feed their animals a mix of alfalfa

- grass hay (Putnam, 2005; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 17).
The dairy industry has widely accepted biotechnology

- derived product s, including recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) used to increase a cow’s milk production, and GT crops such as corn, soybean, canola, and cottonseed meal used in feed. However, organic dairy producers have rejected GT crops and require hay from organi cally grown (non

- RRA) crops. Although organic milk production has grown considerably, it is still less than one percent of the total U.S. production (Miller, 2005; Putnam, 2006). Additionally, some horse owners may prefer using

non
- RRA feed. However, be cause many horses are sickened or die from poisonous weeds in hay, many horse owners may choose RRA. Like organic milk production, organic beef production will require non

- RRA alfalfa. However, organic beef production is less than one percent of the tota l beef production industry, and the non

- organic beef industry is not expected to be sensitive to RRA (NCBA, 2005; Putnam, 2006).
Less than two percent of U.S. alfalfa hay production is exported (NAFA, 2008b). The export of alfalfa hay is of particular eco nomic interest in the Columbia Basin of Washington and the Imperial Valley of California, where local exporters, supported by local hay producers, have developed this market. Seven states in the western U.S. export approximately 4

- 5 percent of their produ ction (NAFA, 2008b). The largest importers of U.S. produced alfalfa hay are Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. RRA has been approved for import into these three countries, and to Canada and Mexico. These five countries together represent over 90 percent o f total U.S. hay exports (USDA APHIS, 2009, Table 3

- 15, p. 55). Although there are no regulatory barriers for the vast majority of this market, customer preference may demand testing for adventitious presence (AP) of the RRA trait in conventional hay sold for export. Protein

- based test strips and testing protocol have been developed to test hay destined for AP sensitive markets ( Wo odward et al., 2006). These low

- cost testing methods have been widely adopted by the export industry

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 78 8/5/2010 to service the market se gment requiring such tests, successfully avoiding any disruption of this important hay industry segment. (See USDA APHIS, 2009, p. Q

- 19).

3.3.5 Potential for and consequences of mechanical mixing
Alfalfa has small seeds that are planted, harvested, transported and processed for sale using large equipment designed especially for alfalfa seed crop handling. Seed growers and seed processing companies utilize lot segregation and equipment cleaning routines to remove seeds
fr om equipment. Effective lot identificati on, segregation and equipment cleaning are practices required for the production of certified quality seeds. Vacuums, compressed air, sweeping, partial or complete disassembly, washing with water, etc. are effective means used to clean planting, harvestin g, transportation, seed conditioning and seed treatment/coating equipment before or after use. These widely

- adopted sanitation routines have been successful helping to assure negligible content of off

- types, weed seeds, inert and non

- crop mixtures (AOSCA, 2009).
As in all other agricultural production practices, there is possibility for mixtures between seed crops due to residual seeds in equipment, seed spillage, planting or lot blending mistakes or other human errors, however, the potential for impact is highly managed and therefore limited. Conventional seed crop handling practices vary widely and depend on the producer’s end product quality targets (e.g., common seed to certified seed markets). Historically (i.e., 20

- 50 years ago), conventional alfalfa seed has sometimes been transported in trucks or trailers and seed escapes along transportation routes were commonplace. In contrast, first, all RRA seed growers are uniformly obligated under their FGI seed grower contracts to observe certified seed
stan dards for seed identification, segregation and handling (AOSCA, 2009). Second, RRA seed producers are obligated to following the NAFA BMP requirements for contained transportation of seeds, equipment sanitation, and obvious seed lot labeling, etc. (see be low). FGI provides training and the secure, labeled seed bins to each RRA grower and monitors compliance to the contract requirements. The NAFA BMP stipulates the following sanitation, identification and segregation requirements that must be followed for all RRA seed production:
Sanitation requirements . Manage equipment to minimize seed mixture potential between different varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use dedicated equipment for planting and harvesting RRA seed production, when possible. Z ero tolerance for seed admixture is not feasible under commercial production conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps to assure that equipment is clean prior to and after use in the Roundup Ready seed field. Examples : Planter inspection, cle an
- down before and after use; Combine inspection, clean

- down thoroughly before and after use; RRA seed bins may only be used for RRA seed; maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; inspect bins before use; Handle all like

- trait varieties togeth er; plan for harvest

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 79 8/5/2010 sequence of fields to maintain best separation of varieties by trait type; Clean all seed handling equipment to avoid mixing RRA and conventional seed; Return unused, unopened stock seed to the contracting seed company for credit; main tain in clean storage areas; When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in advance, that the field to be harvested is RRA (NAFA, 2008a).
Mechanical mixtures between lots in forage harvesting are pos sible, but mixing is limited in extent by the following common alfalfa forage practices (NAFA, 2008b): (1) Most hay (>75 percent) is harvested and fed on the same farm of production, therefore, growers know the type of variety planted in each field and fi elds are harvested separately. Fields lots are typically harvested separately and because each field may have a different feed quality level, the harvests are typically placed into separate storage areas for feeding. (2) Hay is not fungible during market ing, that is typically, each hay lot is identified, segregated and traceable to the field of origin during transportation, brokerage and sale. This is especially the case for organically certified crop products which must remain segregated from non

- organi cally produced crops throughout all handling steps. (3) Some GE

- sensitive hay marketers or feed processing facilities (meal, cubes, pellets) use commercial testing kits to test for the presence of the RRA trait in hay, thereby, offering a post harvest mea ns to assure RRA hay segregation from non

RRA hay.

3.3.6 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts to growers of organic or conventional hay because RRA hay would not be grown commercially.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulat ion of RRA
Based on the above discussions, RRA hay production under Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact for the following reasons:

 The reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management
for alfalfa for age provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from one forage production field to another.

 Hay fields would be cut before seed is produced.

 A combination of geographic restrictions and gene flow mitigation measures (e.g harvest management requiremen ts) significantly reduce the forage

- to

– seed gene flow interface. Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA and Technology Use Guide) are contractually

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 80 8/5/2010 required for all RRA hay producers. These mitigation measures are practicable, contract

enforced, science

- base d, and market

- driven. They have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to aid in protecting non

- GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There have been negligible impa cts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to the efficacy of these BMP.

 Low

- cost testing procedures are readily available to meet the needs of market requiring
such tests.

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include addi tional conservative forage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an extremely low likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to another.

 The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa hay
pr oduction limit the potential for physical and handling mixture to very low levels. The
likelihood and extent of RRA and non

- RRA mixtures are highly constrained by RRA seed grower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts.

 RRA seed bag labeling and a unique purple seed colorant will be required for all RRA seed, which will notify RRA forage growers of the presence of the RRA trait and the limitations for product use. The colorant and bag labeling will reduce the likelihood of
inadve rtent planting by any organic or non

- GE producer.

 As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be
available.

3.4 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORA GE CROPS ON NATIVE A LFALFA
As discussed in Section 2.6.1, no native members of the ge nus Medicago are found in North America. Therefore, there would be no impacts to native alfalfa under either alternative,
because none exists.

3.4.1 Impacts
Because there are no native alfalfa populations in the U.S., there would be no impact with either
altern ative.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 81 8/5/2010 3.5 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORA GE CROPS ON FERA L ALFALFA POPULA TI ONS

The M. sativa species has naturalized populations in all 50 States (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 23). Synchronous flowering of hay or seed production fields neighboring feral alfalfa will likely le ad to

cross
- pollination. Feral alfalfa has the potential to act as a bridge for gene flow from GT alfalfa crops to non

- GT alfalfa crops. First, the RRA hay or seed production field could serve as a pollen donor to the feral non

- RRA. The subsequent feral GT offspring could then serve as the pollen donor to the non

- GT hay or seed production field. Feral alfalfa near hay and seed fields should be controlled to avoid gene flow to the feral population (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 101). Feral alfalfa in roadsides, ditchbanks and pastures is commonly controlled by mowing, disking, cultivation or the use of herbicides. Biogeographic survey data documents that, although climate and cropping practices are favorable for seed propagation, feral alfalfa is actually less

a bundant in seed producing geographies than other regions (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004; Kendrick et al., 2005). Possible explanations for this observation are that, as seed producers follow seed certification standards requiring isolation, they routinely p ractice effective mitigations to control or prevent feral alfalfa populations (mowing, herbicides, cultivation). Also, alfalfa would not be intentionally planted in species mixtures in roadsides, pastures or rangelands where professional seed production o ccurs. The barriers to gene flow into conventional/organic hay fields described in Section 3.3 also apply to pollen

- mediated gene flow from RRA forage to feral alfalfa plants. These barriers also apply to pollen

- mediated gene flow from feral alfalfa plant s to conventional or organic alfalfa forage and will limit potential feral

- to

- hay gene flow to extremely low levels. Additionally, feral alfalfa will have low seed production plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed

- borne fungi when seed develop s under damp conditions. (Putnam and Undersander, 2009 attached as Appendix I). The primary limitations to feral

- to

- seed gene flow is the relative paucity/abundance of pollen and proximity of pollinators in the field optimally managed for seed production , compared with a low density of feral plants growing some distance away and without the benefit of water, nutrient or pest control inputs (Van Deynze et al., 2008). A further mitigating factor is that Certified seed production requires a minimum 165 ft i solation between the seed production field and any feral alfalfa allowed to flower. Many seed growers have historically produced Certified seed.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 82 8/5/2010 3.5.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts regarding feral alfalfa becau se no RRA hay or seed would be produced commercially.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact to feral alfalfa for the following reasons:

 The reproductive biolo gy of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from an RRA forage production fields to feral alfalfa and from feral alfalfa to conventional or organic forage production fi elds.

 The proposed limitations on the scope of allowed RRA seed production will be defined and stringently controlled as a means to mitigate the likelihood and possible extent of gene flow to non

- RRA crops. The proposed restrictions have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to aid in protecting non

- GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. The restrictions include but are not limited to the following: isolation dista nce, seed field reporting, labeling, segregation and all other contractually required components of the NAFA BMP. All RRA seed acres will be grown under FGI contracts that require each
fi eld to be grown and inspected to meet State Seed Certification requi rements including the requirement to isolate the field from other alfalfa within 165 ft.; this, therefore, includes control of feral alfalfa. These mitigation measures are practicable, contract

enforced, science

- based, and market

- driven. There have been n egligible impacts since commercial seed production of RRA began in 2005 in large part due to the demonstrated efficacy of these BMP (NAFA, 2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010 attached as Appendix K).

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include additional conservative seed production and forage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an extremely low likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to feral alfalfa
fr om feral alfalfa to conventional or organic forage pro duction fields.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 83 8/5/2010 3.6 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORA GE CROPS TO RANGELAND A LFALF A CROPS
Commercially cultivated alfalfa and feral alfalfa populations properly belong to the M. sativa complex, a group of closely related subspecies that are reproductively compatible. The m ost commonly cultivated alfalfa in the world is M. sativa subsp. sativa , but subspecies falcata is also cultivated on a limited basis, primarily under rangeland conditions and in colder regions (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 30).
Rangeland alfalfa populations might increase if certain ranchers intentionally seed alfalfa to increase hay quality and soil nitrogen ( Wa ggener, 2007; High Plains Midwest Ag Journal, 2008). As has historically been the case, seed producers will remain aware of seeding practices in neighbor ing rangelands, ditchbanks, pastures, roadsides, or other minimally

- managed areas.
Both subspecies M. sativa subsp. sativa and M. s. subsp. falcata , have been historically used to
derive alfalfa cultivars in North America. In addition to M. s. subsp. sati va (purple flowered alfalfa), M. s. subsp. falcata has been used as a winterhardy germplasm source by alfalfa breeders since at least the early 1950s. Therefore, the potential for natural gene flow between subspecies sativa and falcata is well documented and well understood (Monsanto

- FGI comment to the DEIS Appendix 1 p. 14). It is reasonable to predict that hybridization between rangeland
falcata subspecies and RRA varieties with mostly sativa parentage would occur, but they would present no novel or uns tudied risk. The limited number of acres of falcata and the barriers for gene outflow from cultivated hay field sources (Putnam, 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2008) will limit the likelihood and extent of effective gene flow from RRA forage production to any s ynchronous alfalfa plants naturalized in the rangeland. Additionally, gene flow from a naturalized falcata x
sativa plant to neighboring conventional or organic forage or production fields would be limited by the expected very low frequency of RRA varieti es in rangeland usage and the array of gene
fl ow barriers described in Van Deynze et al. (2008).

3.6.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts to rangeland alfalfa because no RRA hay or seed would be produced commercially

. Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact to rangeland alfalfa for the following reasons:

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 84 8/5/2010  The reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal har vest management for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from one forage production field to another.

 Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA, FGI Stewardship Program, and NAFA BMP for RRA Seed Production) are contractually required for all RRA seed producers. These mitigation measures are practicable, contract

- enforced, science

- based, and market

driven. They have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to ai d in protecting non

- GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There have been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to the efficacy of these BMP (NAFA, 2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010).

 Glyphosate is minimally us ed in rangeland situations, and therefore there would be no selective advantage for RRA plants in the rangeland. (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 98

- 99).

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include additional conservative seed production and f orage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an extremely low likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to another.

 As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be
available.

3.7 IMPACTS FROM RR A FORA GE CROPS TO CONVENTIONAL OR ORGANIC ALFALFA SEED PRODUCTION A REAS
There is potential for cross

- pollination due to synchronous flowering in a RRA forage crops and adjacent non

- RRA seed crops. As seed producers follow AOSCA isolation distances for see d certification, gene flow will be minimized because gene flow decreases exponentially with distance from crop (Van Deynze et al., 2008) (see also discussion in Section 2.3). Research
fr om Teuber et al. (2007) showed that hay

- to

- seed gene flow is low if t he AOSCA certified seed isolation distance of 165 ft from sexually compatible crops is observed. In that study, at a distance of 165 ft, the extent of gene flow to nearby seed fields was less than 0.5 percent even when neighboring alfalfa hay fields were harvested at 20 or 50 percent bloom. (Hay fields are typically harvested before 10 percent bloom.) When the isolation distance from the edge of the seed crop to neighboring alfalfa forage fields was increased to 350

- 600 ft, the gene flow
decreased to a m ean of 0.01 percent (Van Deynze et al., 2008).

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 85 8/5/2010 3.7.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts from RRA forage crops to conventional or organic seed production crops because no RRA hay or seed would be produced commercially

. Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact
fr om RRA forage crops to conventional and organic seed production areas the following

reasons:

 Alfalfa forage producti on fields are generally cut prior to 10 percent bloom and before
seed is allowed to set.

 Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA and Technology Use Guide) are contractually required for all RRA hay producers. These mitigation measures are practicable, contrac t

enforced, science

- based and market

- driven. They have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to aid in protecting non

- GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There
ha ve been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to the efficacy of these BMP.

 Under Restriction Enhancement A of the proposed measures, in states where alfalfa seed production fields were historically (2007) or are currently p resent, if the RRA forage
fi eld is located within 165 ft of a commercial, conventional, seed production field, the RRA grower must harvest forage before 10 percent bloom. This restriction is the
science

- and market

- based, industry recognized isolation dis tance for certified alfalfa seed crops, and the potential and extent of gene flow of 10 percent bloom hay to nearby seed crops is de minimis at a distance of 165 ft (Teuber and Fitzpatrick, 2007; Van Deynze et al., 2008).

 Additionally, in states where ther e is more than 100,000 lbs. of annual alfalfa seed production, additional restrictions apply by county to further reduce the potential for gene
fl ow. In counties without seed production, RRA forage growers must report the GPS
location of all RRA fields. Under Restriction Enhancement C, in counties with seed production, no new RRA forage plantings are allowed.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 86 8/5/2010  As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be
available.

3.8 IMPACTS FROM RRA SEED PRODUCTION

3.8.1 Cross

- pollinati on The greatest potential for cross

- pollination and mixing among crop species occurs in seed production because that is where pollination is intended to, and does, occur (see description in Section 2.1.2). The relationships between isolation distance, pol linator species and pollen

mediated gene flow in alfalfa seed production has been studied extensively (Van Deynze et al, 2008). This science informed the current industry standards for isolation in NAFA Best Practices for RRA Seed Production ( www.alfalfa.org ) and was validated in 2008 and 2009 in large scale surveys of adventitious presence of the RRA trait in conventional seed (Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010). Physical mixing of seeds can occur during harvesting, see d cleaning, packaging, and transport. These activities are also governed by NAFA Best Practices for RRA Seed Production, and are components of adventitious presence evaluated in the annual third party audit/validation conducted on commercial seed lots.
The production of non

- RRA alfalfa seed and forage both rely on continued availability of non

RRA parent seed, with non

- detectable levels of the RRA trait. There is a clear consensus in the industry that there will always be a market (domestic and intern ational) for non

- RRA varieties developed and produced in the U.S. There is no reason to believe that industry and/or university alfalfa breeders will not continue to develop varieties for these markets. The production of Breeder seed generation (Syn1) al falfa seedstock is often done in a screen cage to exclude incoming pollinators, so there should be no new incremental effort required to avoid low level gene flow from neighboring RRA seed or hay production. The production of Foundation (Syn2) alfalfa see dstock requires adherence to AOSCA standards, which include extraordinary isolation from all neighboring alfalfa (seed, hay or uncultivated sources). The standard Foundation seed required isolation of 900 ft is often sufficient to eliminate gene flow
fr om neighboring RRA alfalfa seed or hay production, but occasionally very low levels of adventitious presence are found. When a non

- detect standard for Foundation seed is adopted by the breeder, use of an additional isolation distance would decrease the risk of low level gene
fl ow. As a general practice of stringent quality control, Breeder and Foundation seed is routinely
evaluated for trueness

- to

- type, including a lack of off

- types. In the event of a low incidence of an
off

- type, such as presence of the RR A trait in conventional alfalfa, breeders routinely cull the off

type plants and repeat the variety seed increase (APHIS, 2009, Appendix V). Adherence to

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 87 8/5/2010 AOSCA standards for certified seed production and attention to detail in quality control of
seedstock s has been a successful strategy for high quality U.S. seed production by American seed companies (Monsanto/FGI Comments to draft EIS at p. 6

- 7). Additionally, in cooperation with several U.S. alfalfa seed companies, AOSCA (2010) has developed a new seed production protocol for the production of alfalfa seed. The new protocol is tailored to meet the needs of seeds destined for export, organic and other sensitive market channels where biotechnology traits are expressly excluded. Meeting the specific and i ncremental requirements of this “special” AOSCA certification program allows the seed producer to label the seed with a statement certifying adherence to the AOSCA program (Monsanto/FGI Comments to draft EIS at p. 5; NAFA, 2008b; NAFA, 2008c; NAFA, 2008d).

3.8.2 Seed Mixing
The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa seed and hay production limit the potential for physical and or handling mixtures to very low levels. The
likelihood and extent of RRA and non

- RRA mixture s are negligible and highly constrained by RRA seed grower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts. Organic or other GE sensitive hay producers will opt to plant non

- GE seeds and will follow their routines for maintaining segrega tion between hay lots. The impacts to non

- RRA markets are expected to be negligible, especially because all RRA seed and hay growers must manage their crop according to their obligations under contracts, licensing, seed certification standards and or
segr egation standards for organic crops.
RRA is compositionally similar to seed and forage from conventional alfalfa. Therefore, from a food and or feed safety perspective, the impact of mixtures between RRA and non

- RRA seeds or forage is negligible. However , as discussed elsewhere in this document (Sections 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.15 and 4.10) and extensively throughout the DEIS (USDA APHIS, 2009), there is a segment of consumers and markets that due to their rejection of GE crops or traces thereof, may experience s ocio

- economic concerns and nominal (and voluntary) GE mitigation/avoidence costs (e.g., testing costs).

3.8.3 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact from RRA seed production on organic or conventional alfalfa seed product ion because no RRA hay or seed would be produced commercially.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 88 8/5/2010 Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Under the partial deregulation alternative, there would be no or negligible impacts to growers of organic or conventional alfalfa seed for the follow ing reasons:

 Gene flow mitigation measures (FGI Stewardship Program, and NAFA BMP for RRA Seed Production) are contractually required for all RRA seed producers. The isolation distances and other mitigation measures required by the NAFA BMP are practicable
, contract

- enforced, science

- based and market

- driven. They have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to aid in protecting non

- GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There have been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to the efficacy of these BMP. The eight RRA seed grower consortia authorized to plant under partial deregulation would meet or exceed the NAFA BMP parameters with
enhanc ed additional isolation requirements. The minimum required isolation from conventional, commercial seed fields will be 4 miles and 1 mile when honeybees or leafcutter bees are the managed pollinating species, respectively. The potential for gene
fl ow at the NAFA BMP isolation is de minimis (Van Deynze et al., 2008), and the proposed increase to the isolation requirement would further ensure de minimis gene
fl ow potential from RRA seed fields to conventional seed crops should they be present.

 The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa seed production limit the potential for physical and handling mixture to very low levels.
The likelihood and extent of RRA and non

- RRA mixtures are highly constrained by RRA seed g rower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts.

 Conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be readily available to growers.

3.9 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
RRA alfalfa will be used in livestock production systems as feed f or livestock. Therefore, its only potential impacts to livestock production systems would be related to animal feed, which is
discussed in Section 3.10.

3.10 FOOD AND FEED
Both food (sprouts, dietary supplements, and herbal or homeopathic medicine) and animal feed (hay, haylage, or silage) are derived from alfalfa. In this section we summarize the large body of scientific evidence that has been developed that supports the conclusion that food and feed

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 89 8/5/2010 derived from RRA are as safe and healthy as food and feed d erived from conventional alfalfa.
Wh ile the evidence has largely been developed by Monsanto and/or FGI, it has been evaluated and peer reviewed by FDA and by panels of government scientists from Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Korea, and th e Philippines, all of whom have approved, or recommended for approval, the use of products from RRA in their countries.

We begin with a summary of FDA’s authority and policy under the FFDCA with regard to ensuring the safety of food and feed derived from g enetic engineering, documenting each element FDA evaluated in its consultation process. We then summarize the evaluations and conclusions of several other international scientific oversight groups.

3.10.1 FDA

authority and policy

FDA policy statement . In 1992, the FDA issued a policy statement clarifying its interpretation of the FFDCA regarding foods (including animal feed) derived from new plant varieties, including plants developed by genetic engineering. The purpose of the policy is “to ensure that
relevant scientific, safety, and regulatory issues are resolved prior to the introduction of such products into the marketplace” (FDA, 1992). FDA is the “primary federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of commercial food and food additives, except meat and poultry products” and “FDA has ample authority under the FFDCA safety provisions to regulate and ensure the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including plants developed by new techniques. This includes authority to require, where neces sary, a premarket safety review by FDA prior to marketing of the food” (FDA, 1992). Under section 402(a)(1) of the FFDCA, a food is adulterated and thus unlawful “if it bears or contains an added poisonous or deleterious substance that may render the food injurious to health or a naturally occurring substance that is ordinarily injurious” (FDA, 1992).

FDA has the authority to ensure safety of new foods . FDA considers its existing statutory authority under the FFDCA and its implementing regulations “to be fully adequate to ensure the safety of new food ingredients and foods derived from new varieties of plants, regardless of the process by which such foods and ingredients are produced” (FDA, 1992). “The existing tools provide this assurance because they imp ose a clear legal duty on producers to assure the safety of foods they offer to consumers; this legal duty is backed up by strong enforcement powers; and FDA has authority to require premarket review and approval in cases where such review is required to p rotect public health” (FDA, 1992).

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 90 8/5/2010 Developers have the responsibility to evaluate the safety of new foods . “It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)( 1) of the act is met. FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved” (FDA, 1992).
Foods developed by new methods do not present greater safety concerns . “FDA believes that the new techniques are e xtensions at the molecular level of traditional methods and will be used to achieve the same goals as pursued with traditional plant breeding. The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other
food s in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding” (FDA, 1992).

FDA ’s goal is to ensure the safety of all food a nd feed . “The goal of the FDA’s evaluation of information on new plant varieties provided by developers during the consultation process is to ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) are resolved prio r to commercial distribution” (FDA, 1997).

3.10.2 FDA

biotechnology consultation note to the file BNF 000084
FDA makes the contents of its biotechnology notification files (BNFs) available on the internet (see reference FDA, 2004; RRA is BNF 000084). FDA documen ted its RRA consultation with Monsanto/FGI in a note to the file dated December 8, 2004 (FDA, 2004). That information is
summarized below.
Characterization, inheritance, and stability of the introduced DNA
Using standard analytical techniques, Monsanto/FG I verified that events J101/J163 contained a single copy of the CP4 EPSPS cassette, and that all components were intact (FDA, 2004; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Monsanto/FGI conducted crosses using conventional breeding techniques. These studies
indicate that the introduced trait (glyphosate tolerance) was stably inherited as a dominant trait (FDA, 2004; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 91 8/5/2010 Using standard analytical techniques, Monsanto/FGI demonstrated the stable integration of the
T

- DNA over five generations ( Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Introduced substance

– CP4 EPSPS enzyme
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, EPSPS is a catalyst for a reaction necessary for the production of certain aromatic amino acids essential for plant growth and has a similar function in ba cteria and fungi (for example, baker’s yeast). While EPSPS is present in plants, bacteria and fungi, it is not present in animals; animals do not make their own aromatic amino acids, but rather obtain them from the foods they consume. Thus, EPSPS is norma lly present in food and feeds derived
fr om plant and microbial sources (Harrison et al., 1996). There are variations in the genetic makeup (amino acid sequences) of EPSPS among different plants and bacteria. The EPSPS used in Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 is just one variant of EPSPS. A unique characteristic of CP4 EPSPS is that, unlike EPSPS commonly found in plants, it retains its catalytic activity in the presence of glyphosate (FDA, 2004; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Concentrations in alfalfa . CP4 EP SPS protein levels in sample extracts were measured using standard methods, with the resulting average concentration of approximately 0.02 to 0.03 percent (192 to 317 parts per million) (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Toxicity of CP4 EPSPS . The FDA conclud ed that “the CP4 EPSPS protein produced by RRA lines J101/J163 was biochemically and functionally equivalent to CP4 EPSPSs produced by other RR crops, and to the family of EPSPS proteins that naturally occur in crops and microbiologically

- based processing agents that have a long history of safe consumption by humans and animals” (Hendrickson and Price, 2004). This similarity of the CP4 EPSPS protein to EPSPS’s in a variety of foods supports the lack of health concerns and extensive human and animal consumpt ion of the family of EPSPS proteins (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Studies were conducted on mice, using CP4 EPSPS doses of 400, 100, and 40 milligrams (mg) of CP4 EPSPS per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (mg/kg body wt

– d). For a typical 0.03

- kg mo use, the 400 mg/kg body wt

– d dose equated to 12 mg per mouse per day. The study was designed to reflect a 1,000

- fol d factor of safety on the highest possible human exposure to CP4 EPSPS, based on assumed exposures to soybean, potato, tomato, and corn at the time the study was done (Harrison et al., 1996). The daily CP4 EPSPS content in the maximum mouse exposure was equivalent to the amount in approximately 160 pounds of RRA. No
treatment

- related adverse effects were observed, and there were no significa nt difference in any

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 92 8/5/2010 measured endpoints between the CP4 EPSPS treated mice and the control group (Harrison et al., 1996, p. 735).
Monsanto/FGI also compared the amino acid sequence of CP4 EPSPS to protein sequences in the public domain ALLPEPTIDES database using the FASTA algorithm, and reported no biologically relevant sequence similarities between CP4 EPSPS protein and known toxins were observed (Bonnette, 2004). A peptide is a molecule consisting of several linked amino acids (GMO Safety, 2010a).
Allerge nicity . Allergens can be derived from many sources: in animal hair, pollen, insect bites, dust mites, plants, pharmaceuticals, and food. Approximately 20,000 allergens have been identified. Most allergens in food are high molecular weight proteins and are rather resistant to gastric acid and digestive enzymes (GMO Safety, 2010a).
Monsanto searched a comprehensive database of allergens (Hileman et al., 2002) containing sequences of known allergens, for amino acid homology to the CP4 EPSPS protein, and

co ncluded that there was no immunologically significant amino acid sequence homology between the CP4 EPSPS protein and amino acid sequences of allergens in the database (Bonnette, 2004).
At least two studies have been conducted on the mammalian digestibility of CP4 EPSPS. In the first study, the CP4 EPSPS protein was exposed to simulated gastric (stomach) and intestinal
fl uids that were prepared according to the U.S. Pharmacopoeia (1990). The half

- life of the CP4 EPSPS protein was reported to be less than 15 seconds in the gastric fluid, greatly minimizing any potential for the protein to be absorbed in the intestine. The half

- life was less than ten minutes in the intestinal fluid (Harrison et al., 1996, p 738). The second study reported similar results (Bonn ette, 2004). Specifically, FDA (2004) noted the following from the Monsanto/FGI submmittal: the soil bacterium used to create RRA is not a known allergen or pathogen (does not cause allergic reactions or diseases); the CP4 EPSPS gene and protein lack stru ctural similarities to any allergen (it does not have the same structure as anything that causes allergic reactions).

Food and feed uses of alfalfa
Alfalfa has a long history as a feed source for animals. Greater than 95 percent of alfalfa is used
as anima l feed.
Human food uses of alfalfa are minor and it is consumed as compressed leaf material for dietary supplements and herbal teas or as fresh sprouts. The seeds germinated for sprouts are

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 93 8/5/2010 produced and marketed in a distinct, food

- grade channel from those for field (non

- food) purposes (Section 2.7). A small fraction of alfalfa seeds are used to produce sprouts for human consumption. Any alfalfa seed for sprouts must be certified as having been produced to food

grade specifications and therefore food

- grade seed is grown and distributed in an entirely separate channel from that for general use, non

- food

- grade planting seeds. Food

- grade seeds for sprouts are produced throughout the world, but the major suppliers are Canada, Italy, U.S. and Australia. Sprout s are cultivated from clean raw (non

- coated, untreated) seeds in controlled environment sprouting chambers for approximately 5 to 10 days before sale to consumers.
FDA and equivalent regulatory bodies in Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, etc.,
h ave granted full approval for the use of RRA as a food (see Section 3.11). Monsanto and FGI have developed the RRA varieties for field planting purposes (only), and as such the companies do not intend nor allow (give license to) any seed growers or seed purchasers to use RRA
varieties for food

- grade sprout production (Hubbard, 2008; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18). The FGI mandated purple seed coating for all commercial RRA seed helps mitigate unintended use of RRA seed for sprouts.
Alfalfa is the principal for age for cattle and horses because of its high nutritional content. The nutritional content of alfalfa is highest in young vegetative alfalfa plants and decreases as plants approach full flower. Dairy cows are generally fed the highest quality alfalfa hay ( vegetative to bud stage). Beef cattle, horses, heifers, and non

- lactating dairy cows are fed hay that is higher in fiber and lower in protein. Forms of storage include hay, haylage, and silage. Grazing is sometimes used as an alternative to harvesting alfa lf a. However, grazing presents a risk of animal loss due to bloating and difficulties in alfalfa stand maintenance if grazing is continuous (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Honey bee hives commonly use alfalfa and clover as nectar sources. Therefore, managed and wild bee hives are often associated with alfalfa fields (FDA, 2004; USDA, 2009 draft EIS Appendix O).
Compositional analysis

To assess whether alfalfa events J101/J163 are as safe and nutritious as conventional alfalfa varieties, the composition of fo rage produced by Roundup Ready alfalfa plants containing either event J101, J163, or the paired events J101 X J163 was measured and compared to the composition of control and conventional alfalfa forage. This study was conducted under USDA

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 94 8/5/2010 Notification Num ber 01

- 029

- 12n. Forage was harvested from plants grown in field trials and analyzed using standard methods or other suitable methods (Monsanto, 2004).
Forage samples were collected from all plots and analyzed for 35 different nutritional components. Compos itional analyses of the forage samples included proximates (protein, fat, ash and moisture), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), lignin, amino acids, and minerals (calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, potassium, sodium and zinc), as well as carbohydrates by calculation. In all, 35 different components were analyzed to assess the composition of Roundup Ready alfalfa (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Statistical analyses were performed on the compositional data for the RRA containing events J101/J163. As expected, statistically significant differences were observed for the concentration of some of the analytes in comparison to the control. Where values were different, the mean was within the 99 percent tolerance interva l developed for the analyte using conventional alfalfa reference varieties. Therefore, it is unlikely that these differences are biologically meaningful. These data are consistent with the conclusion that forage produced by alfalfa plants containing
event J101 or J163 is comparable to forage produced by control or conventional alfalfa varieties. These compositional data support the conclusions derived from other phenotypic studies indicating that no biologically meaningful changes were associated with alfal fa populations containing event J101 or event J163 (Monsanto, 2004).

Conclusion
Based on the data submitted, the FDA considered the consultation process to be complete and acknowledged this in Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No. 000084 (FDA , 2004).

3.10.3 Health Canada approval 2005
Health Canada’s Food Directorate has legislated responsibility for premarket assessment of “novel foods.” Under Canadian regulations, foods derived from alfalfa lines containing events
J101/J163 are considered novel fo ods because they are derived from a plant that has been GM to exhibit characteristics that were not previously observed in the plant (Health Canada, 2005).
Health Canada conducted a comprehensive assessment of GT alfalfa lines containing events
J101/J163 a ccording to its “Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods,” reviewing the same information Monsanto/FGI provided to FDA in its consultation, and made the following conclusion (Health Canada, 2005):
“Health Canada’s review of the information pres ented in support of the food use of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa lines containing events J101/J163 concluded that

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 95 8/5/2010 the food use of alfalfa lines containing this event does not raise concerns related to safety. Health Canada is of the opinion that alfalfa lin es containing events J101/J163 are as safe and nutritious as current commercial alfalfa varieties.”

3.10.4 CFIA approval 2005
The CFIA evaluated GT alfalfa events J101/J163 for use as livestock feed and approved their
use in 2005. Based on its evaluation of data provided by Monsanto/FGI, and as summarized in
its Decision Document DD2005

- 53, the CFIA “determined that these plants with a novel trait (PNT) do not present altered environmental risk nor, as a novel feed, do they present livestock feed safety concerns when compared to currently commercialized alfalfa varieties in Canada” (CFIA, 2005).

3.10.5 Japan approval
Japan approved the food use RRA in 2005 and the feed use in 2006. Environmental approval was also granted in Japan in 2006 (Japan Biosafety Clearinghouse, 2010; Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010).

3.10.6 Au stralia

– New Zealand approval
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a bi

- national government agency with responsibility to develop and administer the Australia New Zealand Food Standards C ode. FSANZ approved the food use of RRA in 2006 (FSANZ, 2006). FSANZ found “no public health and safety concerns. On the basis of the available evidence, including detailed studies provided by the Applicant, food derived from GT lucerne J101/J163 is cons idered as safe and wholesome as food derived from other commercial lucerne varieties.” (FSANZ, 2006, p. ii).

3.10.7 Other approvals
RRA was also approved for use as food and/or feed in Mexico in 2005 (Ministry of Health), in the Philippines in 2006 (Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry), and in Korea in October 2007 (Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010). Environmental approval was granted in Korea in January 2008 (Rural Development Administration).

3.10.8 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact from RRA on feed or food, or on consumer
choice.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 96 8/5/2010 Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Health effects of consumption of RRA . Alfalfa is consumed as both animal feed (hay/haylage) and human food (e.g., alfalfa sprouts). Based on the scientific evidence summarized in this section, health impacts from consuming RRA food or feed are not expected
fr om RRA. Feed derived from RRA is equivalent to feed derived from conventional alfalfa. Although RRA has been found t o be equivalent to conventional alfalfa by several international scientific agencies, Monsanto/FGI have determined that RRA will not be licensed for use for any human food purposes.
Health and consumer choice effects of consumption of food or feed derived from RRA

. Beef and dairy products may be derived from cattle/cows that have consumed RRA. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (W HO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developme nt (OECD) have made statements regarding the potential for the protein encoded by the transgene (the CP4 EPSPS protein) to transfer to animal

- derived products intended for human consumption (FAO/WHO 1991; FDA 1992; OECD 2003). These reports, as well as th e studies summarized above in this section have concluded that the CP4 EPSPS protein is equivalent to other forms of the EPSPS protein, and that food and feed containing the CP4 EPSPS protein is as safe and nutritious as the conventional counterparts. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the half

- life of the CP4 EPSPS protein in the digestive system is only a few minutes; no detectable amounts of the CP4 EPSPS protein are expected to be found in beef or dairy products from animals fed RR alfalfa. Although

unco mmon, fragments of transgenes have been found in dairy and animal products (Flachowsky and others, 2005). If very low levels of transgenic fragments could be infrequently found in dairy products and beef from cattle/cows consuming RRA, presumably they wou ld also be present in the same products, from the use of corn as cattle feed, as most corn grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered. Honey from bees is mostly fructose and glucose; however, possibly it could have minute fragments of transgenic DNA from pollen from RRA. The presence of DNA fragments, GE or otherwise, is not a health issue (on the safety of DNA (FDA, 1992); however, depending on how “non

- GE food” is defined, it could affect a consumer’s
choice to consume non

- GE food. The minute levels t hat might potentially be found in honey, beef or dairy products would, for example, be far below the threshold standards for non

- GE food proposed by the Non

- GMO Project (Section 1.5). A consumer with “zero tolerance” for beef or dairy derived from GE prod ucts or that might contain minute fragments of transgenes would have the choice of consuming organic honey, beef and dairy products. Presumably that

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 97 8/5/2010 consumer would already be consuming organic beef and dairy products because of the use of
GE corn as cattl e feed. Market demand will ensure that conventional and organic alfalfa will still be available to the dairy or cattle farmer who wishes to avoid RRA.
Summary . Based on the above analysis, Alternative 2 would be expected to have no or negligible impacts on food or feed, or consumer choices regarding food or feed.

3.11 WEED CONTROL AND GR

3.11.1 Weed control with conventional alfalfa

We ed management is an important aspect of alfalfa production. Some of the negative effects of weeds in alfalfa crops include the followi ng:

 competition with weeds can reduce yield and cause thinning in the stand;

 weeds can lower the nutritional quality of alfalfa hay because many weeds are lower in protein (50 percent less protein than alfalfa) and higher in fiber compared to alfalfa;

 pois onous weeds containing toxic alkaloids (a type of chemical) (e.g., common groundsel, fiddleneck, yellow starthistle, and poison hemlock) can make alfalfa hay unmarketable;

 under some conditions weeds can accumulate toxic nitrate concentrations (e.g.,
lambs quarters, kochia, and pigweed);

 some weeds with a spiny texture can cause mouth and throat ulcerations in livestock (e.g., foxtail, wild barley, cheatgrass, and bristlegrass);

 weeds that are unpalatable to livestock result in less feeding and, therefore, l ess productivity (of either beef or milk);

 some weeds can contribute to off flavors in milk (e.g., wild celery, Mexican tea, creeping swinegrass, and mustards); and

 weeds that contain higher moisture content than alfalfa (e.g., dandelion) can cause bale
pr oblems such as mold, off

- color hay, and high bale temperatures, which are a fire
hazard.
(Canevari et al., 2007; Canevari et al., 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2004; Loux et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2006; Orloff et al., 1997; Orloff et al., 2009, attached as A ppendix D; USDA APHIS, 2009 pp. 105

- 06).

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 98 8/5/2010 Wi thout weeds, alfalfa can grow at a density of about 12 plants per square foot. Heavily weed

infested stands can have less than one alfalfa plant per square foot (Canevari et al., 2007). In California, if weeds are not effectively controlled, they can represent up to 76 percent of the first cutting yields (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 106).

3.11.2 Weed control with RRA
The following discussion of RRA and weed management was based largely on the technical report, Effects of Glyphos ate

- Resistant Weeds in Agricultural Systems (USDA APHIS 2009, Appendix G, attached as Appendix E of this ER).
RRA can be used by farmers for weed management in alfalfa crops. Its unique characteristics allow for effective weed control throughout the growi ng season of an alfalfa crop, and, alfalfa and alfalfa farming practices per se have characteristics that will complement the weed control provided by glyphosate and, as such, will aid in the suppression of the development of GR weeds. The ability for alfa lfa to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to follow alfalfa in the rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the annual grasses of corn and various cereal crops. These subsequently rotated crops can tolerate a spectrum of herbicides substantially different from the herbicides used in alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and herbicides, both of which are highly recommended for reducing the probability of developing herbicide resistant weeds (Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009 , p. 109).
Alfalfa produced for forage purposes (e.g., hay and silage in GE, conventional, or organic production systems) is mowed regularly at a recommended cutting height of 3 inches. This removes all plant material higher than 3 inches including weeds ( Orloff et al., 1997), which may not have had time to produce flowers, pollen or seed. This regular removal of all plant mass above 3 in. of the soil surface, including all vegetative weed material, greatly suppresses or eliminates seed production in weed s pecies, and is especially effective in controlling annual weeds (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 109).
In a RRA farming system for forage, the combination of broad spectrum weed control from glyphosate (which should lead to more vigorous alfalfa competition), and reg ular mowing, which reduces the likelihood that any GR weeds in the RRA field have had time to produce pollen or set seed, greatly decreases the probability of the development of GR weeds. In some parts of the western U.S., alfalfa produced with irrigation requires multiple herbicide applications to control repeated influx of weed seed introduced with irrigation water. In most cases the use of

one or more non
- glyphosate herbicides with increased residual activity will be required to

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 99 8/5/2010 provide effective weed c ontrol (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D). In seed production, although an early spring or late fall mowing sometimes occurs, in

- season mowing only occurs once, as one seed crop is removed each year; thus, there is a potential for greater weed seed production compared to alfalfa forage production. However, in order to maximize yield for a seed crop and minimize weed seed content, alfalfa seed production (including RRA seed production) currently receives significantly higher cultural and herbicid e inputs (beyond glyphosate only) to reduce weed cover than in alfalfa forage production. Glyphosate can only be applied in alfalfa seed production when plants are in the vegetative state. Other herbicides will be used to control weeds during the longest p art of the growing season. These additional herbicides with other modes of action will also work to reduce weed seed production and minimize glyphosate

- resistant weeds in the seedbank of fields where RRA is grown for seed (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 109).

3.11.3 Herbic ide

- resistant weeds
A number of genetic, biological/ecological, and operational factors are involved in determining if a weed species will evolve a resistance to any herbicide (Georghiou and Taylor, 1986; Neve, 2008). Genetic factors include the frequency of genes in a weed species that promotes resistance to a particular herbicide, the ability and rate of changes to genes to cause resistance, the way genes for resistance are passed down to offspring, and the fitness of the plant (and these genes) in the pr esence and absence of an herbicide. Biological and ecological factors include how the weed species reproduces (selfing or outcrossing), seed production capacity, seed bank turnover, and amount of gene flow within and between populations (Maxwell and
Mortim er, 1994; Jasieniuk et al., 1996; Neve, 2008). The genetic factors and biological/ecological factors involved highlight that different species may present different risks of resistance, depending on the genetics of the weed and the biology of the plant. Operational factors involved in the evolution of weed resistance include the type of chemistry and how the herbicide kills plants (e.g. mode

- of

- action), the frequency with which the herbicide is applied, and the dose and pattern of herbicide application.

A lf alfa weed management, including major weeds in alfalfa, herbicides used, herbicide mode of action, and herbicide resistance, was discussed in Sections 2.5. Measures to reduce herbicide
resistance were also discussed in Section 2.5.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 100 8/5/2010 3.11.4 GR weeds

As discussed in Section 2, herbicide resistance is not a unique or new phenomenon. The development of weeds resistant to a particular herbicide mode of action is an issue that growers have faced for decades. As with other herbicide modes of action, not all weeds res pond the same to glyphosate, and some species naturally vary in their tolerance to the herbicide.
Because of the nature of glyphosate and its history of use, generally speaking, there is a reduced potential that there will be a selection for weed resistanc e, compared to other herbicides. Glyphosate is a nonselective, foliar

- applied, broad spectrum, post

- emergent herbicide compared to many other herbicide groups. It operates by binding to a specific enzyme in plants thereby interfering with the plant’s req uired metabolic process. Glyphosate is the only herbicide that binds with this enzyme, and therefore it is highly specific (Cole, 2010, p. 5; Orloff, 2009, p. 6, attached as Appendix D).
Accordingly, while glyphosate has been used extensively for over thr ee decades, there have been relatively few cases of resistance development, as compared to many other herbicides and when considering the substantial glyphosate

- treated acreage worldwide (approximately 1 billion acres) and the total number of weeds that th e herbicide can control. In the U.S., there are ten weed species where GR biotypes are known to exist in certain areas of the country (19 weeds have been reported to have developed GR at some location worldwide). These resistant weeds represent a relativ ely small minority of the overall weed population. For example, in 2009, approximately 135 million of the 173 acres of corn, soybeans and cotton in the U.S. were planted with a herbicide tolerant variety, with the most common tolerance trait being glyphos ate tolerance (USDA NASS, 2009a). At the same time, only about 6 percent of the total planted corn, soybean and cotton acres in the U.S. are estimated to have some level of presence of weeds resistant to glyphosate (Ian Heap as reported by WSSA, 2010b). As discussed above, the characteristics of glyphosate itself reduce the potential for the development of herbicide resistance as compared to other herbicide families. As such, certain herbicide families have been classified according to their risk of resi stant weed development. Beckie (2006) lists ALS and ACCase inhibiting herbicides as “High” risk for resistance development, while glyphosate is considered a “Low” risk herbicide for the development of herbicide resistant weeds. ALS and ACCase inhibiting herbicides are commonly used in conventional alfalfa production, and weeds resistant to these two herbicide groups are widely distributed across alfalfa growing regions of the U.S. RRA can help delay resistance to these herbicides by adding to the diversi ty of herbicide modes of action in alfalfa production.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 101 8/5/2010 Use of herbicides with different modes of action, either concurrently or sequentially, is an important defense against weed resistance ( WSSA, 2010b). “Use of a single product or mode
of action for wee d management is not sustainable. Some of the best and most sustainable approaches to prevent resistance include diversified weed management practices, rotation of modes of action and especially the use of multiple product ingredients with differing modes of action” (WSSA, 2010b). In addition, cultural practices such as cultivation or mowing are effective weed resistance management operations.

The WS SA reports higher levels of awareness among growers regarding the need to minimize the potential for develop ment of GR: “In a market research study that surveyed 350 growers in 2005 and again in 2009, in response to the question, ‘are you doing anything to proactively minimize the potential for resistance to glyphosate to develop,’ 67 percent said yes in 2005 a nd 87 percent said yes in 2009” (David Shaw, as reported in WSSA, 2010). “In a 2007 survey of 400 corn, soybean and cotton growers, resistance management programs were often or always used by 70 percent or more of all three grower groups” (Frisvold and Hu rley as reported by
WS SA, 2010b). There is widespread information available from universities and other sources regarding GR. Public universities (i.e. University of California, North Dakota State University, University of Minnesota), herbicide manufactu rers (i.e. www.weedresistancemanagement.com, www.resistancefighter.com) and crop commodity groups (i.e. National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association) have internet web sites with information on prevention and management of herbicide resi stance. Monsanto’s TUG (attached to this document as Appendix A) provides specific management practices for the prevention of glyphosate resistant weeds. Additionally, the UC’s Integrated Pest Management website ( http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PGM/weeds_common.html ) and at the UC Weed Research and Information Website ( http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/information.html ) prov ide information on weed identification and specific weed management practices (Orloff et al., 2009; attached as Appendix D).
Alfalfa growers have strong financial and practical interests in managing weeds effectively and preemptively to reduce the develop ment of herbicide resistance in order to maximize yield potential. The development of GR weeds harms the economic return per acre for the individual farmer and the entire alfalfa industry (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D).
As such, strategies and recommendations to delay the development of GR weeds have been developed for alfalfa (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D; TUG, attached as Appendix A). In general, weed scientists recommend the following to mitigate the risk of herbicide

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 102 8/5/2010 res istance in alfalfa: (1) Apply integrated weed management practices. Use multiple herbicide
modes

- of

- action with overlapping weed spectrums in rotation, sequences, or mixtures; (2) Use full recommended rate and proper application timing for the hardest to control weed species present in the field; (3) Scout fields after herbicide application to ensure control has been achieved; (4) Avoid allowing weeds to reproduce by seed or to proliferate vegetatively; (5) Monitor site and clean equipment between sites; (6) Start with a clean field and control weeds early by using a burndown treatment or tillage in combination with a preemergence residual herbicide as appropriate; (7) Use cultural practices such a cultivation and crop rotation, where appropriate; and (7) Use good agronomic principles that enhance crop competitiveness. (HRAC, 2009). Similarly, the TUG recommends scouting for weeds; starting with a clean field using a burndown herbicide application or tillage; controlling weeds when they are small; crop

ro tation with opportunities for other modes of action; crop rotation; and “the right herbicide product at the right rate and at the right time.” (TUG, p. 10, attached as Appendix A). All RR technology users, including alfalfa growers, are contractually obli gated through the MT/SA to follow the TUG. RRA seed growers are also required by the NAFA BMP to “[m]anage weeds and volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., conventional practices supplemented with Roundup agricultural herbicide formulat ions applied according to the label for alfalfa seed production)” (NAFA, 2008).

Table 2

- 5 in Section 2.4.2 lists weeds known to be found in alfalfa and the biotypes known to be glyphosate resistant. Since 1998, 14 new GR weeds have been found globally. Nin e of these have glyphosate resistant biotypes in the U.S. Of these nine, four species are known to be
common in alfalfa fields.

3.11.5 Impacts

Alternative 1: No A

ction
Under Alternative 1, there would be virtually no effect on the potential for weeds to develop

r esistance to glyphosate, given that glyphosate use is minimal with conventional alfalfa. However, under Alternative 1, the impact of weeds resistant to other herbicides is likely to continue to increase as growers would continue to use conventional weed c ontrol methods, including other herbicide modes of action.
As discussed above, glyphosate use in alfalfa can be an effective tool against weeds resistant
to non

- glyphosate herbicides, such as ALS

- inhibitors and ACCase

- inhibitors. Weed resistance

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 103 8/5/2010 to glypho sate is not as common as resistance to many other herbicides (Orloff et al., 2009, p. 6, attached as Appendix D).
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Under Alternative 2, impacts, if any, with respect to the development of GR weeds due to
increased use of glyphosate associated with RRA crop production are expected to be very small. First, as discussed above, the nature of glyphosate itself makes it less likely that new GR weed populations will develop in alfalfa as a result of the use of glyphosate in RRA. Specifically, there is a relatively low rate of resistance in weeds to glyphosate relate to the widespread use of this chemical. (Orloff et al., 2009, p. 6; attached as Appendix D). Because of this differential in weed resistance between glypho sate and other herbicides, the introduction of this additional mode of weed control may have a net positive effect on weed resistance in alfalfa production. Second, there is a high level of awareness about the potential for GR weeds and many readily avail able resources to assist growers with management strategies (e.g., Orloff et al., 2009). Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing seasons for herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a specific area (Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely relied on only one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide

- resistant weed population to develop (Kniss, 2010a, p. 4; Beckie, 20 06, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This is a reason why crop monitoring and follow up by weed scientists in cases of suspected resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs. Fourth, RRA growers are required to abide by the following requirements, which will operate to mitigate the risk of glyphosate weed resistance in RRA:

 Read and follow all herbicide use directions and recommendations;

 Follow all stewardship practices outlined in Monsanto’s TUG (Appendix A) which
incl udes weed resistance management practices; and

 • Follow the Weed Resistance Management Guidelines to minimize the risk of resistance development (see Monsanto’s TUG, p. 4; http://www.w eedresistancemanagement.com/guidelines.html ).

3.12 PHYSICAL
The assessment of impact to land use in the sections below considers the impacts to land use or current cultivation practices under the no action alternative and the proposed partial deregulation alte rnative.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 104 8/5/2010 3.12.1 Land Use

Alternative 1: No Action
Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact to land use or current cultivation practices. There would be no new planting of RRA for commercial purposes. It is anticipated that existing alfalfa
acres would conti nue to be planted with non

- RRA or non

- alfalfa crops.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Under Alternative 2, it is expected that RRA would be planted on existing alfalfa acreage for hay or seed production provided that the proposed partial deregul ation measures discussed in Section 1.1.3 above are followed. Appendix G charts the anticipated adoption of RRA under Alternative 2. However, the impact of this alternative on the overall amount of land devoted to alfalfa cultivation is expected to be mi nimal, as under this alternative, land currently used for alfalfa seed or hay production would continue to be used in the same manner. Alfalfa production is largely a market

- driven decision rather than a technology

- driven decision. (USDA

APHIS, 2009, p. 157). The availability of a new weed control option is not expected to impact current land use management. However, since glyphosate controls a broad range of weeds, farmers may choose to plant RRA on fields with greater weed potential. If the life span of RRA can be extended longer than current alfalfa stand lifespans, this might impact land use decisions regarding crop rotation practices, but is not expected to change the nature of land use into or out of agricultural production.

3.12.2 Air Quality and Climat e The assessment of impacts to air quality and climate in the sections below considers impacts to air quality and climate practices under the no action alternative and the proposed partial deregulation alternative. Under Alternative 1, existing alfalfa ac reage will continue to be planted
with non

- RRA or non

- alfalfa crops.

Alternative 1: No Action
The no action alternative would result in an adverse impact to air quality and climate. The continued regulation of RRA would result in continued planting of co nventional and/or organic
alfalfa. Non

- RRA requires greater tillage for weed control than does RRA. Weed control in non

RRA is usually primarily accomplished by pre

- plant tillage to prepare a weed

- free seed bed, and/or by clipping targeted to stop weed gro wth and competition (with or without crop harvest). As glyphosate is a crop

- saf e, broad spectrum herbicide, it is possible that additional alfalfa

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 105 8/5/2010 acres, like other herbicide tolerant crops, would be established using no

- till methods. Comparatively, the tillage associated with non

- RRA establishment requires greater use of farm machinery which results in greater greenhouse gas emissions.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
As previously stated, the partial deregulation of RRA is expected to result in an increase in the total acreage of RRA crops. This would be accompanied by increased glyphosate application and decreased tillage of alfalfa fields. Because glyphosate is non

- volatile (i.e., does not evaporate readily) at normal temperatures and is n ot considered an atmospheric contaminant (EPA, 1993), the increased application of glyphosate is not expected to result in adverse impacts to air quality. If glyphosate is applied aerially, any potential drift

- related impacts can be minimized by utilizing recognized practices for managing the potential for off target movement (i.e., using of specific nozzle types, limiting applications to conditions less favorable for drift). The overall impacts from aerial application are expected to be minimal because only around two percent of glyphosate is applied aerially in the U.S. (USDA APHIS, 2009). The decreased tillage of alfalfa fields under this alternative would have a net positive effect on air quality and climate by reducing the operation of farm machinery and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions related to global warming, ozone depletion, summer smog and carcinogenicity, among others, were found to be lower in GT crop systems than conventional systems (Bennett et al., 2004).

3.12.3 Water Quality

The assessment of impacts to water quality in the sections below considers impacts on surface water quality and groundwater. Under Alternative 1, alfalfa acres will continue to be planted
with non

- RRA or non

- alfalfa crops.

Alternative 1: No Action

Surface w ater . Alternative 1 would have an adverse impact on surface water quality. Under this alternative, growers would continue to plant conventional and organic alfalfa, resulting in the continued reliance on tilling and/or multiple herbicides for weed control . The adverse impact would be due to the continued generation of runoff containing: 1) herbicides with greater environmental impact than glyphosate; and/or 2) particulate matter derived from increased tillage and soil erosion. Tillage causes widespread so il disturbance resulting in erosion and topsoil loss, with a corresponding increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams. This

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 106 8/5/2010 erosion can also transport herbicides used on the fields into the surface waters. The usage of a GT cropping system such as RRA allows for cultivation with reduced tillage.

Groundwater . Alternative 1 would result in an adverse impact to groundwater. Adverse impacts would result from the continued use of multiple herbicides to control weeds. The vast majority of growers would continue to plant conventional alfalfa, resulting in the use of multiple
herbicides for weed control. Several non

- glyphosate herbicides have a higher potential to leach into groundwater, which results in groundwater contamination.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Surface water . Partial deregulation would result in increased planting (increased acreage) of RRA. The associated increase in application of glyphosate for weed control would reduce the impact on surface water quality by facilitating t he adoption of conservation tillage methods and reducing the use of other herbicides with greater potential for adverse impact. Conservation tillage reduces disturbance of the soil and associated soil erosion from wind and water, and is facilitated by use of a GT cropping system such as RRA. The net effect would be lower amounts of herbicide and suspended sediment in runoff, which would improve water quality in streams and lakes (

Wiebe and Gollehon, 2006).

Groundwater . The increased application of glyphos ate under Alternative 2 would have a positive effect on groundwater quality by reducing the use of other herbicides that more readily leach into groundwater.

3.13 BIOLOGICAL
Potential environmental effects of pesticide use are carefully considered as a part of the FIFRA pesticide registration process. Prior to the approval of a new pesticide or a new use of that pesticide (including a change in pesticide application rates and/or timing) and before reregistering an existing pesticide, EPA must consider the poten tial for environmental effects
and make a determination that no unreasonable adverse effects to the environment will be caused by the new pesticide, new use or continued use.
To make this determination, EPA requires a comprehensive set of environmental fat e and ecotoxicological data on the pesticide’s active ingredient (40 C.F.R. Part 158). EPA uses these data to assess the pesticide’s potential environmental risk (exposure/hazard). The required
data include both short

- and long

- term hazard data on repres entative organisms that are used to predict hazards to terrestrial animals (birds, nontarget insects, and mammals), aquatic

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 107 8/5/2010 animals (freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine and marine organisms), and nontarget plants (terrestrial and aquatic).

Informa tion regarding the impacts of glyphosate on the biological environment is summarized below. Additional information on this topic is also being considered in the USDA APHIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Deregulation of Glyphosate Toler ant Alfalfa (Docket No. APHIS

- 2007

- 0044) (USDA APHIS, 2009).

3.13.1 An imal and plant exposure to glyphosate
Glyphosate is a non

- selective herbicide with post

- emergence activity on essentially all annual and perennial plants. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, this activity is due to inhibition of EPSPS, an enzyme involved in aromatic amino acid synthesis. As with any herbicide, a risk exists that spray drift could pose issues for plants on the borders of the target field. However, EPA takes the potential for spra y drift into account when conducting the risk assessment it uses to establish pesticide application rates and direction for use, which are designed to minimize spray drift risks. Glyphosate binds tightly to agricultural soils and is not likely to move off site dissolved in water. Moreover, glyphosate is not readily taken up from agricultural soil by plants. This limits the impact of glyphosate use on non

- target plants, including aquatic plants.

Alternative 1: No Action

Plants . Under the no action alterna tive, RRA would remain regulated, and growers of conventional alfalfa would continue to use multiple herbicides for weed control. Many of the non

glyphosate herbicides are selective herbicides that kill only particular groups of plants such as annual grass es, perennial grasses, or broadleaf weed species. Therefore, growers of conventional alfalfa use more than one herbicide to achieve satisfactory weed control. In addition, some of the other herbicides are applied at greater volumes compared to glyphosate.
The continued use of other herbicides would result in potential adverse impacts to non

- target plants. The herbicides used in conventional alfalfa production have been found, in general, to have more significant environmental impacts than glyphosate (USDA A PHIS, 2009). This is consistent with the EPA decision to grant reduced risk status for glyphosate use in RRA. Comparison of results from terrestrial and aquatic plant studies with predicted exposure from herbicide use suggests that most of the herbicides used in conventional alfalfa systems may have greater adverse effects than glyphosate on aquatic or terrestrial plant species.

An imals . Under this alternative RRA would remain regulated, and growers of conventional alfalfa would continue to use an array o f herbicides for weed control. Many of the herbicides

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 108 8/5/2010 used in conventional alfalfa production have been found to have higher toxicity to certain animal species than glyphosate. Animal species within and adjacent to fields of conventional alfalfa
would cont inue to be exposed to these more toxic herbicides. The amphibian habitat in watersheds where conventional and organic alfalfa are grown would continue to be impacted by higher levels of tillage, soil erosion, sedimentation in runoff, and turbidity in ponds , lakes, and rivers than would otherwise be the case if RRA were grown.
Under this alternative, alfalfa growers will continue to have difficulty controlling certain weed species that sicken, poison or reduce growth of horses, cattle and other livestock. L ivestock illness and suffering related specifically to consumption of toxic weeds in alfalfa forage would remain unchanged. Economic losses associated with veterinary service costs and livestock productivity losses would remain unchanged.

Alternative 2: P

artial Deregulation of RRA

Plants . With partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA and the associated use of glyphosate would increase. The increased glyphosate use would be accompanied by a corresponding
decrease in the use of other herbicides that have a higher potential to impact non

- target plant life. So this alternative would have an overall positive effect on terrestrial and aquatic plants. The EPA has concluded that glyphosate use on RRA poses reduced risk compared to the use
of other herbicides for weed control. 43 

## As is the case with aerial application of any herbicide, terrestrial and aquatic plants in the vicinity of alfalfa fields may be incidentally exposed to glyphosate by spray drift. However, if aerial applications are minimized and/or appropr iate spray drift reduction practices are utilized, this risk to non

- target plants would be reduced; recall that EPA has determined that no unreasonable adverse effects occur from spray drift of glyphosate when applied according to label directions. Each y ear there are millions of acres of GT crops that are treated with glyphosate with minimal impact to adjacent non

- target terrestrial plants including crops, when appropriate drift minimization measures are practiced.
Because glyphosate binds strongly to soi l particles and has no herbicidal activity after binding to soil, no effects on aquatic plants will result from surface water runoff from glyphosate use on RRA. Conservation tillage and no tillage practices have the potential to mitigate impacts to aquati c plants through decreasing soil

- laden runoff.

43 

### A reduced risk decision is made at the use level based on a comparison between the proposed use of the pesticide and existing altern atives currently registered on that use site. A list of decisions regarding Reduced Risk Status can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/reducedrisk.html

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 109 8/5/2010 An imals . W ith partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA and the associated use of glyphosate would increase. The increased glyphosate use would be accompanied by a corresponding
decrease in the use of other he rbicides that have a higher potential to impact animals.
Based on the data available on glyphosate usage, chemical fate, and toxicity, glyphosate is not expected to pose an acute or chronic risk to the following categories of wildlife (EPA, 1993):

 Birds;

 M ammals;

 Terrestrial Invertebrates;

 Aquatic Invertebrates;

 Fish; and

 Soil Microorganisms.
Glyphosate is practically non

- toxic to slightly toxic to birds, freshwater fish, marine and estuarine species, aquatic invertebrates and mammals and practically non

- to xic to honey bees (which are
used to assess effects on non

- target insects in general) (EPA, 1993). Glyphosate has a low
octanol

- water partition coefficient, indicating that it has a tendency to remain in the water phase rather than move from the water pha se into fatty substances. Therefore, it is not expected to
accumulate in fish or other animal tissues.
As a part of the reregistration evaluation under FIFRA, EPA conducted an ecological assessment for glyphosate. This assessment compared the results from toxicity tests with glyphosate conducted with various plant and animal species to a conservative estimate of glyphosate exposure in the environment (Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC)). In the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for glyphos ate (EPA, 1993), the exposure estimates were determined assuming an application rate of 5.0625 lb active ingredient per acre (ai/A), which exceeds 3.75 lb a.e./A, the maximum EPA labelled use rate for a single application for agricultural purposes. When t he EECs were calculated for aquatic plants and animals, the direct application of this rate (5.0625 lb a.e./A) to water was assumed. Based on this assessment, EPA concluded that effects to birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates are minimal
based on availa ble data (EPA, 1993).
The glyphosate end

- use products used in agriculture contain a surfactant to facilitate the uptake of glyphosate into the plant (Ashton and Crafts, 1981). Depending on the surfactant used, the toxicity of the end

- use product may range from practically nontoxic to moderately toxic to fish

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 110 8/5/2010 and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 1993). For this reason, the 1993 Glyphosate RED stated that
some formulated end

- use products of glyphosate needed to be labeled as “Toxic to fish” if they
were labeled for direct application to water bodies. Due to the associated hazard to fish and other aquatic organisms, glyphosate end

- use products that are labeled for applications to water bodies generally do not contain surfactant, or contain a surfactant approved fo r direct application to water bodies.
Possible adverse impacts to amphibians resulting from the deregulation of RRA may be offset by the shift from other herbicides used in alfalfa cultivation, which are considered to have higher environmental impacts in g eneral. Additionally, amphibian habitat in watersheds where RRA is produced could be improved through conservation tillage, resulting in decreased soil erosion, decreased sedimentation in runoff, and decreased turbidity in ponds, lakes, and rivers fed by
surface waters.
Glyphosate can theoretically be toxic to microorganisms because it inhibits the production of aromatic amino acids through the shikimate pathway. However, field studies show that glyphosate has little effect on soil microorganisms, and, in some cases, field studies have shown an increase in microbial activity due to the presence of glyphosate (USDA FS, 2003).
Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to amphibians; however, amphibians exhibited greater sensitivity to Roundup® formulations than to glyphosate tested as an acid or isopropylamine (IPA) salt. This could be due to the surfactant (POEA) used in agricultural formulations, which has been found to be more toxic to amphibians and other aquatic animals than the herbicide itself (Lajmanovich et al., 2003). Some researchers have suggested that, in combination with POEA, Roundup® could cause extremely high rates of mortality to amphibians that could lead to eventual population declines (Relyea, 2005). However, the testing methods of the Relyea (2005) study have been called into question due to the high exposure doses, which exceed application rates of glyphosate (regulated by FIFRA), as well as the fact that this Roundup® product is not approved for use in an aquatic setting (USDA APHIS, 2009). Considering the potential for aquatic exposure to glyphosate formulations from terrestrial uses, EPA recently evaluated the effect of glyphosate and its formulations on another amphibian species, the
California red

- legged frog, and concluded that aquatic exposure to glyhphosate or its formulations posed no risk to this threatened species (EPA, 2008). Because EPA considered a wide range of application rates in their evaluation for the red

- legged frog, this conclusion can also be applied to amphibians expo sed to glyphosate from applications on GT alfalfa.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 111 8/5/2010 3.13.2 Threatened and endangered species

Alternative 1: No Action
Under this alternative RRA would remain regulated, and growers of conventional alfalfa would
continue to use a multitude of herbicides for weed control. Many of the herbicides used in conventional alfalfa production have been found to have higher toxicity to certain animal species than glyphosate. Threatened and endangered species within and adjacent to fields of
conventional alfalfa would contin ue to be exposed to these more toxic herbicides. The amphibian habitat in watersheds where conventional and organic alfalfa are grown would continue to be impacted by higher levels of tillage, soil erosion, sedimentation in runoff, and turbidity in ponds, lakes, and rivers than would otherwise be the case if RRA were grown.
Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA
Under partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA would likely increase with a concomitant increase of glyphosate use for weed control. Based on the information presented below, there is no expected impact based on the ecological safety assessment conducted for glyphosate discussed below (Mortensen et al., 2008) and growers implementation of glyphosate application practices required by Monsanto th at are designed to protect threatened or endangered species.
Monsanto recently performed an updated assessment of the impact to threatened and endangered species of glyphosate application to GT crops. The results of this assessment were
submitted to USDA a s Monsanto Report No. RPN

- 2007

- 227 (Mortensen et al., 2008). Monsanto also prepared an endangered species assessment for terrestrial plants that was submitted to USDA (Honegger et al., 2008). The findings of these assessments are as follows:

 Threatened or

endangered terrestrial or semi

- aquatic plant species are not at risk from ground applications of glyphosate at rates less than 3.5 lb active ingredient per acre (ai/A). Since the maximum single application rate before or after crop emergence in GT
alfalfa is 1.55 lb ai/A, no listed plant species are predicted to be at risk from ground application of glyphosate to RRA.

 • Threatened or endangered terrestrial or semi

- aquatic plant species are not at risk
fr om aerial applications of glyphosate at rates less th an 0.70 lb ai/A. Since rates above 0.7 lb ai/A are needed to control a number of weed species, buffers for aerial application have been proposed by Monsanto (using an EPA

- accepted drift model) to permit aerial application at rates up to 1.55 lb ai/acre wh ile still predicting no impact on plant growth at the edge of the buffer. Monsanto has developed a web site, www.Pre

- Serve.org, to

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 112 8/5/2010 provide growers a means to determine if threatened or endangered plant species are potentially at risk from glyphosate applic ations that they are planning on GT crops. The requirement for growers to consult this web site has been incorporated into the Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement and Technology Use Guide, an agreement that growers sign when purchasing any Monsanto G T seed. Through the implementation of the Pre

- Serve web site and its mandated use by growers, threatened and endangered plant species are protected from potential effects from glyphosate use
on RRA.

 Other taxa (including birds, mammals, insects, fish, amph ibians, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants) are not at risk from the use of glyphosate herbicides in alfalfa production. In addition, other taxa are not at risk from indirect effects resulting from habitat alteration from the use of glyphosate.
Amp hibians use a wide range of aquatic habitats for their breeding sites and could be exposed to glyphosate in surface water. Considering the potential for aquatic exposure to glyphosate formulations from terrestrial uses, EPA recently evaluated the effect o f glyphosate and its
formulations on the California red

- legged frog (CRLF). EPA concluded that aquatic exposure to glyphosate and its formulations posed no risk to this threatened species (EPA, 2008). As a part of the endangered species effects assessment for the California red

- legged frog, EPA evaluated the effect of glyphosate at application rates up to 7.95 lb ai/A. Based on this assessment, the application of glyphosate at the maximum, single, in

- crop application rate specified on the EPA

approved lab el for RRA (1.55 lb ai/A) would have no effects on threatened and endangered species of fish, amphibians, birds, or mammals.
Although not specifically discussed in the assessment, it can also be determined that there would be no effects of glyphosate or it s formulations on threatened or endangered vascular aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2008). For terrestrial invertebrates, it was
determined that there were no effects on non

- endangered species. Although not specifically
stated in the CRLF a ssessment, exposure levels from spray drift to threatened or endangered invertebrates adjacent to RR alfalfa fields are below the level 44 

## that would result in a conclusion of risk. Additional information has been provided to EPA to also support a conclusio n of no risk for small terrestrial invertebrates that might be present in the field at the time of glyphosate application. For terrestrial plants, the potential for effects on non

- endangered species was assessed, and using the endpoints and EECs provided, it could be determined that there would

44 

### Screening level drift assumptions are one percent for ground applications and five percent for aerial applications.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 113 8/5/2010 be no effects on terrestrial plants from ground applications at the maximum single in

- crop application rate for RRA.

3.13.3 Potential impact of exposure to RRA
APHIS analyzed the potential impacts to threatened and endange red species from directly contacting, consuming, or hybridizing with RRA and/or their progeny. This analysis considered the effect of production of RRA on designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for designation. The results are as follows:

 RRA is not expected to become more invasive in natural environments or have any difference in effect on critical habitat than their parental non

- GT line in the absence of glyphosate selection.

 Analysis of forage samples from several locations demonstrates that RR A is compositionally and nutritionally equivalent to other alfalfa varieties currently on the market. It is not expected to have adverse nutritional effects on any threatened and endangered species that feeds upon it. The RRA CP4 EPSPS protein does not h ave toxic or pathogenic effects that would affect threatened and endangered species or their
critical habitat.

 RRA is not expected to form hybrids with any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species of plant or any plant species proposed fo r federal listing.
Based on this assessment, APHIS could not identify any difference between the impacts from exposure to RRA and the impacts from exposure to other alfalfa varieties (conventional and organic varieties). Consequently, there would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of the exposure of threatened and endangered species to RRA.

3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.14.1 Consumer health and safety
Because RRA is compositionally and nutritionally identical to non

- RRA and because alfal fa forage and seed are not directly consumed by humans, the main issue regarding consumer health and safety is potential dietary exposure to glyphosate herbicide residues. The general public may be exposed to herbicides used on RRA if they consume animal c ommodities arising
fr om livestock fed on the treated alfalfa. For the reasons described below, this risk is very small, and there would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of the impact of regulation or partial deregulation of RRA on consumer health and safety.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 114 8/5/2010 Consumption of adjacent crops impacted by spray drift is a theoretically possible route of exposure, but is not a normal part of dietary risk assessment (EPA, 2000). The predominant route of potential dietary glyphosate exposure to consumers linked to RRA is via consumption of meat / milk from livestock fed on the treated alfalfa. EPA’s procedures to estimate dietary exposure fully account for these processes (EPA, 2000; EPA, 1993). EPA has determined that
there is a reas onable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to glyphosate residues (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 2006)). According to the RED (EPA, 1993), glyphosate has relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity and has been placed in Toxicity Ca tegory III for these effects (Toxicity Category I indicates the highest degree of acute toxicity, and Category IV the lowest). The acute inhalation toxicity study was waived because glyphosate is nonvolatile and because adequate inhalation studies with en d

- use products exist and show low toxicity.
Glyphosate is already used for weed control with conventional alfalfa and other GT crops, including GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton. In addition, it is registered for use in weed
control with several fruits a nd vegetables, and tolerances are established in the consumable commodities of these crops. The current upper estimates of exposure risk for glyphosate are based on highly conservative fruit and vegetable intake rates with an assumed high estimated
amount of glyphosate residue. The current aggregate dietary risk assessment completed by EPA concludes there is no concern for any subpopulation regarding exposure to glyphosate, including the use on many fruits and vegetables (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 200 6)). Moreover, the potential exists for decreases in the applications and subsequent residues of more toxic herbicides if RRA is partially deregulated.
The use of glyphosate does not result in adverse effects on development at non

- maternally toxic doses, r eproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals (EPA, 1993; WHO, 2004; ECETOC, 2009). Under present and expected conditions of use, glyphosate does not pose a health risk to humans (EPA, 1993). Additionally, the nature of glyphosate residue in plants and animals is adequately understood, and studies with a variety of plants indicate that uptake of glyphosate from soil is limited. The material that is taken up is readily translocated throughout the plant. In animals, most ingested or absorb ed glyphosate is eliminated in urine and feces. As discussed in Section 3.10, no impacts from consumption of food or feed containing the CP4 EPSPS protein would be expected.

3.14.2 Hazard identification and exposure assessment for field workers

The main issue re garding the health and safety of field workers and RRA is potential worker exposure to glyphosate used for weed control. For the reasons described below, the health risk

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 115 8/5/2010 fr om field worker exposure to glyphosate is small when used in accordance with labelin g. There would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of the impact of regulation or partial deregulation of RRA on field worker health and safety.
Glyphosate is already used for weed control with conventional alfalfa and other G T crops, including GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton. In addition, it is registered for use in weed control with several fruits and vegetables. So the potential for field worker exposure to glyphosate will continue to exist whether RRA is regulated or de regulated.

Wi th regard to subchronic and chronic toxicity, one of the more consistent effects of exposure to glyphosate at high doses is reduced body weight gain compared to controls. Body weight loss is not seen in multiple subchronic studies, but has at times been noted in some chronic studies at excessively high doses ≥ 20,000 ppm in diet (WHO, 2004). Other general and non

- specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate include changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), and liver pathology (USDA FS, 2003). Glyphosate is not considered a carcinogen; it has been classified by EPA as a “Group E carcinogen”, which means that it shows evidence of non

- carcinogenicity for humans (EPA, 1993).

EPA’s human health analysis considers both the applicator and bystander as having the potential for exposure to glyphosate. Based on the toxicity of glyphosate and its registered uses, including use on GT crops, EPA has concluded that occupational exposures (sh ort

- term dermal and inhalation) to glyphosate are not of concern because no short

- term dermal or inhalation toxicity endpoints have been identified for glyphosate (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 2006)).
Additional evidence to support the EPA conclusion can b e found in the Farm Family Exposure Study , a biomonitoring study of pesticide applicators conducted by independent investigators (Acquavella et al., 2004). This biomonitoring study determined that the highest estimated bodily adsorption of glyphosate as th e result of routine labeled applications of registered glyphosate

based agricultural herbicides to crops, including GT crops, was approximately 400 times lower than the reference dose (RfD) established for glyphosate. Furthermore, investigators
determined that 40 percent of field workers (applicators) did not have detectable exposure on the day of application, and 54 percent of the field workers had an estimated bodily adsorption of glyphosate more than 1000 times lower than the RfD (Acquavella et al., 2004 ). Use patterns and rates for RRA are typical of most glyphosate agronomic practices. Therefore, the partial deregulation of RRA would not significantly increase the exposure risk to pesticide applicators.

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 116 8/5/2010 Finally, the biomonitoring study also found little evidence of detectable exposure to individuals on the farm who were not actively involved with or located in the immediate vicinity of application of glyphosate

- based herbicides to crops. Considering the similarity of the use pattern and application rates of the glyphosate products in this study compared to those registered for use on RRA and GT crops in general, bystander exposure attributed to the use of glyphosate on GT crops is expected to be negligible.
Based on the above information, the use of curre ntly registered herbicide products containing glyphosate in accordance with the EPA labeling requirements will not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to field workers or bystanders. In general, the herbicidal activity of glyphosate is due primaril y to a metabolic pathway that does not occur in humans or other animals, and, thus, this mechanism of action is not directly relevant to the human health risk assessment. EPA considers glyphosate to be of low acute and chronic toxicity by the dermal
route of exposure. Glyphosate is considered a Category IV dermal toxicant and is expected to cause only slight skin irritation (USDA APHIS, 2009).

3.15 SOCIA L AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PA RTIA L DEREGULA

TION
APHIS has studied the potential socioeconomic im pacts of fully deregulating RRA (USDA APHIS, 2009, pp. 125

- 145 & Appendix S). Although the types of potential socioeconomic impacts discussed in the draft EIS under full deregulation would remain the same as under this proposed partial deregulation, the s cale (extent and scope) of each impact would be significantly more limited. The proposal restricts (excludes) forage planting of RRA within county

- level proximity to 99.5 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop production areas and it would place highly str ingent isolation conditions and other requirements on a small, pre

- defined group of RRA seed producers.
Simply stated, protection of conventional and organic seed purity has been identified as an important component for the coexistence of GE, conventiona l and organic agricultural crops, including alfalfa. As it is primarily a geographically

- structured approach parsed to the county level by seed vs. forage crop production criteria, the partial deregulation is intended to preclude the possibility for socio

- economic impacts (favorable or unfavorable) specifically inter

- related with gene flow into >99.5 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop. The remaining approximately 0.5 percent of the seed crop is also unlikely to be impacted because when and if grown in local proximity to a RRA forage crop (<165 ft), the RRA forage producers would be required to

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 117 8/5/2010 mitigate the amount of available RRA pollen by cutting the RRA hay crop prior to 10 percent
bloom.
USDA has clearly endorsed coexistence of GE, conventional and o rganic growers, crops and markets. During the period in which USDA/APHIS finalizes a court

- ordered EIS and prepares a record of decision on the deregulation of RRA, the terms of the proposed Partial Deregulation cautiously parse out the areas of primary “ gene flow interface” between RRA and conventional alfalfa, enabling immediate RRA grower benefits without interfering with conventional and organic crops and markets. The proposed partial deregulation conditions will enable, without restriction, the conti nued supply of conventional variety seeds and basic generation seeds for export, organic or domestic use. It would also allow producers to choose to use or not use RRA on approximately seventy

- eight percent (78%) of U.S. forage production acres and enable a nominal number of RRA seed growers on seed production acres where extraordinary isolation exists. The actual adoption of the technology by forage growers is anticipated to be some
fr action of the eligible (allowed) alfalfa acreage total in each region of the U.S. (Appendix G). Those most likely to adopt the technology are those producers serving dairy herd forage needs. However, pending completion of an EIS and a final deregulation decision, this partial deregulation would not uniformly enable all for age or seed growers the choice to participate in
the socio

- economic benefits of the technology, and moreover, in future years, it is possible that RRA seed supplies could fall short of RRA seed demand or that forage market inequities might develop between competing geographies with and without the technology.
It is likely that through improvements to weed management, the widespread adoption of the RRA technology by growers could result in economic benefits related to the quantity and improved forage quality of U.S. hay supplies (see below). Forage producers and dairy producers may most directly benefit from more abundant supplies of dairy quality forage with fewer weeds. Organic forage, dairy, and other food producers would also be likely to economically b enefit from increased market share related to the newly

- heightened market differentiation between organic and non

- organic dairy and forage production strategies, e.g., the organic dairy food customer base may increase if a proportion of conventional consum ers begin to purchase organic foods due to a negative perception of GE alfalfa. Since the RRA crops were first grown (2005

- 2007) the organic dairy sector has experienced market growth. According to several independent analyses (Putnam and Undersander, 20 09, attached as Appendix I; Van Deynze et al., 2008; NAFA, 2008d; Putnam, 2006; Putnam, 2007), organic forage supplies and organic farming practices are unlikely to be at economic risk, adversely

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 118 8/5/2010 impacted, or materially affected by the deregulation or grow ing of RRA. Simple, minimal/no

cost effective methods are available to organic and conventional forage producers wishing to avoid RRA irrespective of their neighbor’s choice to grow RRA seed or hay crops. Specifically, organic or non

- GE forage producers need only to cut their hay before seed ripens, purchase

non
- GE planting seeds qualified for organic use and maintain organic hay lot segregation; i.e., follow current routine farm plans required by the NOP. Organic dairy or livestock producers will
contin ue to grow and/or purchase only organically qualified (identity

- preserved, segregated) feedstuffs; i.e., follow current routine farm plans required by the NOP. A minority, approximately 3 to 5 percent, of total alfalfa production may be sensitive to GE tr aits (Putnam, 2007). Therefore, it may be reasoned that a similar percentage of U.S. alfalfa forage growers would opt to take these nominal steps to avoid RRA trait presence in their conventional hay crops.
Forage production . Benefits to farm socio

- econ omics include improvements to grower profitability, consistent and abundant on

- farm forage supply, and, the ease and flexibility of
weed control.
As indicated above, in the defined geographies where RRA forage production would be allowed
with restrictions for new plantings (Table 1

- 1 and Appendix B of this ER), forage producers would have a new tool available for weed management throughout the life of the stand. Forage producers (n=201) who have previously commercially used the RRA technology report an

aver age increase in productivity of 0.9 total acres per year (T/A/yr) which translates to approximately $100 acre per year (A/year) incremental crop value at an average hay price of $110 total (T) (RRA Satisfaction Study, Market Probe, 2008, attached as Append ix H). Over the life of the stand (e.g., 3 to 5 years), the approximate incremental value of RRA forage production is $300 to $500 per acre (A).
Like growers of other GE crops, many growers of RRA also report experiencing intangible social benefits (see e xamples of Public Comments to draft EIS included in Appendix F). Specifically, growers report that the RRA technology improves their farming experience in that weed control is easier, simpler, more reliable (less risk of failure), herbicide timing is more flexible and crop injury (stress) is lessened. They also acknowledge the lessened risk to water sheds and to herbicide applicators (self, family and employees) compared to several other herbicide choices. Relative to their economic benefits and risks, cu rrently available weed management strategies may not be implemented at all because they can be expensive, ineffective on target weeds, restricted in use due to environmental or worker safety issues, difficult to apply at the correct time for good control, and some measures reduce alfalfa crop yield or stand longevity more than

## Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 119 8/5/2010 the weeds (e.g., early clipping, companion and cover crops). RRA growers note that the RRA technology is especially beneficial for weed control during the early seedling establishmen t period when the new planting can be at risk of failure (complete loss) due to unchecked weed competition. Although there are many reasons why alfalfa plantings fail in the first year, growers who adopt RRA would likely have less exposure to economic risk and intangible uncertainty associated with the possibility of losing their valuable planting inputs, meanwhile ensuring a more consistent supply of nutritious forage for livestock than the alfalfa growers not adopting the technology.

Seed Production . Soci o
- economic benefits related to RRA seed production include: improved profitability for RRA seed growers; the benefits described above associated with improved weed control; and a seed supply of new RRA varieties targeting new production niches, thus enabl ing the forage benefits described herein.
The seed producer consortia outlined in Table 1

- 2 have several things in common. These growers all produced RRA seed in 2006, 2007, 2008 and/or 2009. They will receive FGI training on RRA Seed Production Best Pra ctices and will be monitored by FGI for compliance as required by the NAFA BMP and the proposed conditions for partial deregulation. These growers also all produce seed in a setting that allows substantial isolation from conventional alfalfa seed producti on. Table 1

- 2 shows the existing isolation, and the minimum required isolation required in future years under the terms of this partial deregulation. In all cases the required isolation exceeds the NAFA RRA Seed Production Best Practices.

Pollen

- mediated gene flow is inversely proportional to isolation distance, and varies by introduced pollinator species. Any new RRA seed production with the growers and production
areas outlined in Table 1

- 2 will have a minimal impact on conventional or organic seed
pro duction targeted for either U.S. or export markets.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 120 8/5/2010 SECTION 4.0 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS
This section discusses the cumulative impacts that may be associated with Alternative 2, when combined with other recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the affected environment. Cumulative impacts that will occur are expected to be negligible.
Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an action are added to the effects of other actions occurring in a specific geographic area and timeframe. The cumul ative impact analysis follows CEQ’s guidance: Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997). The steps associated with the analysis include:

 Specify the class of actions for which effects are to be analyzed.

 Desig nate the appropriate time and space domain in which the relevant actions occur.

 Identify and characterize the set of receptors to be assessed.

 Determine the magnitude of effects on the receptors and whether those effects are accumulating.

4.1 CLA

SS OF A CTIONS TO BE ANALYZED
This analysis addresses regional and national actions that may have impacts that may accumulate with those of the proposed partial deregulation measures.

4.2 GEOGRA PHIC AND TEMPORA L BOUNDARIES FOR THE ANALYSIS
As described in Section 2, over the past 60 years, the number of alfalfa hay acres harvested annually in the U.S. has ranged between 20.7 million acres (2010) and 29.8 million acres (1957), with peak tonnage of hay production in the mid

- 1980s (USDA ERS, 2010a). In 2006,
20.9 million acres of alfalfa was harvested for forage. (In contrast, 122.1 acres of alfalfa was harvested for seed.) Alfalfa is grown for forage throughout the U.S. Based on 2008 production data by county, the four major U.S. alfalfa producing regions include the north

- c entral, west, northeast, and south, with the north

- central and the west regions being the highest producing regions in the U.S.
Under this proposal, we anticipate that any future alfalfa planting under partial deregulation will conform to the geographic us e restrictions described herein, with the exception of a minimal number of acres (e.g. less than 100 acres) that may be produced under APHIS permit. In the event this proposal is granted, the small and declining number of RRA acres planted under APHIS per mit will not have incremental cumulative impact on any of the resource areas.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 121 8/5/2010 Activities relevant to the cumulative impacts analysis have been identified from reviews of information available from government agencies, such as NEPA documents, land

- use and

n atural resource management plans, and from private organizations. Not all actions identified in this analysis would have cumulative impacts on all resource areas.

4.3 RESOURCES ANALYZED
Issues evaluated in this cumulative impacts analysis include some of the resource areas discussed in Sections 2 and 3 including land use, air quality and climate, water quality, biological, and human health and safety. In addition, specific topics analyzed include: cumulative impacts related to any possibility of development of glyphosate resistant weeds, and cumulative impacts of potential increased glyphosate usage with the cultivation of GT crops.

4.4 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS RELA TED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLYPHOSA TE RESISTANT WEEDS
Glyphosate offers many benefits to the grower as a w eed control product. Glyphosate controls a broad spectrum of grass and broadleaf weed species present in U.S. production fields, has
fl exible use timings, and when used in GT crops, has a very high level of crop safety. As the adoption of GT crops has gro wn, the use of glyphosate has increased over the past several years. As discussed in Section 3, with the increased use of glyphosate, there is also the potential for increased selection pressure for the development of new glyphosate

- resistant weed populat ions and/or new glyphosate

- resistant weed species.
As discussed in Section 2.4, there is a low probability for the development of new glyphosate

resistant weed populations and/or development of new resistance weed species from the use of glyphosate herbici des in conjunction with plantings of RR alfalfa. The expected use pattern of herbicides, including glyphosate, in alfalfa and the alfalfa production practices (e.g. frequent mowing) provides a basis for retarding the development of new resistance. It als o provides a basis for managing resistance that may be present from movement of a resistant weed seed
into an alfalfa field or cross

- pollination from a resistant weed to a sexually compatible weed
within an alfalfa field.
As discussed in Section 3.11.14, m arket research studies indicate that growers of glyphosate

tolerant crops are increasingly taking measures to minimize the potential for development of glyphosate resistance. Based on the adoption of these measures by growers of other GT crops
such as GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton (Frisvold et al., 2009), similar adoption of these measures by GT alfalfa growers is anticipated. In all three of these other GT crops, growers are

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 122 8/5/2010 adopting best management practices, in particular the more frequent use of complementary herbicides in a glyphosate

- based weed management programs in corn (Givens et al., 2009; Frisvold et al., 2009). The key best management practices recommended by industry and academics to control against weed resistance are as follows : a) ide ntifying weeds and monitoring for escapes to determine if current practices need to be modified to achieve acceptable levels of weed control, b) using proper herbicide rates and timing, c) using crop
rotation to facilitate use of different modes of action over time, d) using agronomic management practices to supplement herbicide weed control, e) alternating herbicides with different modes of action, and e) tank mixing herbicides of different modes of action (HRAC, 2009; Orloff et al., 2009; Monsanto, 2010a)

. Increased glyphosate use is not expected in the major GT crops (corn, soybeans and cotton), as GT usage in these crops is high and likely not to increase beyond current levels. As discussed above and in Section 3.11, there is a high level of awareness am ong growers of these crops of the need to minimize the potential for development of glyphosate resistance, and evidence that growers are implementing management practices to prevent the development of glyphosate resistant weeds.
These management practices for all glyphosate

- tolerant crops, combined with the specific alfalfa weed management practices discussed in Section 2.4, will together help minimize the cumulative potential for development of glyphosate resistant weeds under Alternative 2. Thus,
Alternat ive 2 is not expected to contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on the development of glyphosate

- resistant weeds.

4.5 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS OF POTENTIA L INCREASED GLYPHOSA TE USA GE
The increase in glyphosate used under the proposed interim measures described in this ER (Alternative 2), would be minimal. Assuming a 50 percent market share, the amount of glyphosate applied to RRA would be 1,627,500 lb a.e (0.5 x 21 million total alfalfa acres X 1.55 lb a.e./A). Calculating from Table N

- 3 on page N

- 16 in the draft EIS, total use of glyphosate on corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat is equal to 126,308,000 lbs. Therefore, even if glyphosate is used on 50 percent of total alfalfa acres, the glyphosate use on alfalfa would be 1.3 percent of the glyphosate used on these f our major crops.
According to the USDA ERS (2009), U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered crops widely since their introduction in 1996. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with
herbicide

- tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapi dly adopted GE crops in the U.S.,

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 123 8/5/2010 followed by insect

- resistant cotton and corn. Figure 4

- 1 shows the percentage of acres of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. between 1996 and 2009. Appendix G charts data from Monsanto/FGI of the anticipated adopti on of RRA under Alternative 2 over a 10 year period.

Figure 4

- 1 Growth in A doption of Genetically Engineered Crops in U.S. Source: Graph from USDA ERS, 2009



## Herbicide

- tolerant crops, which are engineered to survive application of specific herbicides th at previously would have damaged the crop, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, herbicide tolerant soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997, to 68 percent in 2001 and 91 percent in 2009. Plantings of herbicide tolerant cotton expanded from approximately 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2009. The adoption of herbicide tolerant corn was slower in previous years, but has reached 68 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2009 (USDA ERS, 2009).
Corn growers use the largest volume of herbicides. Approximately 96 percent of the 62.2 million acres used for growing corn in the 10 major corn

- producing States were treated with
more than 164 mi llion pounds of herbicides in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009). Soybean production in the U.S. also uses a large amount of herbicides. Approximately 97 percent of the 66.2 million soybean acres in the 19 major soybean

- producing States were treated with more than 78 million pounds of herbicides in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009). Cotton production relies heavily on

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 124 8/5/2010 herbicides to control weeds, often requiring applications of two or more herbicides at planting and postemergence herbicides later in the season (Culpepper and Yor k, 1998). Close to 28 million pounds of herbicides were applied to 97 percent of the 13 million acres devoted to upland cotton production in the 12 major cotton

- producing States in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009).
Pesticide use on corn and soybeans has declined sin ce the introduction of GE corn and soybeans in 1996. Several studies have analyzed the agronomic, environmental, and economic effects of adopting GE crops, including actual pesticide use changes associated with growing GE crops (McBride and Brooks, 2000; Fernandez

- Cornejo, Klotz

- Ingram, and Jans, 1999, 2002; Giannessi and Carpenter, 1999; Culpepper and York, 1998; Marra et al., 1998; Falck

- Zepeda and Traxler, 1998; Fernandez

- Cornejo and Klotz

- Ingram, 1998; Gibson et al., 1997; ReJesus et al., 1997; Stark, 1997). Many of these studies have concluded that herbicide use is reduced
with herbicide

- tolerant varieties (USDA ERS, 2009).
Studies conducted by the USDA shows an overall reduction in pesticide use related to the increased adoption of GE crops. Based o n the adoption of GE crops between 1997 and 1998 (except for herbicide

- tolerant corn, which is modeled for 1996

- 97), the decline in pesticide use
was estimated to be 19.1 million acre

- treatments, 6.2 percent of total treatments (USDA ERS, 2009). Most of t he decline in pesticide acre treatments was from less herbicide used on soybeans, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the reduction (16 million acre

- treatments) (USDA ERS, 2009).
The adoption of herbicide

- tolerant crops such as RRA, GT soybeans, and GT corn results in the substitution of glyphosate for previously used herbicides. The GT crops allow farmers to limit and simplify herbicide treatments based around use of glyphosate, while a conventional weed control program can involve multiple applica tions of several herbicides. In addition, and more importantly, herbicide

- tolerant crops often allow farmers to use more benign herbicides (USDA ERS, 2009).
There are known benefits associated with the use of glyphosate herbicides compared to
herbicides c urrently used by alfalfa producers. Glyphosate has documented favorable characteristics with regard to risk to human health, non

- target species, and the environment (Malik et al., 1989; W illiams et al., 2000). Glyphosate is classified by the EPA as Group E (evidence of non

- carcinogenicity for humans) (57 Fed. Reg. 8739 (Mar. 12, 1992)). In 1998, the EPA granted Reduced Risk status for an expedited review of the submitted residue data package supporting the use of glyphosate.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 125 8/5/2010 Petitions for non

- regulated status are pending for additional events or lines of GT soybean, corn, sugar beets, and creeping bentgrass (USDA APHIS, 2010). If deregulated, the production of new GT crops would lead to increased glyphosate application, and in the instances that it is cultivated in or near the same geographic areas where RRA is produced, this could lead to a cumulative impact on non

- target plants impacted by glyphosate. However, given that these acres are already being used for agricultural production (in the case of c orn and soybeans, most likely through a RR cropping system), these plants are likely already exposed to glyphosate or other pesticides.
Studies of the relationship between genetically engineered crops and herbicide use has shown that an increase in GT crop s can result in a decrease in mechanical tillage (Brimner et al., 2005;
Fernandez

- Cornejo, 2006; Gianessi and Reigner, 2006; Kleter et al., 2007; Sankula, 2006; Johnson et al., 2008). The potential cumulative impact from this reduction in mechanical tilla ge is discussed in the following sections.

4.6 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE, AIR QUALITY AND CLIMA TE
As discussed in Section 2, alfalfa acreage has fluctuated little for the past 60 years, although acreage has generally been declining since the mid

- 1980s. Ac reage used for alfalfa would not be expected to be impacted by increased RRA plantings. Therefore, as discussed in Section 3, Alternative 2 is not expected to impact land use directly or indirectly, other than the anticipated shift of certain acreage from conventional or organic alfalfa production to RRA production as a result of a partial deregulation (See Appendix G charting anticipated adoption of RRA under Alternative 2), and no cumulative impacts on land use are anticipated from Alternative 2.

As disc ussed in Section 3, Alternative 2 is expected to have positive impacts on air quality and climate, primarily resulting from reduced tillage. Consequently, Alternative 2 is not expected to have any adverse cumulative impacts on air quality or climate.

4.7 CUMU LA

TIVE IMPACTS ON WA TER QUA LITY
As discussed in Section 3, the advent of GT crops and the use of post

- emergent herbicides that could be applied over a crop during the growing season have facilitated the use of conservation tillage farming practices, since weeds could be controlled after crop growth without tilling the soil (USDA ERS, 2009). The use of GT crops (particularly soybeans) has intensified that trend since it often allows a more effective and less costly weed control regime than using other post

emergent herbicides (USDA ERS, 2009; Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999).

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 126 8/5/2010 The impact of conservation tillage (including no

- till, ridge

- till, and mulch

- till) in controlling soil erosion and soil degradation is well documented (Edwards, 1995; Sandretto, 1997). By leaving substantial amounts of plant matter over the soil surface, conservation tillage 1) reduces soil erosion by wind; 2) reduces soil erosion by water; 3) increases water infiltration and moisture retention; 4) reduces surface sediment and water runoff ; and 5) reduces chemical runoff (USDA ERS, 2009).
Glyphosate may potentially be found in surface water runoff when erosion conditions lead to the loss of surface particles. However, as discussed in Section 3, partial deregulation of GT crops typically le ads to an increase in conservation tillage and no tillage systems, which results in less mechanical disturbance of the soil during alfalfa cultivation and thereby decrease the loss of surface soil. Consequently, given that glyphosate binds strongly to soil particles and has no herbicidal activity after binding to soil, no

- tillage and conservation tillage are expected to further reduce the likelihood of any impact of surface water runoff (Wiebe and Gollehon, 2006). Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts t o surface water or groundwater are anticipated.

4.8 CUMUL AT IVE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

For non

- target terrestrial species, available ecological assessments in EPA RED (EPA, 2003) documents or registration review summary documents provide the support that the use of glyphosate represents reductions in chronic risk to birds compared to benfluralin, norflurazon, paraquat, sethoxydim, and trifluralin, and in acute risk to small mammals in comparison to bromoxynil, EPTC, and paraquat. For other alfalfa herbicide prod ucts, as well as glyphosate, no significant risks to birds or other non

- target terrestrial species were indicated in the available
information.

For non

- target aquatic species, Tables 4

- 1, 4

- 2, and 4

- 3 provide summaries of the estimated exposure and hazard information for the traditional herbicides used in conventional alfalfa production, and present quantitative comparisons of the derived Risk Quotients. Exposure, defined as the EEC, was calculated for all products using the assumptions (assuming aerial
ap plication) of 5 percent drift of spray applied to a one

- acre field onto water and 5 percent runoff
fr om 10 treated acres into a one

- acre pond six feet in depth. Herbicide treatments were based on the maximum single application rate for alfalfa taken from product labels. Hazard information (LC50 or EC50) for each active ingredient was taken from the EPA Ecotoxicology One

- Liner Database (if available) or other EPA source documents and summarized in Tables 4

- 1, 4

- 2, and
4

- 3 as the upper and lower values from the range of values reported. Hazard information for the
end

- use formulated products is generally not readily available; thus, this analysis is a

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 127 8/5/2010 comparison based solely on the active ingredients. Any label warnings and other available
hazard and/or ris k descriptions for non

- target aquatic species are also included. The Risk Quotient is determined for each active ingredient by dividing the EEC by the hazard (LC50 or EC50) value.
Plants potentially at risk from the use of glyphosate are potentially at ri sk from the use of any herbicide. Like most herbicides, plants are highly sensitive to glyphosate. Monsanto has developed a program named Pre

- Serve to address the use of glyphosate, including aerial spraying, in areas where threatened plants may be locat ed. Following use instructions on the
EPA

- approved label and use limitations described in Pre

- Serve would address any such risk of exposure. Federal law requires pesticides to be used in accordance with the label. Conservation tillage and no tillage pra ctices provide additional assurance that the impact to aquatic plants is reduced by decreasing soil

- laden runoff.

The EPA

- approved labels for products containing 2,4

- DB, celthodim, sethoxydim, and trifluralin include warnings of toxicity or adverse effect s to fish, and/or aquatic invertebrates and/or aquatic plants. Risk Quotients that exceed the Trigger Value of 0.5 for aquatic animals and 1.0 for aquatic plants are highlighted in bold text in Tables 4

- 1, 4

- 2, and 4

- 3 as exceeding a Level of Concern, bas ed on EPA Ecological Effects Rejection Analysis and Deterministic Risk Characterization Approach. Current alfalfa herbicide products containing benfluralin, bromoxynil, diuron, hexazinone, metribuzin, norflurazon, paraquat, terbacil, and trifluralin are

s hown to exceed these Levels of Concern. As supported by the EPA designation of reduced risk for application of glyphosate to alfalfa, glyphosate is a more environmentally preferred herbicide compared to other herbicides currently used in alfalfa productio n since glyphosate is generally less toxic and has favorable degradation properties.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 128 8/5/2010 Table 4

- 1. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and A lfalfa Herbicides on Freshwater Fish

Fish LC 50 

## (a .i.) 2 

## Range (ppm) Fish Risk Quotient 3 

## Range Active Ingredient Max. lb/acre

(single appl.) EEC 1



## (ppm) low high worst best Classification / Label Warnings

Glyphosate 1.55 0.052 45 140 0.001 0.0004 2,4

- DB 1.7 0.057 2 16.8 0.029 0.003 Toxic to fish Benfluralin 4 1.5 0.051 NA 0.0317 1.6 Bromoxynil 4 0.375 0.013 0.023 0.17 0.55 0.07 Clethodim 0.25 0.008 19 33 0.0004 0.0003 Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.71 14.2 0.11 0.006 EPTC 3.9 0.131 11.5 27 0.011 0.005 Hexazinone 1.5 0.051 > 100 274 < 0.0005 0.0002 Imazamox 0.047 0.002 > 94 > 122 < 0.00002 < 0.00001 Ima zethapyr 0.094 0.003 > 112 423 < 0.00003 0.000007 Metribuzin 1 0.034 42 > 100 0.0008 < 0.0003 Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 8.1 16.3 0.004 0.002 Paraquat 0.8 0.027 > 1 156 < 0.027 0.0002 Pronamide 2 0.067 72 350 0.0009 0.0002 Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 170 2 65 0.0001 0.0001 Toxic to aquatic organisms. Terbacil 1.2 0.040 46.2 112 0.0009 0.0004 Trifluralin 4 

## 2 0.067 0.0084 0.210 8.0 0.32 Extremely toxic to freshwater, marine and estuarine fish. NA = information not available 1 

### EEC refers to the Estimated Env ironmental Concentration, which assumes that a one

- acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one

- acre field and 5% runoff from a 10

- acre field. 2 

### Aquatic LC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One

- Liner Database, except where Footnote 4 is indicated. 3 

### Risk Quotient is EEC/LC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 0.5 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis]. Risk Quotients >0.1 result in classification for Restricted Use (http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecoris k_ders/toera_risk.htm#Deterministic). 4 

### Toxicity values are from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

En vironmental Report 129 8/5/2010 Table 4

- 2. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and A lfalfa Herbicides on Freshwa ter A quatic Invertebrates

Invertebrate EC 50 

## (a.i.) 2 

## Range (ppm) Invertebrate Risk Quotient 3 

## Range Active Ingredient Max. lb/acre

(single appl.) EEC 1



## (ppm) low high worst best Classification / Label Warnings Glyphosate 1.55 0.052 134 780 0.0004 0.000 07 2,4

- DB 1.7 0.057 NA 25 0.002 Benfluralin 4 1.5 0.051 NA 0.0218 2.3 Bromoxynil 4 0.375 0.013 0.011 0.096 1.1 0.1 Clethodim 5 0.25 0.008 NA 20.2 0.0004 Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.16 1.1 0.51 0.07 EPTC 3.9 0.131 3.5 66 0.040 0.002 Hexazinone 1.5 0 .051 178 > 1000 0.0003 < 0.00005 Imazamox 0.047 0.002 > 94.3 > 122 < 0.00002 < 0.00001 Imazethapyr 0.094 0.003 > 109 > 1000 < 0.00003 < 0.000003 Metribuzin 1 0.034 4.2 > 65 0.008 0.0005 Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 5.3 15 0.006 0.002 Paraquat 0.8 0.027 NA 1.2 0.020 Pronamide 2 0.067 > 4 > 6 < 0.02 < 0.01 Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 NA 78 0.0002 Toxic to aquatic organisms. Terbacil 1.2 0.040 65 > 1000 0.0006 < 0.00004 Trifluralin 4 

## 2 0.067 0.56 2.2 0.12 0.03 Extremely toxic to aquatic invertebrates. NA = information not available or not applicable 1 

### EEC refers to the Estimated Environmental Concentration, which assumes that a one

- acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one

- acre field and 5% runoff from a 10

- acre field. 2 

### Aquatic Invertebrate EC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One

- Liner Database, except where Footnote 4 is indicated. 3 

### Risk Quotient is EEC/EC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 0.5 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis] 4 

### Toxi city values are from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 5 

### EC50 value is from a study using a 25.6% ai concentration.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

En vironmental Report 130 8/5/2010 Table 4

- 3. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and A lfalfa Herb ic ides on A quatic Plants (Algae and Duckweed)
Aquatic Plant EC 50 

## (a.i.) 2 

## Range (ppm) Aquatic Plant Risk Quotient 3 

## Range Active Ingredient Max. lb/acre

(single appl.) EEC 1



## (ppm) low high worst best Classification / Label Warnings Glyphosate 1.55 0.0 52 0.8 38.6 0.065 0.001 2,4

- DB 1.7 0.057 NA > 0.932 < 0.061 Benfluralin 4 

## 1.5 0.051 NA 0.1 0.51 Bromoxynil 4 

## 0.375 0.013 0.051 > 0.63 0.25 < 0.02 Clethodim 0.25 0.008 1.34 11.4 0.006 < 0.0007 May pose hazard to federally listed endangered plants. Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.0024 0.095 30 0.85 EPTC 3.9 0.131 1.36 41 0.097 0.003 Hexazinone 1.5 0.051 0.0068 0.21 7.4 0.2 Imazamox 0.047 0.002 0.011 > 0.038 0.14 < 0.042 Imazethapyr 0.094 0.003 0.0081 59.2 0.4 0.00005 Metribuzin 1 0.034 0.008 0.16 4.2 0.21 Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 0.0097 0.058 3.4 0.57 Paraquat 0.8 0.027 0.00055 2.84 50 0.009 Pronamide 2 0.067 0.76 > 4 0.09 < 0.017 Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 >0.27 5.6 <0.059 0.003 Toxic to aquatic organisms. Terbacil 1.2 0.040 0.011 0.14 3.7 0.29 Tr ifluralin 2 0.067 0.015 5 4.5 0.01 NA = information not available or not applicable. 1 

### EEC refers to the Estimated Environmental Concentration, which that a one

- acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one

- acre field and 5% runoff from a 10

- acre field. 2 

### Aquatic EC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One

- Liner, unless Footnote 4 is indicated. 3 

### Risk Quotient is EEC/EC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 1.0 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis]. 4 

### T oxicity values obtained from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Env ironmental Report 13 1 8/5/2010 4.9 CUMUL AT IVE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

Wh ere pesticides may be used on food or feed crops, EPA sets tolerances (maximum pesticide residue levels) for the amount of the pesticide residues that can legally remain in or on foods. EPA undertakes this analysis under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Under the FFDCA, EPA must find that such tolera nces will be safe, meaning that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. This finding must be made and the appropriate tolerance established before a pesticide can be registered for use on the particular food or feed crop in question (USDA APHIS, 2009).
Another potential impact of the use of glyphosate on human health is pesticide applicator exposure related to the increased glyphosate usage. Biomonitoring of pesticide applicators

c onducted by independent investigators has shown that bodily adsorption of glyphosate as the result of routine, labeled applications of registered glyphosate

- based agricultural herbicides to crops, including to RRA, was thousands of times less than the allo wable daily intake level established for glyphosate (Acquavella et al., 2004). Given similarity in use pattern and rates, the commercialization of RRA will not significantly increase the exposure risk to pesticide applicators. Furthermore, EPA, the Europe an Commission, the WHO, and independent scientists have concluded that glyphosate is not mutagenic or carcinogenic, not a teratogen nor a reproductive toxicant, and that there is no evidence of neurotoxicity associated with glyphosate (EPA, 1993; EC, 2002; W HO, 2004; Williams et al., 2000).
Bystander exposure to glyphosate as a result of pesticide application to RRA would be negligible, since such applications would occur in an agricultural setting in relatively rural alfalfa
fi elds, not in an urban setting . A biomonitoring study found little evidence of detectable exposure to individuals on the farm who were not actively involved with or located in the immediate vicinity of application of glyphosate

- based herbicides to crops (Acquavella et al., 2004) Cons idering the similarity of the use pattern and application rates of the glyphosate products in this study compared to those registered for use on RRA and GT crops in general, bystander exposure attributed to the use of glyphosate on GT crops is expected to be negligible.

4.10 CUMUL AT IVE SOCIA L AND ECONOMIC IMPA CTS
As discussed above in Sec. 3.15, the potential for gene flow from RRA seed acreage to conventional or organic alfalfa could have an adverse economic impact on conventional or organic growers who expect to receive a premium for their crops in markets that demand non

-

## Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 132 8/5/2010 RRA products. The partial deregulation measures proposed in Alternative 2, including isolation distances associated with seed production, are specifically designed to render the risk of any

s uch impacts de minimis. Moreover, the reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow
fr om one forage production field to another. Those producing organ ic or non

- GE hay are likely required to maintain cultivation standards required by the NOP or identity preservation contracts that provide additional assurances against gene flow. While some of these growers may enter into contractual agreements that requ ire testing for the presence of GE plant material, those tests are simple and inexpensive. Hay failing to meet contractual standards may still be sold as commodity hay.
It is anticipated that growers who plant RRA under Alternative 2 will experience econo mic benefits related to the quantity and improved forage quality of U.S. hay supplies. Growers have reported other socio

- economic benefits, including greater flexibility, safety, ease and simplicity of weed control. APHIS has studied the potential socioec onomic impacts of fully deregulating RRA (USDA APHIS, 2009, pp. 125

- 145 & Appendix S).

4.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIA L CUMULA TI VE IMPACTS

Wh en considering the impact that the use of glyphosate could have on the human environment in conjunction with other GT crops alr eady being cultivated in the same affected environments, the facts suggest that increased use of glyphosate on acreage that shifts from conventional or organic alfalfa production to RRA production will have little, if any, additive effect. Alternatively, this new use of glyphosate has the potential to reduce risks to the affected environment from the use of other, more harmful, herbicides on these limited acreages. This is supported by the assessment of the hazards associated with glyphosate when compared to other available herbicides used for weed control in alfalfa production. Subsequently, there is no reasonably anticipated adverse cumulative impact on human health or the environment from the use of glyphosate associated specifically with Alternative 2

.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 133 8/5/2010 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Acquavella J.F., Alexander, B.H., Mandel, J.S., Gustin, C., Baker, B., Chapman, P., and Bleeke, M. 2004. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmer

- applicators and their families: Results fr om the farm family exposure study. Environ Health Perspe ct. 112:321

- 326.
Alberts, 1999. Testimony of Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Science, before the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. October 7.
Ali, 2004. Mir B. Ali. Characteristics and production costs of U .S. sugarbeet farms. USDA statistical bulletin no. 974

- 8.

Al

- Kaff et al., 1998. Al

- Kaff, N.S., S.N. Covey, M.M. Kreike, A.M. Page, R. Pinder and P.J. Dale. 1998. Transcriptional and Posttranscriptional Plant Gene Silencing in Response to a Pathogen. Sc ience 279: 2113

- 2115
AMA, 2000. American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I

- 00). Genetically modified food and crops. Accessed on June 22, 2010 at: http://www.ama

assn.org/ama/no

- index/about

- ama/13595.shtml
AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies). 2009. Operational Procedures, Crop Standards and Service Programs Publication, Crop Certification Standards for Alfalfa. Associat ion of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, 1601 52nd Ave., Ste 1, Moline, IL 61265.
Arnett, W.H. 2002. Alfalfa pollinators. Report prepared by Dr. Harold Arnett, Professor of Entomology (Emeritus), University of Nevada, for Forage Genetics International. (Copies available on request.)
Bagavathiannan, M. V., R.H. Gulden and R.C. Van Acker. 2010. Occurrence of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) populations along roadsides in southern Manitoba, Canada and their potential role in intraspecific gene flow. Transgen ic Res. (on

- line). DOI 10.1007/s11248

- 010

- 9425

- 2.
Beckie, H.J., 2006. Herbicide

- resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technology, 20.
Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., and Grey, P. 2004. “Environmental and Human Health Impacts o f Growing Genetically Modified Herbicide

- Tolerant Sugar Beet: a Life

- Cycle Assessment.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 2(4):273

- 278
Bennett, R.M., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U., & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioF orum, 7(3), 96

- 100. Available on the World Wi de W eb: http://www.agbioforum.org

. Bonnette, 2004. Richard E. Bonnette, FDA. Biotechnology consultation note to the file, BNF No. 00090. Subject: Glyphosate

- toleran t sugar beet event H7

- 1. August 7. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm155775.htm

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 134 8/5/2010 Brimner, T.A., Gallivan, G.J., and Stephens on, G.R. 2005. “Influence of Herbicide

- Resistant Canola on the Environmental Impact of Weed Management.” Pest Management Science 64:441

- 456.61(1):47

- 52.
Brookes and Barfoot, 2004. Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. GM crops: the global economic environme ntal impact

– the first nine years, 1996

- 2004. AgBioForum. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15

- brookes.htm
Canevari, M., Putnam, D.H., Lanini, W.T., Long, R.F., Orloff, S.B., Reed, B.A., and Vargas, R.V. 2000. “Overse eding and Companion Cropping in Alfalfa.” Oakland: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 21594. 31 pp.
Carpenter, J., & Gianessi, L. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. Wa shington, DC: National Ce nter for Food and Agriculture Policy. Available on the Wo rld W ide W eb: http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/updatedbenefits.pdf

. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010. GM c rop database: summary of regulatory approvals. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://cera

gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=J 101%2C+J163
CEQ, 1997. Council on Environmental Quality. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nep a/ccenepa/exec.pdf
CEQ/OSTP, 2001. Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy. Case studies of environmental regulation. Accessed on July 5, 2010 at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/archives
Cerdeira and Duke, 2006. A.L. Cerdeira and S.O. Duke. The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate

– resistant crops: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality.
CFIA, 2005. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Decision Document DD2005

- 53. Det ermination of the safety of Monsanto Canada Inc.’s Roundup Ready® Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Events J101 and J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://www.inspection.gc.c a/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd0553e.shtml
Cole, 2010. Declaration of Richard Cole, PhD in support of the intervenors’ opposition to PL permanent injunction case no. 080484.
Crockett, L. (1977). Wildly Successful Plants: North American Weeds. Honolulu, HI, Un iversity of Hawaii Press.
Culpepper, A.S., and A.C. York. 1998. “Weed Management in Glyphosate

- Tolerant Cotton,” The Journal of Cotton Science, 4:174

- 185.
Deaville ER, Maddison BC. 2005. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA fr agments in the blood, tissues, and digesta of broilers. J Agric Food Chem 53:10268

– 75.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 135 8/5/2010 Edwards, W.M. “Effects of Tillage and Residue Management on Water for Crops,” Crop Residue Management to Reduce Erosion and Improve Soil Quality: Appalachia and Northeast Region. R.L . Blevins and W.C. Moldenhauer, eds., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Conservation Research Report No. 41, 1995.
Ellstrand, 2003. Norman C. Ellstrand. Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild relati ves (syntheses in ecology and evolution). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ellstrand, 2006. Norman C. Ellstrand. When crop transgenes wander in California, should we worry? California Agriculture: Vol. 60, No. 3, p. 116.
EPA, 1993. United States E nvironmental Protection Agency. “Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate.” Technical Report, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 738

- R

- 93

- 014.
EPA, 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pestici de Programs. Available information on assessing exposure from pesticides in food: a user’s guide. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- PEST/2000/July/Day

- 12/6061.pdf
EPA, 2008. Risks of Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red

- legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Pesticide Effects Determination. http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg

- fr og/glyphosate/determination.pdf
European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. [ECETOC] 2009. Technical Report, No. 106. Guidance on Id entifying Endocrine Disrupting Effects. http://www.ecetoc.org/technical

- reports
European Commission [EC]. 2002. Report for the Active Substance Glyphosate, Directive 6511/VI/99, January 21. Accessed August 4 at http://www.furs.si/law/EU/ffs/eng/annexI/direktive/RR/glyphosate.pdf

. Falck

- Zepeda, J.B. and G. Traxler. 1998. “Rent Creation and Distribution from Trans genic Cotton in the U.S.” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, AL. Prepared for the symposium entitled “Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Research Impacts,” NC

- 208 and CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico, Mar. 5

- 7
, 1998.
FAO/WHO. 1991. Report from a joint Consultation: Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Processed by Biotechnology. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization.
FDA, 1992. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Statement of policy

– foods derived from new plant varieties. Guidance to industry for foods derived from new plant varieties. FDA Federal Register, Volume 57

– 1992, 22984

- 23005, Friday, May 29, 1992, Notices. Accessed on June 27, 201 0 at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocume nts/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 136 8/5/2010 FDA, 2004. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biotechnology note to the file. BNF No. 000084: glyphosate

- tolerant alfalfa events J101 a nd J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm155620.htm

. FDA, 2010. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. List of Completed Co nsultations on Bioengineered Foods. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnNavigation.cfm?rpt=bioListing

Fernandez

- Cornejo, J., and C. Klotz

- Ingram. 1998. “Economic, Environmental, and Policy Impacts of Using Geneti cally Engineered Crops for Pest Management.” Selected paper presented at the 1998 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association meetings. Ithaca, NY, June 22

- 23, 1998.

Fernandez

- Cornejo, J., C. Klotz

- Ingram, and S. Jans. 1999. “Farm

- Le vel Effects of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.A.” Proceedings of NE

- 165 Conference, Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. W illiam H. Lesser, ed., Wa shington, DC, June 24

- 25, 1999.

Fernandex

- Cornejo, J., C. Klotz

- Ingram, and S. Jans. 2002. “Farm

- Level Effect of Adopting Herbicide

- Tolerant Soybeans in the U.S.A.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, April 2002.

Fernandez

- Cornejo, J. 2006. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI), Chapt er 3.3: “Biotechnology and Agriculture.” USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/Chapter3/3.3/

. Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Al falfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28

- 30, 2010.
Flachowsky G, Aulrich K, Böhme H, Daenicke R. 2001. The use of genetically modified organisms (GM Os) in animal nutrition. Surveys Anim Nutr 29:45

– 79.
Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K. 2005. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Archiv Anim Nutr 59:1

– 40.
Futuyma, 1998. Douglas J. Futuyma. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinaue r Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Gathmann, A. and T. Tscharntke. 2002. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Animal Ecol. 71:75

- 764.
Georghiou, G.P. and C.E. Taylor, 1986. Factors influencing the evolution of weed resistance. In Pesticide resist ance: strategies and tactics for management. National Academy Press.
Gianessi, L.P. and J.E. Carpenter. 1999. Agricultural Biotechnology: Insect Control Benefits, National Center For Food And Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC, July 1999. http://www.bio.org/food&ag/ncfap.htm

.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 137 8/5/2010 Gianessi, L. and Reigner, N. 2006. “Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Protection Production: 2002

- Wi th Comparison to 1992 & 1997

– Fungicides and Herbicides.” Report, Cro p Life Foundation, Washington, D.C. “Insecticides & Other Pesticides.” Technical report, Crop Life Foundation, Crop Protection Research Institute. http://www.croplifefoundation.org/Documents/PUD/NPUD%202002/Fung%20&%20Herb %202002%20Data%20Report.pdf

. Gibson VI, J.W., D. Laughlin, R.G. Lutrell, D. Parker, J. Reed, and A. Harris. 1997. “Comparison of Costs and Returns Associated wi th Heliothis Resistant Bt Cotton to Non

Resistant Varieties,” Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 1997.
Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35

- 120.
GMO Safety, 2010a. Glossary. Accessed on June 27, 2010 at: http://www.gmo

safety.eu/glossary.html
Gressel, 2005. J. Gressel, editor. Crop ferality and volunteerism. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Gunsolus, 2002. J.L. Gunsolus, University of Minnesota. Herbicide resistant weeds. WW

06077. Reviewed 2008. Accessed on July 26, 2010 at: http://mn4h.net/distribution/cropsystems/DC6077.html#Figure 1.
Hammon, B., C. Rinderle, and M. Franklin. 2006. Pollen movement from alfalfa seed production fi elds.Available on

- line: http://www.colostate.http://mn4h.net/distribution/cropsystems/DC6077.html#Figure 1.
Harrison et al., 1996. Harrison, L., M. Bailey, M. Naylor, J. Ream, B. Hammond, D. Nida, B. Burnette, T. Nickson, T. Mitsky, M. Taylor, R. Fuchs and S. Padgette. 1996. The expressed protein in glyphosate

- tolerant soybean, 5

- enolpyruvylshikimate

- 3

- phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is r apidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. American Institute of Nutrition, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 728

- 740.
Health Canada, 2005. Novel food information. Glyphosate tolerant alfalfa events J101 and J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 a t: http://cera

- gmc.org/docs/decdocs/06

- 304

- 007.pdf

. Heap, 2010. The International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Online. Accessed on June 22, 2010 at: www.weedscience.com.

Hendrick son and Price, 2004. C. Hendrickson and W.D. Price, FDA. Biotechnology consultation note to the file, BNF No. 00084. Subject: Glyphosate

- tolerant (Roundup Ready ) Alfalfa Event J101 and Event J163. December 8, 2004.
High Plains Midwest Ag Journal 2008. Yellow

- fl owering Alfalfa Topic of June 26 Field Day, High Plains Midwest Ag Journal. http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jun08/jun23/Yellowfloweringalfalfatopi

. Hileman et al., 2002. Ronald E. Hileman, Andre Silvanovich, Richard E. Goodman, Elena A. Rice, Gyula Holleschak, James D. Atwood, and Susan L. Hefle. Bioinformation m ethods

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 138 8/5/2010 for Allergenicity assessment using a comprehensive allergen database. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 2002; 128: 280

- 291.
Holm, L., Pancho, J.V., Herbarger, J.P., and Plucknett, D.L. 1979. A geographical atlas of world weeds. Jo hn W iley and Sons, New York.
Holm, L., Pancho, J.V., Herbarger, J.P., and Plucknett, D.L. 1991. A geographical atlas of world weeds. Kreiger Publ. Co., Malabar, FL.
Honegger J.L., Mortensen, S.R., and Carr, K.H.. 2008. Overview of the Analysis of Possib le Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with Use of Glyphosate

containing Herbicides in Alfalfa Production. Monsanto Study Number RPN_2007_228.
HRAC (Herbicide Resistance Action Committee). 2009. Website. http://www.hracglobal.com

. Honegger JL, Mortensen SR, Carr KH. 2008. Overview of the Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with Use of Glyphosate

- containing Herbicides in Alfalfa Production. Monsanto Study Num ber RPN

- 2007

- 228.
IM/NRC, 2004. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended effects of genetically engineered foods on human health. National Academies Press.
Japanese Biosafety Clearinghouse. Ministry of Environment. Outline of the biological diversity risk assessment report: Type I use approval for J101. Outline of the biological diversity risk assessment report: Type I use approval for J163. Outline of the biological diversity risk assessment report: Type I use approval for the cross J101 X J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://cera

- gmc.org/static/cropdb/511_JP.html
Jasieniuk, M., A.L. Brule

- Babel, and I.N. Morrison, 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Science 44.
Johnson, S.R., Strom, S., and Grillo, K. 2008. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology

- Der ived Crops Planted in 2006.” Technical report, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/docum ents/Quantification%20of%20the%20Impacts%20on%20US %20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf

. Jonas DA, Elmadfa I, Engel KH, Heller KJ, Kozianowski G, Konig A, Muller D, Narbonne JF, Wa ckernagel W, Kleiner J. 2001. Safety considerations of DNA in food. Ann N utr Metab 45:235

– 54.
Kendrick, D.L., T.A. Pester, M.J. Horak, G.J. Rogan, and T.E. Nickson. 2005. Biogeographic survey of feral alfalfa populations in the U.S. during 2001 and 2002 as a component of an environmental risk assessment of Roundup Ready alfalfa . In 2005 Agronomy abstracts. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, W I.
Kleter, G.A., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A.S., Harris, C.A., Katayama, A., Kuiper, H.A., Racke, K.D., Rubin, B., Shevah, Y., Stephenson, G.R., Tanaka, K., Unsworth, J., W auchope, R.D., and Wong, S. 2007. “Altered Pesticide Use on

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 139 8/5/2010 Transgenic Crops and the Associated General Impact from an Environmental Perspective.” Pest Management Science 63:1107

- 1115.
Kniss, 2010a. Declaration of Andrew Kniss in support of the inter venors’ opposition to motion for permanent injunction case no. 080484.
Kovach, A.J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. “A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides.” New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin’, NYS Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 139. 8 pp. Annually updated. www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

. Lajmanovich R, Lorenzatti E, Maitre MI, Enrique S, Peltzer P. (20 03) Comparative acute toxicity of the commercial herbicides glyphosate to neotropical tadpoles Scinax nasicus (Anura : Hylidae). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 12(4): 364

- 367.
Lemaux, 2008. Peggy Lemaux, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, Univ ersity of California, Berkeley. Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (part I). Annu. Rev. Plan. Biol. 59:771

- 812.
Long, R., S. Orloff, R. Meyer, K. Klonsky, and P. Livingston. 2007. Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Organic Alfalfa Hay. University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, California. Accessed 25 June 2008 at http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/alfalfaorg2007.pdf.
Lundqvist, 2009. Eight years of Scandinavian barley mutation genetics and bre eding. In Induced plant mutations in the genomics era, FAO, Rome, 2009.
Malik, J., Barry, G., and Kishore, G. 1989. The Herbicide Glyphosate. BioFactors. 2:17

- 25.
Mallory

- Smith and Zapiola, 2008. Carol Mallory

- Smith and Maria Zapiola, Oregon State University, Crop and Soil Science. Review: gene flow from glyphosate

- resistant crops.
Mallory

- Smith, C. & Zapiola, M. 2008. Gene flow from GT crops. Pest Management Science. 64(4) pp. 428

- 440.
Marra, M., G. Carlson, and B. Hubbell. 1998. “Economic Impacts of the First Crop Biotechnologies.” http://www.ag.econ.ncsu.edu/faculty/marra/firstcrop/imp001.gif

. Massey, 2002. Raymond Massey, crop economist, University of Mis souri. Identify preserved crops. File A4

- 53. Accessed on June 30, 2010 at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a4

- 53.html
Maxwell, B.D. and A.M. Mortimer, 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. In Herbicide resistance in plants: biology and biochemistry. Powles, S.B. and J.A.M. Holtrum, eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL.
McBride, W.D., and N. Brooks. “Survey Evidence on Producer Use and Costs of Genetically Modified Seed,” Agribusiness 16(1):6

- 20. 2000.
McCaslin, 2007. Declaration of Mark McCaslin, PhD in support of the intervenors’ opposition to PL permanent injunction case no. 01075.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 140 8/5/2010 McDonald et al., 2003. Sandra K. McDonald, Lindsay Hofsteen, and Lisa Downey, Colorado State University. Crop profile for sugar beets in Colorado. Accessed on May 30, 2010 at: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropp rofiles/ListCropProfiles.cfm?typeorg=crop&USDARegion =National%20Site

. Medlin, C.R. and S.D. Siegelin, 2001. Weed management in alfalfa stands. Purdue University Department of Botany. WS

- 11

- W.

Mi ller, M., 2005. Organic dairy profile. Iowa State Univer sity Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.
http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/livestock/dairy/organicdairyprofile.htm
Monsanto, 2010a. Technology Use Guide (TUG). The Source for Monsanto’s Portfolio of Technology Product, Stewardship Requirements and G uidelines for Use. Available at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/technology_use_guid e.pdf
Muenscher, W. C. 1980. Weeds. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. 586 pp.
Mortensen SR, Carr KH, Honegger JL. 2008. Tier I Endangered Species Assessment for Agricultural Use of Glyphosate and Glyphosate

- containing Herbicides. Monsanto Study Number RPN

- 2007

- 227.

Mortens on, M. C.; Schuman, G. E. & Ingram, L. J. (2004), Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands Interseeded with Yellow

- Flowering Alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp. falcata), Environmental Management 33, S475

- S481.
NA, 2010. National Academies, Accessed on July 27, 20 10 at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/
NAFA, 2008a. National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA). Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production. Online. Accessed on July 27, 2010 at: http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSBMPForRRA.pdf
NAFA, 2008b. Coexistence for Alfalfa Hay Export Markets (June 2008), available at http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSExportHay.pdf

. NAFA, 2008c. Coexistence for Alfalfa Seed Export Markets (June 2008), available at http://www.alf alfa.org/pdf/CSExportSeed.pdf

. NAFA, 2008d. Coexistence for Organic Alfalfa Seed & Hay Markets (June 2008), available at http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSOrganic.pdf

. NAFA, 2009. National Alfalfa & F orage Alliance 2008

- 09 Annual Report (Coexistence Strategy Implementation). Available on

- line: http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/annualreport0809.pdf
NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association), 2005. Retailers, consumers hungry for organic beef.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 141 8/5/2010 http//www.beefusa.org/newsretailersconsumershungryfororganicbeef10813.aspx.

NCW SS (2005) Interactive Encyclopedia of North American Weeds Version 3.0. Southern We ed Science Society, in collaboration w ith the North Central Weed Science Society http://www.thundersnow.com/pdfdocs/weedlistv3com.pdf http://www.thunders now.com/pdfdocs/pamphlet30ncwss.pdf
Neve, P. 2008. Similation modeling to understand the evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in weeds. Pest Management Science. 64: 392

- 401.

Non

- GMO Project, 2010. Non

- GMO project standard. Accessed on J une 16, 2010 at: http://www.nongmoproject.org/common/non

- gmo
- project

- standard/ngp

- standard

- v6

- 2nd

comment

- period

- 2/.
NRC, 1986. National Research Council of the National Academies. Committee on strategies for the management of pesticide resistant pest p opulations. Pesticide resistance: strategies and tactics for management. National Academies Press.
NRC, 1989. National Research Council of the National Academies. Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decision. National Academie s Press.
NRC, 2000. National Research Council of the National Academies. Genetically modified pest

protected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
NRC, 2002. National Research Council. Committee on environmental im pacts associated with commercialization of transgenic plants board on agricultural resources, division on life and earth sciences. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academies Press.
NRC, 2008. Nati onal Research Council. Planning committee for the workshop on research to improve the evaluation of genetically engineered organisms on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitats. National Academies Press.
NRC, 2010. National Research Council of the National Academies. The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National academies press.
OECD, 2003b. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2003. Considerations for the safety assessment of animal feedstuffs derived from genetically modified plants. ENV/JM/MONO. 2003.11. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co

operation and Development. 21, 2010 at: http://w ww.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Injunction_20070312.pdf
Orloff, S., D.H. Putnam, M. Canevari and W.T. Lanini, 2009. Avoiding Weed Shifts and Weed Resistance in Roundup Ready Alfalfa Systems, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural R esources Publication 8362, available at http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/

- files/pdf/avoidingWeedShifts_RR.pdf

. OSTP, 1986. US Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. 51 FR 23302, June 26.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 142 8/5/2010 Owen and Zelaya, 2005. Micheal DK Owen and Ian A Zelaya, Iowa State University. Herbicide

- resistant crops and weeds resistant to herbicides. In Pest Management Science 61(3): 301

– 311.
Putnam, D. 2005. “Market Sensitivity and Methods to Ensure Tolerance of Biotech and Non

Biotech Alfalfa Production Systems.” Proceedings, 35th California Alfalfa & Forage
Putnam, D. 2006. “Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems Involvi ng Genetically Engineered Alfalfa.” Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series, Publication 8193. Technical report, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, available at http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8193.pdf

. Putnam, D., 2007, Is it Possible for Genetically

- Engineered (GE) and Non

- GE Alfalfa to Coexist? In: Proceedings, 37th California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium, Monterey, CA, 17

- 19 December, 2007. UC Coop erative Extension, Agronomy Research and Information Center, Plant Sciences Department. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu.
ReJesus, R.M., J.K. Greene, M.D. Hamming, and C.E. Curtis. 1997. “Economic Analysis of Insect Management Strategies for Transgenic Bt C otton Production in South Carolina.” Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference (1):247

- 251.
Relyea, R.A. 2005. “The Lethal Impact of Roundup on Aquatic and Terrestrial Amphibians.” Ecological Applications 1 5(4):1118

- 1124.Ross, Merrill A. and Daniel J. Childs. undated. Department of Plant Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University. Herbicide mode of action summary. Accessed on June 2, 2010 at: http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ws/ws

- 23

- w.html

. Rogan, G. and Fitzpatrick, S. 2004. “Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Roundup Ready Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Events J101 and J163.” Technical report, Monsanto. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_11001p.pdf
Ronald and Adamchak, 2008. Pamela C. Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak. Tomorrow’s table: organic farming, genetics, and the future of food. Oxf ord University Press.
Ronald and Fouche, 2006. Pamela C. Ronald, Professor of Plant Pathology and Chair, Plant Genomics Program, University of California, Davis; and Benny Fouche, University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor. Genetic engin eering and organic production systems. Agricultural biotechnology in California series. Publication 8188.
Sadava, 2008. David Sadava. Understanding genetics: DNA, genes, and their real

- world applications. The Teaching Company.
St. Amand, P.C., D.Z. Sk inner and R.N. Peaden. 2000. Risk of alfalfa transgene dissemination and scale

- dependent effects. Theor. Appl. Genet. 101: 107

- 114.
Sankula, S. 2006. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology

- Derived Crops Planted in 2005.” Technical Report, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/documents/Quantification%20of%20th e%20Impacts%20on%20US %20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf

.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 143 8/5/2010 Sandretto, C. 1997. “Crop Residue Management,” Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, AH

- 712, pp. 155

- 174. USDA, Economic Research Service.
Sankula, S. 2006. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology

- Derived Crops Planted in 2005.” Technical Report, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/documents/Quantification%20of%20the%20Impacts%20on%20US %20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf

. Smith, 2010b. Cindy Smith, APHIS Administrator. Declaration of Cindy J. Smith in US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Center for Food Safety, et al., v. Tom Vilsack et al. May 7, 2010.
Sonnewald, 2010. Professor Uwe Sonnewald, University of Erlangen

- Nuremberg. Interview, reported April 19, GMO Safety. Accessed o n June 27, 2010 at: http://www.gmo

safety.eu/news/1146.impact

- transgenes

- basically

- limited

- immediate

- function.html
Stark Jr., C.R. 1997. “Economics of Transgenic Cotton: Some Indications Based on Georgia Producers.” Beltwide Cotton Conference Proceeding s, Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference.
Sundermeier and Reeder, undated. Alan Sundermeier and Randall Reeder. Fall strip tillage systems: an introduction. Ohio State University Fact Sheet. Access on June 28, 2010 at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/a ex
- fact/0507.html
Symposium, Visalia, CA 12

- 14 December, 2005. UC Cooperative Extension, AgronomyResearch and Extension Center. Plant Sciences Department, University of California, Davis.
Tarantino, 2004. Laura Tarantino, PhD, Director, Office of Food Add itive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. FDA. Letter to Glen Roger, Monsanto Company, dated December 10, 2004; Subject: Biotechnology consultation agency response letter BNF No. 00084. Accessed on July 14, 2010 at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=bioListing&id=17
Teuber, 2007. United States District Court for the Northern District of Calif ornia, San Francisco Division. Case No. C 06

- 01075 CRB. Direct Testimony of Larry R. Teuber Regarding Permanent Relief. April 27.
Teuber, L.R.; & Fitzpatrick, S. 2007. Assessment of Alfalfa Gene Flow Between Fields Planed for Hay Production and Adjacent Fields Used for Seed Production. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/specialsites/alf_seed/2007/Handout.pdf
Tranel, 2003. Patrick J. Tranel, University of Illinois. Weeds and weed contro l strategies, Chapter 17 in Plants, genes and crop biotechnology, second edition. Maarten J. Chrispeels and David E. Sadava, editors. Jones and Bartlett publishers.
UC IPM, 2006, University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa. Accessed on July 26, 2010, at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r1700999.html#REFERENCE

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 144 8/5/2010 UC IPM, 2009, University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa. Accessed on July 26, 2010, at: http://ucipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r1701411.html
USDA 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Understanding seed certification and seed labels. Accessed at http://www.plant

materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/lapmctn9030.pdf
USDA 2010b. Invasive and noxious weeds database. Accessed on June 14, 2010 at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/invasiveOne?startChar=B
USDA Advisory Committee, 2008. What issues should USDA consider regarding coexistence among diverse agricultural systems in a dynamic, evolving, and complex marketplace? A consensus response prepared by the USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture. Accessed on June 30, 2010 at: http://www.usda.gov/documents/Coex_final.doc
USDA APHIS, 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Hea lth Inspection Service. USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. [www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html] Accessed January 15, 2008. Includes determination of non

- regulated status for glyphosate tolerant alfalfa events J101 and J163 (OECD unique identifier J101

- Mon

- 00101

- 8 and J163

- Mon

- 00163

- 7) as Appendix D; determination signed by Cindy Smith, Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, May 14, 2005. Accessed on July 23, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda .gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html
USDA APHIS, 2007a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inpsection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Administrative Order. July 12, 2007. Accessed on July 21, 2010 at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/RRA_A4_final.pdf
USDA APHIS, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Glyphosate

- Tolerant Alfalfa Event s J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status. November 2009.
USDA APHIS, 2010a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Petitions of nonregulated status granted or pending by APHIS as of May 12, 2010. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html
USDA ERS 2010b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Field grains database: custom query results. Accessed o n August 2, 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FeedGrains/CustomQuery/Default.aspx#ResultsPanel

. USDA ERS 2010c. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Field grains data: yearbook tables. Table 11: Hay: average prices received by farmers. Accessed on August 2, 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FeedGrains/Ta ble.asp?t=11
USDA ERS, 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. updated on July 1, 2009. Accessed on June 22, 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/

.

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 145 8/5/2010 USDA FS. (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2003. “Glyphosate

– Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report.” Technical report, USDA, Forest Service. http://teamarundo.org/control_manage/docs/04a03_glyphosate.pdf

. USDA NASS 2010b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Accessed on June 29, 2010 at: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#42911035

- 7FB5

- 37FA

AAC1

- 47F474ABB0A2

. USDA NASS, 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acrea ge. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000
USDA NASS, 2009b. U.S. Department of Agriculture , National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural statistics 2008. Accessed on June 28, 2010 at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2008/index.asp
USDA NASS, 2009c. Alfalfa Hay (Dry) harvested Acres by County for Selected States. Accessed on July 20, 2010 at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops _County/pdf/AL

- HA09

- RGBChor.pdf
USDA NASS, 2010c. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. Accessed on July 5, 2010 at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000
USDA NASS. 2007. Agricultural Statistics 2006, Chapter VI

– Statistics of Hay, Seeds, and Minor Field Crops. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture S tatistics Service, Washington, D.C.
USDC, 2007. USDA APHIS Roundup Ready Alfalfa Documents. Accessed on July 19, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/alfalfa_docu ments.shtml
USDC, 2007a. US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechno logy/downloads/alfalfa/gealfalfa_Feb07_courtdecisi on.pdf
USDC, 2007b. US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 at: http://www.aphis .usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Injunction_20070312.pdf
USDC, 2007c US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs /pdf/Alfalfa_Ruling_20070503.pdf
USDC, 2007d US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfa lf a_Amended_Order_20070723.pdf
Uva, R.H., J.C. Neal and J.M. Ditomaso. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. 397 pp.
Van Deynze, A., D.V., Putnam, S.D.H., Orloff, S., Lanini, M. T., and Canevari, R. Vargas, K. Hembree , S. Mueller, and L. Teuber.M., 2004. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa: An Emerging Technology.” Publication 8153, Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series. Technical

## Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 146 8/5/2010 Report, University of California, Davis, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. http ://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8153.pdf .
Van Deynze, A.E., S. Fitzpatrick, B. Hammon, M.H. McCaslin, D.H. Putnam, L.R. Teuber and D.J. Undersander. 2008. Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitigation, and Potential Impact on Production. Special Publication 28. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), Ames, Iowa. 30 pp.

Wa ggener, R. 2007. Yellow

- flowering Alfalfa Can Improve Native Rangelands, University of Wy oming. http://uw admnweb.uwyo.edu/U Wa g/news/Yellow

- Alfalfa.asp

.
Wh itney, E.D. and J.E. Duffus. 1986. Compendium of Beet Diseases and Insects. pp. 26

- 32.

Wh itson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee and R. Parker. 1992. Weeds of the West. The W estern Society of Weed Science, Newark, CA. 630 pp.

Wi ebe and Gollehon, 2006 Wiebe, K. and Gollehon, N. 2006. “Information Bulletin 16 Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators 2006 Edition.” Technical report, USDA.
Williams, G.M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. 2000. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate for humans. Pp. 117

- 165. In Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 31.

Wo odward, W.T.W., Putnam, D.H. and Reisen, P. 2006 . A solution for Roundup Ready Alfalfa in sensitive export markets (Poster) Proceedings of the Washington State Hay Growers Association Annual Conference, January 18

- 19, 2006, Kennewick, WA

Wo rld Health Organization (WHO). 2004. Pesticides in food

– 200 4. Report of the Joint Meeting of the and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Rome, Italy, 20

- 29 September 2004. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 178. World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Accessed on June 17, 2010 at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/JMPR/20 08_JMPR_Evaluations.pdf

. WS SA 1998. Weed Science Society of America. Weed Technology Volume 12, Issue 4 (October

- December ) 1998. p. 789. Accessed August 4, 2010 at: http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/Resistance/definitions.htm

WS SA, 2010b. Weed Society of America. WSSA supports NRC findings on weed control. Accessed on June 16, 2010 at: http://www.wssa.net/
York et al., 2004. A .C. York, A.M. Steward, P.R. Vidrine and A.S. Culpepper. Control of voluntgeer glyphosate

- resistant cotton in glyphosate

- resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 18:532.
Young, 2006. Bryan G. Young. Changes in Herbicide Use Patterns and Production Practices Re sulting from Glyphosate

- Resistant Crops. Weed Tech. 20:301

- 307.

# Appendix

A

Monsanto Technology and Stewardship Agreement

(MT/SA) and Accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG)ALALALALAZAZAZAZARARARARCACACACACOCOCOCOCTCTCTCTDEDEDEDEFLFLFLFLGAGAGAGAIDIDIDIDILILILILILILILILILININININIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAKSKSKSKSKYKYKYKYLALALALAMEMEMEMEMDMDMDMDMAMAMAMAMIMIMIMIMNMNMNMNMSMSMSMSMOMOMOMOMTMTMTMTNENENENENVNVNVNVNHNHNHNHNJNJNJNJNMNYNYNYNYNCNCNCNCNDNDNDNDOHOHOHOHOKOKOKOKORORORORPAPAPAPARIRIRIRISCSCSCSCSDSDSDSDTNTNTNTNTXTXTXTXUTUTUTUTVTVTVTVTVAVAVAVAWAWAWAWAWVWVWVWVWIWIWIWIWYWYWYWYSeed Production LevelsTier 1 (27)Tier 2 (12)Tier 3 (11)AKAKAKAKHIHIHIHIAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaHawaiiHawaiiHawaiiSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataAPACHE APACHE APACHE

COCHISE COCHISE COCHISE COCONINO COCONINO COCONINO

GILA GILA GILA

GRAHAM GREENLEE GREENLEE GREENLEE LA PAZ LA PAZ LA PAZ

MARICOPA MARICOPA MARICOPA MOHAVE MOHAVE MOHAVE

NAVAJO NAVAJO NAVAJO

PIMA PIMA PIMA PINAL PINAL PINAL

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ YAVAPAI YAVAPAI YAVAPAI

YUMA YUMA YUMA



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALPINE ALPINE ALPINE AMADOR AMADOR AMADOR BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CALAVERAS CALAVERAS CALAVERAS COLUSA COLUSA COLUSA

CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE DEL NORTE DEL NORTE

EL DORADO EL DORADO EL DORADO

FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO GLENN GLENN GLENN HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

IMPERIAL IMPERIAL IMPERIAL INYO INYO INYO

KERN KERN KERN KINGS KINGS KINGS LAKE LAKE LAKE LASSEN LASSEN LASSEN

LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES MADERA MADERA MADERA MARIN MARIN MARIN

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MENDOCINO MENDOCINO

MERCED MERCED MERCED MODOC MODOC MODOC

MONO MONO MONO

MONTEREY MONTEREY MONTEREY NAPA NAPA NAPA NEVADA NEVADA NEVADA

ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE PLACER PLACER PLACER PLUMAS PLUMAS PLUMAS

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO

SAN BENITO SAN BENITO SAN BENITO

SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN

SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SHASTA SHASTA

SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA SISKIYOU SISKIYOU SISKIYOU

SOLANO SOLANO SOLANO SONOMA SONOMA SONOMA

STANISLAUS STANISLAUS STANISLAUS SUTTER SUTTER SUTTER TEHAMA TEHAMA TEHAMA TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY

TULARE TULARE TULARE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE

VENTURA VENTURA VENTURA YOLO YOLO YOLO YUBA YUBA YUBA



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported No Seed or Hay Production Reported 

# California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionADA ADA ADA ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

BANNOCK BANNOCK BANNOCK

BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BENEWAH BENEWAH BENEWAH

BINGHAM BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE BOISE BOISE BOISE BONNER BONNER BONNER

BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMAS CAMAS CAMAS CANYON CANYON CANYON

CARIBOU CARIBOU CARIBOU

CASSIA CASSIA CASSIA CLARK CLARK CLARK CLEARWATER CLEARWATER CLEARWATER

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

ELMORE ELMORE ELMORE

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

GEM

GOODING GOODING GOODING IDAHO IDAHO IDAHO

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JEROME JEROME JEROME KOOTENAI KOOTENAI KOOTENAI

LATAH LATAH LATAH

LEMHI LEMHI LEMHI LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN MADISON MADISON MADISON

MINIDOKA MINIDOKA MINIDOKA NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE

ONEIDA ONEIDA ONEIDA OWYHEE OWYHEE OWYHEE PAYETTE PAYETTE PAYETTE

POWER POWER POWER SHOSHONE SHOSHONE SHOSHONE

TETON TETON TETON

TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionBEAVERHEADBEAVERHEADBEAVERHEADBIG HORNBIG HORNBIG HORNBLAINEBLAINEBLAINEBROADWATERBROADWATERBROADWATERCARBONCARBONCARBONCARTERCARTERCARTERCASCADECASCADECASCADECHOUTEAUCHOUTEAUCHOUTEAUCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDANIELSDANIELSDANIELSDAWSONDAWSONDAWSONDEER LODGEDEER LODGEDEER LODGEFALLONFALLONFALLONFERGUSFERGUSFERGUSFLATHEADFLATHEADFLATHEADGALLATINGALLATINGALLATINGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGLACIERGLACIERGLACIERGOLDEN VALLEYGOLDEN VALLEYGOLDEN VALLEYGRANITEGRANITEGRANITEHILLHILLHILLJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJUDITH BASINJUDITH BASINJUDITH BASINLAKELAKELAKELEWIS AND CLARKLEWIS AND CLARKLEWIS AND CLARKLIBERTYLIBERTYLIBERTYLINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNMADISONMADISONMADISONMCCONEMCCONEMCCONEMEAGHERMEAGHERMEAGHERMINERALMINERALMINERALMISSOULAMISSOULAMISSOULAMUSSELSHELLMUSSELSHELLMUSSELSHELLPARKPARKPARKPETROLEUMPHILLIPSPHILLIPSPHILLIPSPONDERAPONDERAPONDERAPOWDER RIVERPOWDER RIVERPOWDER RIVERPOWELLPOWELLPOWELLPRAIRIEPRAIRIEPRAIRIERAVALLIRAVALLIRAVALLIRICHLANDRICHLANDRICHLANDROOSEVELTROOSEVELTROOSEVELTROSEBUDROSEBUDROSEBUDSANDERSSANDERSSANDERSSHERIDANSHERIDANSHERIDANSILVER BOWSTILLWATERSTILLWATERSTILLWATERSWEET GRASSSWEET GRASSSWEET GRASSTETONTETONTETONTOOLETOOLETOOLETREASURETREASURETREASUREVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYWHEATLANDWHEATLANDWHEATLANDWIBAUXWIBAUXWIBAUXYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionCARSON CITY CARSON CITY CARSON CITY CHURCHILL CHURCHILL CHURCHILL

CLARK CLARK CLARK DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS ELKO ELKO ELKO

ESMERALDA ESMERALDA ESMERALDA EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

LANDER LANDER LANDER

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN LYON LYON LYON

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL

NYE NYE NYE PERSHING PERSHING PERSHING

STOREY STOREY STOREY WASHOE WASHOE WASHOE

WHITE PINE WHITE PINE WHITE PINE



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionBAKERBAKERBAKERBENTONBENTONBENTONCLACKAMASCLACKAMASCLACKAMASCLATSOPCLATSOPCLATSOPCOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOOSCOOSCOOSCROOKCROOKCROOKCURRYCURRYCURRYDESCHUTESDESCHUTESDESCHUTESDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASGILLIAMGRANTGRANTGRANTHARNEYHARNEYHARNEYHOOD RIVERHOOD RIVERHOOD RIVERJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJOSEPHINEJOSEPHINEJOSEPHINEKLAMATHKLAMATHKLAMATHLAKELAKELAKELANELANELANELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLINNLINNLINNMALHEURMALHEURMALHEURMARIONMARIONMARIONMORROWMULTNOMAHMULTNOMAHMULTNOMAHPOLKPOLKPOLKSHERMANSHERMANSHERMANTILLAMOOKTILLAMOOKTILLAMOOKUMATILLAUMATILLAUMATILLAUNIONUNIONUNIONWALLOWAWALLOWAWALLOWAWASCOWASCOWASCOWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWHEELERWHEELERWHEELERYAMHILLYAMHILLYAMHILLAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production ReportedOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionHUGHESHUGHESHUGHESSTANLEYSTANLEYSTANLEYZIEBACHZIEBACHZIEBACHAURORAAURORAAURORABEADLEBEADLEBEADLEBENNETTBENNETTBENNETTBON HOMMEBON HOMMEBON HOMMEBROOKINGSBROOKINGSBROOKINGSBROWNBROWNBROWNBRULEBRULEBRULEBUFFALOBUFFALOBUFFALOBUTTEBUTTEBUTTECAMPBELLCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCHARLES MIXCHARLES MIXCHARLES MIXCLARKCLARKCLARKCLAYCLAYCLAYCODINGTONCODINGTONCODINGTONCORSONCORSONCORSONCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDAVISONDAVISONDAVISONDAYDAYDAYDEUELDEUELDEUELDEWEYDEWEYDEWEYDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASEDMUNDSEDMUNDSEDMUNDSFALL RIVERFALL RIVERFALL RIVERFAULKFAULKFAULKGRANTGRANTGRANTGREGORYGREGORYGREGORYHAAKONHAAKONHAAKONHAMLINHAMLINHAMLINHANDHANDHANDHANSONHANSONHANSONHARDINGHARDINGHARDINGHUTCHINSONHUTCHINSONHUTCHINSONHYDEHYDEHYDEJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJERAULDJERAULDJERAULDJONESJONESJONESKINGSBURYKINGSBURYKINGSBURYLAKELAKELAKELAWRENCELAWRENCELAWRENCELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLYMANLYMANLYMANMARSHALLMARSHALLMARSHALLMCCOOKMCCOOKMCCOOKMCPHERSONMCPHERSONMCPHERSONMEADEMEADEMEADEMELLETTEMELLETTEMELLETTEMINERMINERMINERMINNEHAHAMINNEHAHAMINNEHAHAMOODYMOODYMOODYPENNINGTONPENNINGTONPENNINGTONPERKINSPERKINSPERKINSPOTTERPOTTERPOTTERROBERTSROBERTSROBERTSSANBORNSANBORNSANBORNSHANNONSHANNONSHANNONSPINKSPINKSPINKSULLYSULLYSULLYTODDTODDTODDTRIPPTRIPPTRIPPTURNERTURNERTURNERUNIONUNIONUNIONWALWORTHWALWORTHWALWORTHYANKTONYANKTONYANKTONAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionSAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN DAGGETT DAGGETT DAGGETT

SANPETE SANPETE SANPETE UTAH UTAH UTAH WASATCH WASATCH WASATCH

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER CACHE CACHE CACHE

CARBON CARBON CARBON DAVIS DAVIS DAVIS

DUCHESNE DUCHESNE DUCHESNE

EMERY EMERY EMERY

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD GRAND GRAND GRAND

IRON IRON IRON JUAB JUAB JUAB

KANE KANE KANE MILLARD MILLARD MILLARD MORGAN MORGAN MORGAN

PIUTE PIUTE PIUTE RICH RICH RICH

SALT LAKE SALT LAKE SALT LAKE

SEVIER SEVIER SEVIER SUMMIT SUMMIT SUMMIT

TOOELE TOOELE TOOELE

UINTAH UINTAH UINTAH

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE WEBER WEBER WEBER



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionADAMSADAMSADAMSASOTINASOTINASOTINBENTONBENTONBENTONCHELANCHELANCHELANCLALLAMCLARKCLARKCLARKCOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOWLITZCOWLITZCOWLITZDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASFERRYFERRYFERRYFRANKLINFRANKLINFRANKLINGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGRANTGRANTGRANTGRAYS HARBORGRAYS HARBORGRAYS HARBORJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONKINGKINGKINGKITSAPKITSAPKITSAPKITTITASKITTITASKITTITASKLICKITATKLICKITATKLICKITATLEWISLEWISLEWISLINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNMASONMASONMASONOKANOGANOKANOGANOKANOGANPACIFICPACIFICPACIFICPEND OREILLEPEND OREILLEPEND OREILLEPIERCEPIERCEPIERCESAN JUANSAN JUANSAN JUANSKAGITSKAGITSKAGITSKAMANIASKAMANIASKAMANIASNOHOMISHSNOHOMISHSNOHOMISHSPOKANESPOKANESPOKANESTEVENSSTEVENSSTEVENSTHURSTONTHURSTONTHURSTONWAHKIAKUMWALLA WALLAWALLA WALLAWALLA WALLAWHATCOMWHITMANWHITMANWHITMANYAKIMAYAKIMAYAKIMAAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production ReportedWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWASHAKIEWASHAKIEWASHAKIEALBANYALBANYALBANYBIG HORNBIG HORNBIG HORNCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCARBONCARBONCARBONCONVERSECONVERSECONVERSECROOKCROOKCROOKFREMONTFREMONTFREMONTGOSHENGOSHENGOSHENHOT SPRINGSHOT SPRINGSHOT SPRINGSJOHNSONJOHNSONJOHNSONLARAMIELARAMIELARAMIELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNNATRONANATRONANATRONANIOBRARANIOBRARANIOBRARAPARKPARKPARKPLATTEPLATTEPLATTESHERIDANSHERIDANSHERIDANSUBLETTESUBLETTESUBLETTESWEETWATERSWEETWATERSWEETWATERTETONTETONTETONUINTAUINTAUINTAWESTONWESTONWESTONAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionCLEVELANDCLEVELANDCLEVELANDPOTTAWATOMIEPOTTAWATOMIEPOTTAWATOMIEADAIRADAIRADAIRALFALFAALFALFAALFALFAATOKAATOKAATOKABEAVERBEAVERBEAVERBECKHAMBLAINEBLAINEBLAINEBRYANBRYANBRYANCADDOCADDOCADDOCANADIANCANADIANCANADIANCARTERCARTERCARTERCHEROKEECHEROKEECHEROKEECHOCTAWCIMARRONCIMARRONCIMARRONCOALCOALCOALCOMANCHECOMANCHECOMANCHECOTTONCOTTONCOTTONCRAIGCRAIGCRAIGCREEKCREEKCREEKCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDELAWAREDELAWAREDELAWAREDEWEYDEWEYDEWEYELLISELLISELLISGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGARVINGARVINGARVINGRADYGRADYGRADYGRANTGRANTGRANTGREERGREERGREERHARMONHARMONHARMONHARPERHARPERHARPERHASKELLHASKELLHASKELLHUGHESHUGHESHUGHESJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJOHNSTONJOHNSTONJOHNSTONKAYKAYKAYKINGFISHERKINGFISHERKINGFISHERKIOWAKIOWAKIOWALATIMERLATIMERLATIMERLE FLORELE FLORELE FLORELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLOGANLOGANLOGANLOVELOVELOVEMAJORMAJORMAJORMARSHALLMARSHALLMARSHALLMAYESMAYESMAYESMCCLAINMCCLAINMCCLAINMCCURTAINMCCURTAINMCCURTAINMCINTOSHMCINTOSHMCINTOSHMURRAYMURRAYMURRAYMUSKOGEEMUSKOGEEMUSKOGEENOBLENOBLENOBLENOWATANOWATANOWATAOKFUSKEEOKFUSKEEOKFUSKEEOKLAHOMAOKLAHOMAOKLAHOMAOKMULGEEOKMULGEEOKMULGEEOSAGEOSAGEOSAGEOTTAWAOTTAWAOTTAWAPAWNEEPAWNEEPAWNEEPAYNEPAYNEPAYNEPITTSBURGPITTSBURGPITTSBURGPONTOTOCPONTOTOCPONTOTOCPUSHMATAHAPUSHMATAHAPUSHMATAHAROGER MILLSROGER MILLSROGER MILLSROGERSROGERSROGERSSEMINOLESEMINOLESEMINOLESEQUOYAHSEQUOYAHSEQUOYAHSTEPHENSSTEPHENSSTEPHENSTEXASTEXASTEXASTILLMANTILLMANTILLMANTULSATULSATULSAWAGONERWAGONERWAGONERWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHITAWASHITAWASHITAWOODSWOODSWOODSWOODWARDWOODWARDWOODWARDAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed Production

# A ppendix

C

N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® Alfalfa Seed Production

# Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

# Alfalfa Seed Production 

# I nt r oduct i on The genetic supplier members (hereinafter called the “Companies”) of National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA) have agreed to jointly adopt, as a minimum, the following Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) Seed Production in the United States. Compliance is required under a separate and binding agreement of the Companies to each other in this commitment. Forage Genetics International (FGI) is the exclusive licensed seed producer of RRA and will require all RRA seed production sub-licensees (herein after called the “RRA Seed Contractor(s)”) to become a party to this binding agreement. It is not the intent of this document to establish best management practices for the production of alfalfa seed for GE sensitive markets. Changes to this document will require a recommendation from the Companies and approval by the NAFA Board of Directors. 

# R oundu p 

# R e a dy 

# T rai t 

# S tew ar d s h ip i n 

# S eed 

# P r oduct i on This document establishes RRA commercial seed production policies that exceed industry standards for Certified alfalfa seed production. Specifically, RRA seed production practices will meet or exceed Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) standards for the seed production of Foundation Class alfalfa seed production. All RRA seed growers must complete RRA seed stewardship training and agree to follow the RRA seed production policies as described herein and as required by RRA seed production contracts. 

# RRA S eed 

# C ont ra cto rs ’ 

# R e sp on sibi l i t i e s Isolation. The RRA Seed Contractor will insure that the isolation distance between the new planting and any established conventional seed production meets the following pollinator-specific isolation requirements for RRA seed production. Note the pollinator designated applies to normal pollinating bees introduced or locally cultured for alfalfa seed production in the area. If more than one pollinator species is introduced or locally cultured, the longer minimum distance applies. Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet Alkali bee – 1 mile Honey bee – 3 miles Every year the Companies will collectively sample conventional seed lots, test for adventitious presence of the Roundup Ready trait, and use isolation distance from RRA seed production to monitor the effectiveness of current isolation standards. The Companies, along with three AOSCA representatives of state crop improvement associations or their designees, will analyze the data and make recommendations for changes to required isolation distances, if appropriate.
Reporting. The RRA Seed Contractor shall report GPS coordinates of all established and planned RRA seed production fields to local state seed certification officials as early as possible, but no later than two weeks prior to planting. State officials will confirm minimum isolation and establish a state pinning map for RRA seed production. The RRA Seed Contractor must authorize state officials to report to any seed grower or seed company, on request, the isolation distance between a planned new conventional alfalfa seed field and the nearest RRA seed field. GM-trait sensitive conventional or organic alfalfa seed producers can then use this third party service to assist them in planning their field locations to meet their company’s isolation or field crop history goals or the certification agent may use the data to certify a stated isolation distance. The RRA Seed Contractor shall also notify local state seed certification officials, and officials shall confirm when a RRA seed production field is terminated.

G E -free seed production zones. The RRA Seed Contractor will limit RRA seed production contracts to the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The RRA Seed Contractor will also respect any GE-free alfalfa seed production zone designated as such by a consensus of local seed growers. Recognition and designation of such zones will be based on the requirements of each state. It is envisioned that the local state seed certification agency would play an active role in administering programs of this nature. •

•

•

•

•

• 

# N AFA C oexistence D ocument Adopted January 2008

## 2 N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## C ooperation. All seed companies are encouraged to communicate and work together individually to manage joint seed quality issues and concerns.
RRA seed grower training. The RRA Seed Contractor will require RRA stewardship training for all new RRA seed growers. The RRA seed grower will confirm having received a copy of the NAFA Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production (see Appendix 2).
RRA seed grower contracts. The RRA Seed Contractor shall stipulate which bee species can be introduced for pollination and incorporate key grower stewardship requirements (as listed below) in RRA seed production contracts.

L icense. The RRA Seed Contractor will have an FGI license for RRA seed production, including reporting requirements for acreage planted and seed harvested, by variety. 

# RRA S eed 

# G r owe rs ’ 

# R e sp on sibi l i t i e s

Monsanto T echnology/Stewardship Agreement (M T A). RRA Seed Grower must sign an MTA and are bound by the terms outlined in the current Monsanto Technology Use Guide (TUG). The MTA is a limited-use license for Monsanto traits, and renews automatically each year. The TUG is updated annually.

O bserve patent rights. All RRA stock seed and harvested seed contains patent-protected, Roundup Ready trait, therefore: All seed transfer/sale is exclusive between RRA Seed Grower and the RRA Seed Contractor; no seed may be sold by RRA Seed Grower to other parties. RRA Seed Grower may not save seed for any purpose as per MTA.

O bserve all federal, state and local regulations. It is the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to know and obey current federal, state and local regulations affecting their agricultural practices. Some examples are as follows: Federal L aws and Regulations: Pesticide use labels and restrictions; U.S. Patent Rights; Plant Variety Protection; Federal Seed Act. Phytosanitary laws governing import or export of seeds and pollinators. State L aws and Regulations: Noxious or prohibited weeds, pathogens or insects; Pesticide use labels and restrictions L ocal L aws and Regulations: Pesticide use notifications (field posting); County restrictions or prohibitions on the use of biotechnology, as applicable.

Bees. RRA Seed Grower will manage pollinators to minimize pollen flow to conventional/other variety fields. Only contract-specified bee species can be introduced for pollination supporting RRA seed production. There shall be no bee domicile movement from RRA •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• to conventional alfalfa seed fields until pollination is finished for the year. Once bees are in RRA seed fields, they may only be moved among RRA fields. It is the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to inform their pollinator contractors or bee keepers of this requirement. RRA Seed Grower will locate domiciles to maximize domicile distance to other varieties, to the extent reasonable and appropriate to each field. The main pollinator bee species will be stated on each RRA Seed Grower Contract. Isolation requirements are specific to the main pollinator species. If honeybees are not the contract-stipulated pollinator species, the RRA Seed Grower will discourage neighbors from keeping honeybee hives in proximity to RRA seed production. In cases where this cannot be avoided, RRA Seed Grower is required to report the incident to the RRA Seed Contractor.

Isolation. RRA Seed Grower will assist RRA Seed Contractor with field location planning prior to planting, isolation zone monitoring after planting and facilitate crop improvement inspections as requested. The pollinator species-specific isolation policy is as follows (minimum distance to preexisting conventional seed at planting of RRA): Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet Alkali bee – 1 mile Honey bee – 3 miles Once the RRA seed field is planted, State Certification officials will visit to confirm minimum isolation distances are in place. RRA Seed Grower must cooperate with this verification process. If the RRA Seed Grower learns that new alfalfa seed field(s) are planned or planted in close proximity the RRA seed field, RRA Seed Grower will communicate this information to RRA Seed Contractor. Management strategies for maintaining RRA seed quality (varietal/ trait purity) can then be implemented by the RRA Seed Contractor.

T rait purity. RRA stock seed is guaranteed by the provider to have ≥90% RR plants; up to 10% non-RR plants, or “nulls”, are normal and expected based on the breeding and genetics of the trait. Growers must apply sufficient Roundup ® 

## herbicide to kill the <10% nulls prior to 9 inches of growth in the establishment year. Apply only registered (labeled) Roundup brand herbicides to the field.

W eeds and in-crop volunteers. Manage weeds and volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., conventional practices supplemented with Roundup agricultural herbicide formulations applied according to the label for alfalfa seed production). Integrated weed control strategies: Minimize risk of weed shifts or development of tolerant weeds. Growers are required to use integrated weed control methods. Maintain variety true to type: RRA seed fields need non-Roundup practices to control in-crop Roundup Ready alfalfa volunteers sprouting from prior year

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

### N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## 3 seed crop in carry-over fields. This is consistent with conventional alfalfa seed production practices for certified quality seeds.

Stand take-out. The RRA seed field must be destroyed at the expiration/ termination of the seed contract. Takeout must be completed prior to first flower in the subsequent year so that seed certification inspectors can verify stand termination. Stand termination and volunteer management measures must be sufficient to allow seed certification inspectors to validate stand take-out and to render the alfalfa stand worthless for any unlicensed purpose or use (e.g., unlicensed seed, forage, hay or pasture production purpose). RRA stand take-out date and method must be reported to the RRA Seed Contractor and stand destruction verified by local crop improvement using the RRA stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the information (see Appendix). Plan to use a subsequent crop that allows management of alfalfa and RRA alfalfa volunteers should they occur.
Sanitation requirements. Manage equipment to minimize seed mixture potential between different varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use dedicated equipment for planting and harvesting RRA seed production, when possible. Zero tolerance for seed admixture is not feasible under commercial production conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps to assure that equipment is clean prior to and after use in the Roundup Ready seed field. Examples: Planter inspection, clean-down before and after use; Combine inspection, clean-down thoroughly before and after use; RRA seed bins may only be used for RRA seed; maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; inspect bins before use; Handle all like-trait varieties together; plan for harvest sequence of fields to maintain best separation of varieties by trait type; Clean all seed handling equipment to avoid mixing RRA and conventional seed; Return unused, unopened stock seed to the contracting seed company for credit; maintain in clean storage areas; When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in advance, that the field to be harvested is RRA.

C ommunication. Immediately communicate questions or concerns to the RRA Seed Contractor or to FGI.

Field records. RRA Seed Grower must record and communicate the following to RRA Seed Contractor: Planting date; actual acres planted; seed rate/acre; stock seed received/returned; Accurate field address with latitude/longitude (decimal degrees) and local field map; Roundup herbicide application date(s), rate(s), formulation used; •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Seed box/bin numbers used for harvest; Stand destruct date and methods used using the RRA stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the information (see Appendix). 

# RRA S eed 

# C ontractors’ 

# P roduction 

# S taff 

# R esponsibilities Working in close partnership with seed growers; Complying with binding agreements with local crop improvement organizations: RRA Seed Contractor will report each field location, planting date and stand take-out date to local crop improvement organizations; Coating RRA stock seed purple for easy identification by seed growers; Recommending changes to this document, should the need arise. Roundup Ready ® 

## and Roundup ® 

## are registered trademarks of Monsanto. •

•

•

•

•

•

•



## “Best Management Practices

for Roundup Ready ® 

## Alfalfa Seed Production”

Coexistence Strategy Forum Steering Committee

T

om Braun , Midwest Forage Association Reedsville, WI
Jim C ane, USDA-ARS, Logan Bee Lab Logan, UT
C huck D eatherage , CA Alfalfa Seed Prod. Rsrch. Brd. San Joaquin, CA Paul Frey, Cal/West Seeds Woodland, CA
C hep Gauntt , Washington Hay Growers Association Kennewick, WA
Frederick Kirschenmann , Leopold Ctr. for Sustainable Agric., Ames, IA
Mark Mc C aslin , Forage Genetics International St. Paul, MN
D ave Miller , Pioneer Hi-Bred International Arlington, WI
D an Putnam , University of California Davis, CA
D an U ndersander , University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Allen Van D eynze, University of California, Seed Biotechnology Ctr, Davis,CA
Mark Wagoner , Washington Alfalfa Seed Commission Touchet, WA


### Editor

Beth N elson , President, NAFA, St. Paul, MN 

### Published by NAFA
N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance 4630 Churchill St. #1 • St. Paul, MN 55126 www.alfalfa-forage.org

## 4 N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

# A pp end i x 1

### N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## 5 

# A pp end i x 2

# A ppendix

F

S elected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement form Farmers Using Roundup Ready

Alfalfa

## APHIS-2007-0044-0320

Name: Daniel M. Luckwaldt Address: Woodville, WI
Submitter's Representative: Daniel Luckwaldt Organization: Luckwaldt Agriculture Inc.
I am a dairy farmer who planted 100 acres of rou nd-up ready alfalfa when it was available. I seemed to work very good. Additionally it allo wed me to plant my alfalfa in a no-till manner (which leaves a smaller carbon footprint) and not worry about weeds. Seemed like it was the best alfalfa I ever grew and was very easy/simple to manage.

APHIS-2007-0044-0516.1

Name: Gene Robben Address: Dixon, CA
Organization: Robben Ranch
Robben Ranch is a large farming operation located near the town of Dixon, California. This farming operation normally raises approximately 4, 000 acres of alfalfa each year. The hay that is produced on this ranch supplies several dairy and cattle operations in the southern part of the Sacramento valley and the northern part of the San Joaquin valley. Each fall this ranch tries to replace older stands of alfalfa and replaces fields of alfalfa that are of poor quality. These fall plantings can range from 800 to 1,000 acres. Fall planting of alfalfa has been the most successful for Robben Ranch.
Three years ago, Robben Ranch planted 600 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa to see how this new variety would produce and what type of quality it would have. This fall was the third year of production for the new Roundup Ready variety. It was found from production records that the Roundup Read Alfalfa equaled other varieties in production per acre, and had outstanding tests in T.D.N. (total digestible nutrients). The other factor that was a concern was how resistant was this alfalfa to Roundup Herbicide. After a few Roundup sprays, there was no apparent loss of plants or stands over the three year period.
Many farmers know that with our standard varieties of alfalfa, w can spend form $50 - $100 per acre annually for weed control. With Roundup Ready Alfalfa, expenses range from $10 - $30 per acre per year, which is a considerable savings over standard weed control. It was also noticeable that in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa fields almost 100% weed control was obtained.
Robben Ranch hopes the government will release Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed for the 2010 planting season. If so, this ranch will probable plant 1,000 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa this coming fall season. I feel that the government regulators fully analyze the benefit that Roundup Ready Alfalfa has for the American farmer and the environment they will release the seed for sale.
From an environmental standpoint, one can only hope that the regulators will find that with the release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed, several million pounds of current herbicides will be greatly decrease or eliminated. Velpar, Sincor, Direx, Gramoxone, and Treflan TR-10 granules

# -2- are just a few examples of these current herbicides being used. With the reduction of these herbicides, our streams and waterways will be much safer for our environment and us.

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-0813

Name: Kurt Robert Brink Address: Richview, IL
Biotechnology-based breeding methods safely enhance and extend a crop’s yield potential, feed value, adaptation, pest tolerance, environmental benefits, crop management and utilization options, as other biotech crops have dem onstrated. The Roundup Ready alfalfa system provides dependable, cost-effective control of broadleaf and grassy weeds for the life of the alfalfa stand. I have had a plot of RR Alfalfa now for at least 3 years and it has proven to be a major plus for our Dairy business in that we usually are able to maintain at least a RFV of 155 or better in each of 5 cuttings/year. With the ability to control weed growth, it is one of, if not the best stand I have among the 4 fields I do have in alfalfa. It is imperative in these tough economic times t hat we are not deprived of whatever advantage we can glean from the seed technology this va riety provides.Roundup Ready alfalfa can lead to more consistent, high-quality, weed-free hay, resulting in an increased supply of dairy-quality hay. The forage produced from Roundup Ready alfalf a is comparable in composition, nutritional value and safety to that produced from conventional alfalfa varieties, resulting in proven feed safety. Dairy farmers can benefit from increased milk production per ton of feed and fewer animals sickened by weeds in their feed. I urge the USDA to consider biotechnology’s long history of success and allow alfalfa growers to join other American farmers in the benefits and new opportunities offered by biotechnology.

Kurt Brink B&B Dairy Farms Illinois

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-1094 Comment from John Maddox

Name: John Maddox Address: Burrell, CA
I am a dairyman and alfalfa grower. I currently grow 2,400acs of conventional alfalfa and I would like to have the ability to purchase and grow Roundup Ready alfalfa. I did grow 40acs of Roundup Ready alfalfa when it was first avial able and was extremely satisfied with it. The Roundup Ready system is extremely effective in controlling some of our toughest weeds that we have in our hay fields especially nutgrass which is a big problem for us to control with the currently avialable products that we have. It eliminates summer grasses in the alfalfa which gives me greater flexibility in my winter spray applications. I firmly believe that if I am able to grow R oundup Ready alfalfa, I am going to be able to better protect my workers because they will not have to be exposed to the more toxic herbicides that I currently have to use to control my weeds. This is a huge issue for us in California especially

# -3- with the many worker safety regulations that we put in place to provide a safe work environment for our employees. For our dairy, it is of high importance to us to provide the highest quality feed that we can find for our milk cows so that we can maximize their production of high quality milk and butterfat. By growing Roundup Ready alfalfa, I found that my alfalfa was higher in quality and tonnage per acre due to the fact that it was much cleaner than my conventional fields. My 40acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa was the first field that ev er produced 10 tons/acre for the year. We have never been able to do that with our conventional varities. This higher production per acre allows me to use less alfalfa acres to provide me the sa me amount of hay that I currently get from my conventional fields. This frees up some ground for me to rotate into other crops.

Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing seasons for herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a specific area (Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely relied on only one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide-resistant weed population to develop (Kniss, 2010a, p4; Beckie 2006, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This is a reason why crop monitoring and follow up by University and industry weed scientists in cases of suspected resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs. 

# The practice of repeated, in-season mo wing combined with alfalfa's perennial nature reduce the likelihood of glyphosate-re sistant weed development in >99 percent of the crop's acreage. The ability for alfalf a to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to follow alfalfa in the rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the annual grasses of corn and various cereal cr ops. These subsequently rotated crops can tolerate a spectrum of herbicides substantia lly different from the herbicides used in alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and herbicides, both of which are highly recommended for reducing the probability of developing herbicide resistant weeds (Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009, P. 109).

# A ppendix

G

C hart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA Under Partial Deregulation, Prepared by Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 2010)Partial Deregulation Projected Adoption of Roundup Ready Alfalfa05,00010,00015,00020,00025,0000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Year Following Partial Deregulation

Acreage (1,000's)US Alfalfa Acreage (2007)Cumulative RRANorth CentralIntermountainPlainsEast CentralPacfic N.W.South WestSouth EastROUNDUP READY ALFALFA SATISFACTION STUDY(Study #091 113 1108)Prepared By:MARKET PROBE, INC.St. Louis, MissouriDecember 2008This document contains information that is Company confidential. In addition, this report may contain material nonpublic or“inside,” information within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Trading in securities of the Company while in possessionof inside information, or disclosure of such information to others who then trade, is a violation of federal law which may result incriminal and civil liability and is also a violation of the Monsanto Global Standards of Business Conduct. Do not share thisinformation with anyone outside of Monsanto Company, or with any employee who does not need the information in order toperform his or her job. If you share the information with an employee who needs to have the information in order to perform hisor her job, you must make that employee aware of these confidentiality requirements. -- Source: MONSANTO[ Page 2]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Satisfaction StudyStudy #(091 113 1108) DEC 081811341714251820133747131081527204624232817209287991023100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100Overall (n=201)East (n=122)West (n=79)Percent of Respondents7.00 or more6.00 to 6.995.00 to 5.99Less than 5.00Don't knowQ.8b In terms of tons per acre, what was the annual yield on [Established Roundup Ready alfalfa acres][Established non-RoundupReady alfalfa acres]?Yields On Established Roundup Ready Acres Compared ToEstablished Or Past Non-Roundup Ready Acres[Base=All respondents]Tons per acre:Roundup Ready AlfalfaNon-Roundup Ready AlfalfaAverageNon-RoundupReady(tons/acre)AverageRoundupReady(tons/acre)5.04.66.25.95.56.8

# A ppendix

I

P utnam, D. and D. Un dersander. 2009. Understanding R oundup Ready Alfalfa (Full Version). Originally Posted on the Hay and Forage

Grower Magazine We b S ite at: h ttp://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_re ady_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009)

## Appendix I Putnam and Undersander (2009)

Pages 1-3 of Appendix I:
Magazine Version
Holin, F. 2009. Roundup Ready Reality? (Partial version of Putnam and Undersander. 2009. Available at: http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D (August 3, 2010)

Pages 4-6 of Appendix I: Full Version
Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (full version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web site at: http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009).

### January 1, 2009 

# Roundup Ready Reality?
by Fae Holin



## Is emotion trumping science in debates over the rele ase of Roundup Ready alfalfa? Two forage specialists think so. They've put together a paper debunking what they call misinformation presented at annual conferences around the country.

"We want to dispel some of those myths," says Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin extension forage specialist. Undersander and his colleague at University of California-Davis, Dan Putnam, offer "a scientific perspective" for alfalfa growers and industry representa tives as they evaluate Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa.

RR alfalfa, legalized in 2005, lost that designation with a court injunction just about two years later. A USDA environmental impact statem ent, required by the cour t, is nearing completion with a public comment period expected in the next month. A decision on whether t he transgenic crop should again be made available to growers is expected to follow several months later.

In the meantime, the forage specialists want to make sure the alfalfa industry is well-informed. They've offered Hay & Forage Grower a preview of their paper, which will be published in its entirety at hayandforage.com [http://hayandforage.com/under standing_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf].

Here's a synopsis of their concerns:

1. Once you release this gene, you can't call it back.

Undersander and Putnam respond that the gene is alr eady out - more than 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have been planted for hay and a limited amount planted for seed. The real question, they write, is whether growers can continue to plant conventional seed. Their answer: Only non-RR alfalfa is being planted now and, if concerned about contamination, growers can test it for the RR gene.

2. Won't contamination from neighboring fields r esult in all seed being Roundup Ready eventually?

"No," they emphasize, citing that seed production me thods and isolation distances will keep the presence of the gene "at a very low level for seed" and that "non- genetically enhanced (non-G E) seed will always be available."

3. Won't my neighbor's RR hayfields contamin ate my non-GE alfalfa hay production through pollen and gene flow? 

# Pa g e 1 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D

## "No," they write. "There is an extremely low probabil ity of gene flow among hayfields. For this to happen, fields must flower at the same time, pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind), plants must remain in fields four to six weeks after fl owering for viable seed production, seed must shatter to fall to the ground and establish on the soil surface, se edlings must overcome autotoxicity to germinate and seedlings must overcome competition from existing plants."

Pollen can only be carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees don't like to pollinate alfalfa, they add. The specialists discuss the difficulties of the seed ge rminating, concluding that if growers take care to plant non-RR seed, it's unlikely their hayfiel ds will become contaminated with the gene.

4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?
"Yes. The greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production," Undersander and Putnam write. They cite ways the seed industry has agreed to k eep track of transgenic seed and reasons why it's in the companies' best interests to do so.

5. Won't feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?
"Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any ar ea where seed production occurs, whether GE or not. Feral alfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of West ern states because little oc curs elsewhere," write the forage specialists. They discuss reasons why feral seed would have low production and suggest that removing plants from ditc hes and roads is a good idea to prevent gene flow.

6. Won't hard seed be a source of contamination?
"Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for mo re than one year in moist soils, much less after years of hay production," they respond. "T o guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State seed certification standards already require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a two-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed."

7. Much of the hay in my area is cut late wit h mature seed - we have good farmers but weather and equipment problems force late cuttings.

"This occasionally happens," Putnam and Undersander ans wer. "However, plants must remain in a field for four to six weeks after pollination of flowers for viable s eed to form and longer for seed to shatter." Delayed cutting will cause little to no seed production in ha yfields, and hay harvest should remove seed.

The last seven concerns have to do with 8) growing organic hay; 9) export markets; 10) whether seed companies bias the research on RR alfalfa; 11) possible effects it may have on insects, animals or the environment; 12) whether farmers can or will fo llow stewardship protocols; 13) weed resistance to Roundup and 14) whether the risks of RR alfalfa outweigh the rewards.
"There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology," Under-sander and Putnam contend. RR alfalfa will control tough weeds, they write. "Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future.

"It is important that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting thos e farmers who don't wish to adopt it." 

# Pa g e 2 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D2009 Penton Media. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved. You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.5479? icx_id=hayandforage.com/hay/farming_roundup_ready_reality_0101/index.html into any web browser. Penton Media, Inc and Hay & Forage Grower logos are registered trademarks of Penton Media, Inc . The iCopyright logo is a registered t rademark of iCopyright, Inc. 

# Pa g e 3 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D

# Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa
A number of concerns have been raised about the release of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa , the first biotech trait in alfalfa

. Many of these concerns have been fueled by mi sinformation. In this article, we provide a scientific perspective on these concerns that we hope will inform

. Concern 1. Once you release this gene – you can’t call it back.
Over 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa ha ve been plan ted for hay over the past 2 to 3 years, with a limited amount planted for seed

. T he real question is whether you can continue to plant conventional alfalfa seed and the answer is a resounding ‘yes’ – all of the seed currently for sale is ‘conventional’ – and you only need to test it (or ask the seed company to test it) with inexpensive test strips to make sure it does not contain the gene if you don’t want it. Conventional alfalfa seed will continue to be available after R oundup R eady alfalfa is released. Concern 2. Won’t contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready, eventually? No. Seed production methods and isolation distances currently recommended by seed companies should keep adventitious presence at a very low level for seed. A gene will increase in a population only i f the new gene gives the plant an advantage over other plants and the conditions creat ing the advantage are consistently present

. Conversely, if plants are grown in an environment where the gene provides no advantage, the gene is more likely to remain in the population at very low levels or to be lost from the population . The formulas for computing these changes in gene frequency can be found in most books on population or quantitative genetics, such as Falconer and MacKay, 1996, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Press. Thus non

- GE seed will alway s be available.

Concern 3

. Won’t my neighbor’s R oundup R eady hay fields contaminat e my conventional or organic alfalfa hay production through pollen and gene flow?

No. T here is almost zero probability of gene flow among hay fields. For this to happen all the following must occur

**•** fields must flower at same time

. :

**•** pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind)

.
**•** plants must remain in field 4 to 6 weeks after flowering for viable seed production

.
**•** seed must shatter, to fall to ground and establish on soil surface

.
**•** seedlings must to overcome autotoxicity to germinate

.
**•** seedlings must to overcome co mpetition from existing plants. Pollen moves among alfalfa plants only when carried by pollinators such as bees, and h oney bees do not like to po llinate alfalfa. Alfalfa seed takes many weeks after flowering to mature sufficiently to germinate and longer to shatter and fall onto the ground. Alfalfa seed does not readily spread. Alfalfa does not germinate well on the soil surface. Germination wil l be further reduced by alfalfa autotoxicity from existing planting in the hay field (this is why interseeding alfalfa to thicken a stand generally fails). Germinating seeds must compete with established plants for water, nutrients and sunlight. Data has shown that interseeded plants generally die during the first growing season . Thus, if a grower takes care to plant conventional seed, it is very unlikely that the Roundup Ready gene will move to their hay fields. (See Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitig ation, and Potential Impact on Production , Special Publication of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) at http://www.cast

science.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=157 )

Concern 4 . Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?
Yes, t he greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production. The seed industry ha s agreed on a field tagging technique in areas where RR alfalfa seed will be grown so neighbors and other seed companies will know where RR seed is being produced. The bulk of non

- GE alfalfa seed is produced for export by seed production companies and it is in their own best interest to control seed production to continue to produce the 30% or more of total production as non

- biotech for export. This large volume of export seed production is much more significant economically than the less than 1 % of total seed market for organic seed production. However, concerns and methodology for exported seed will allow organic seed production indefinitely, making

non

- biotech seed available to growers

. Concern 5

. Won’t feral a lfalfa be a source of contamina tion?

## Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether biotech or not . Feral a lfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere. F eral alfalfa will have low seed production for the reasons described in #3 plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed

- borne fungi when seed develops under damp conditions

. S ee d from any feral plants will contribute to new plants only over a very short term , but removing feral alfalfa from ditches and roads is a good idea for organic and export growers to prevent gene flow

. If feral alfalfa is deemed a problem in a specific are a, then it must be controlled as off types of alfalfa and other problem weeds are currently controlled using cultural and other herbicide methods

. Concern 6

. Won’t hard seed be a source of contamination?

H ard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils (Albrecht et al . 2008 Forage and Grazinglands), much less after years of hay production. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State Seed Certification Standards already require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a 2

- year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed

. Concern 7

. Much of hay in my area is cut late with mature seed – we have good farmers but weather, equip ment problems force late cuttings. Although late cuttings occasionally happen viable seed development is unlikely . However, p lant s must remain in field for 4 to 6 weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter. Delaying harvest 1 to 2 weeks due to weather, equipment problems and other issues will cause little to no seed production in hay fields (see item #3) . Furthermore, hay harvest should remove this small amount of seed so that it doesn’t become a problem.

Concern 8

. Organic producers may have difficulty growing organic hay.

No – there is no reason that organic growers can’t continue to successfully grow organic hay. In fact the presence of R oundup R eady alfalfa hay in the marketplace may increase the valu e of organic hay, for buyers who are sensitive to biotech traits. Current demand for organic hay has been high, in spite of the introduction of R oundup R eady alfalfa. There are a number of growers who currently grow both R oundup R eady alfalfa and organic hay on the same farm without difficulty. Organic growers should 1) select conventional seed that is tested for the trait if their customers have set a standard of no adventitious presence , 2) take simple steps to protect their crop fr om gene flow and 3) identify hay lots after harvest. Feedstuffs c an be tested to ensure low biotech level s desired for these markets

. Organic growers currently are certified to show that their crops are not grown with pesticides or

non

- organic fertilizer s, and similar steps can be taken to show that they do not use genetically engineered crops.

Concern 9

. Couldn’t we lose our entire e xport market?

No. While e xport growers and buyers are sensitive to the presence of biotech traits in crops , they have dev eloped market

- assurance methods to demonstrate that they are marketing non

- biotech alfalfa hay, including testing to assure buyers of the non

- biotech status of hay. Japan , Taiwan, and Korea (main U.S. hay market) already use biotech corn and soybeans and ha ve accepted some RR alfalfa hay

. The European Union has approved use of certain biotech varieties of corn and soybeans in food and feedstuffs

. While significant in some growing regions in the US , exported hay represents less than 1 % of total alfalfa hay production.

Concern 10

. Isn’t the research biased by the seed companies that stand to gain most ? RR technology at has been evaluated at many universit ies . This research is independent of the concerned commercial parties. The goal is to independently test a technology for its viability and environmental safety for farmers and for the general public. These studies must be well

- designed
, accurate and can only be published only after review by anonymous individuals from other in stitutions selected for impartiality.

Concern 11

. Won’t the R oundup R eady gene in alfalfa have a negative effect on insects, diseases, other biota , or the environment? There is currently no evidence that this gene would have a negative effect on insects or animals, or the environment. The R oundup R eady gene has been thoroughly tested as other crops were released (corn, soybeans, cotton) and no impact on any other biota has been found

. N o toxicology issue s have been identified with roundup ready alfalfa fed to animals

. In the past ten years, bill ions of tons of corn, soybeans, cotton and alfalfa have been

## produced with this gene , and there ha s been no documented harm to animals, humans or wildlife. In fact the use of Roundup would replace some more toxic pesticides that have been used and found in ground water (e.g. Velpar).

Concern 1 2

. Farmers can’t/won ’ t follow stewardship protocols

. All technology requires stewardship by farmers (e.g. fertilizer use, pesticide use, irrigation) . F armers must be educated about stewardship needed and required to use appropriate stewardship for any technology. The possibility of gene flow is no different in scope than controlling pesticid e drift, fertilizer contamination from conventional farms, or for that matter, the influence of weeds from organic fields that may contaminate neighbor’s fields. Good farmers know how to do this.

Concern 1 3

. Won’t there be w eed resistance to Roundup from use of RR alfalfa ?
Weed resistance and weed shifts are issue s with all herbicides. New management programs have always resulted in shifts in weed pressure. For example, no

- till crop production has resulted in different weed problems than when crops were grown with conventional tillage. Resistance to glyphosate has occurred in row crop situations. Inclusion of alfalfa might actually slow increase of resistant populations of weeds because an additional mechanical control (frequent hay harvest) is being a dded to the weed management program. T echniques are readily available to avoid weed shifts or weed resistance using the Roundup Ready system as detailed in a recent article (Orloff et al., 2008).

Concern 14

. Risk far outweighs reward/Do we really need this? Are we willing to take this kind of gamble? There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology that has clear potential benefits to farmers and the environment. Currently, many animals are killed or hurt each year by weedy alfalfa fields – something that R oundup R eady technology could help address. Also, some of the conventional herbicides have been found in well
water – something not true with glyphosate. Additionally, R oundup R eady alfalf a would allow farmers to control tough weeds for which no other good method of control exists (e.g. winter annuals suc h as chickweed, wild garlic, wild onion , perennials such as dandelion

. difficult weeds such as nutsedge and dodder, and poisonous weeds such as groundsel ).
Further, if this breeding metho dology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future. Some traits currently under development
, such as a low lignin gene that could mean higher forage yield and fewer cuttings for farmers, a leaf retention gene t o retain leaves through harvesting process, genes which confer pest resistance, or gene s to increase bypass protein
, would never be available to farmers. It is not reasonable or fair to farmers to restrict a technology from use in alfalfa that is availabl e in other crops.

A series of articles on biotech alfalfa and coexistence of GE and conventional alfalfa seed and hay production is available at http://www.alfalfa.org/CSCoexistenceDocs.html 

## and http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+producing/biotech.aspx



## . In summary, it is essential that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don’t wish to adapt it. Research has proceeded with great deliberation in the development of Roundup Ready a lfalfa and shown it to be a good tool that will benefit many farmers. Like every other tool, it must be used with care and appropriate stewardship. It is important for the industry to manage for coexistence of biotech

- adapting and non biotech

- adapting fa rmers, since other important biotech traits are being developed which might be much greater benefit to farmers and society. Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California Dr. Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

# A ppendix

J

R oundup Ready Alfalfa Harvestin g Study, Study #3482 (Originally Submitted as Appendix 6 to Monsanto/FGI Comme nts to Draft EIS)Prepared By:St. Louis, MissouriJanuary 2010ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA HARVESTING STUDYStudy #3482[ Page 2 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client PrivilegeMETHODOLOGYTo achieve the objectives set forthis study, a total of 200 telephone interviews were completedwith growers who had Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in production in 2009 and/or 2010. Theinterviews were distributed regionally:West: WA/OR/ID/CA/NV/UT/AZ .. . . . . . . . . . . . N=95East: All other states, east ofthe Rockies . . . . . . N=105Participants were screened on the following criteria:Actively involved in farmingPrimarily responsible for decisions concerning the management practices followed onalfalfa cropHad 30+ acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in production in 2009 or 2010Not, nor anyone in household, working for a farm chemical manufacturer, distributor, ordealerNot, nor anyone in household, working fora seed company, or as a farmer dealerNot, nor anyone in household, raising alfalfa seed for a seed companyA monetary honorarium was paid ($40-West and $20-East) to all participants. Interviews wereconducted between January 18thand 25th, 2010.[ Page 3 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client Privilege2010 Roundup Ready Alfalfa Penetration[Base=Respondents able to estimate]Q.D How many acres of alfalfa, including both established and newly seeded, will you have this year in 2010?Q.E And, how many, if any, of these [Q.D] acres are Roundup Ready alfalfa, and how many are conventional alfalfa?3840356260650 25 50 75 100Overall (n=199)East (n=104)West (n=95)Percent of alfalfa acresRoundup Ready alfalfa*Conventional alfalfa*To be included in this study, growers were required to have Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in 2009 and/or 2010[ Page 4 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client PrivilegePercent Of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvested At Specific Stage In 2009Q.3 In 2009, what percent of your total Roundup Ready alfalfa did you harvest:4539543337383624141610364770 25 50 75 100Overall (n=198)East (n=104)West (n=94)Aware of productionfields in area (n=8)Percent of Roundup Ready Alfalfa AcresPre-bloomAt or before 10% bloom11% to 20% bloom21% bloom or later[Base=Respondents harvesting Roundup Ready alfalfa and able to estimate]Pre-bloom/At or before10% bloom82%77%90%57%[ Page 5 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client Privilege242890 25 50 75 100Overall (n=42)East (n=27)West (n=15)AverageOf the 18% of Occasions When Harvest Occurred After 10% Bloom,What Percent Were Due To Bad Weather?Q.4b What percent of the time was your decision to harvest Roundup Readyalfalfa after 10% bloom due to bad weather?[Base=Respondents harvesting at least some Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom, and able to estimate]

# A ppendix

K

F itzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. Proceedings of the 42 nd 

# North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28

- 30, 2010

# Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence S. Fitzpatrick * 

# and G. Lowry **



# The alfalfa seed industry has recently implemented two complementary programs that together enable mutual coexistence between convent ional and Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA) seed producers. The 2010 Alfalfa Seed Stewardship Program (ASSP-2010) is an identity preserved process-based certificate offered by state seed ce rtification agencies. It was developed by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) desi gned to serve GE-trait sensitive conventional seed producers (e.g., export). In 2008, the Best Management Practices for RRA Seed Production (BMPs) was adopted by the Nationa l Alfalfa & Forage Alliance. These BMPs are required coexistence protocols that apply on ly to RRA seed-producing companies (i.e., no new requirements are imposed upon external conven tional seed producers). These market-driven, science-based programs were deve loped with the involvement of alfalfa industry stakeholders over a 5-year period (2005 to 2010) using all availa ble market and gene flow data. An array of stakeholders were involved that represented di verse segments of the alfalfa seed and hay industries: scientists, seed certifiers, breeder s, exporters, marketers, producers, growers and organic. These new programs are independent from and more stringent than AOSCA or OECD Seed Certification Programs. Forage Genetics and Pioneer Hi-Bred In ternational (the only companies producing RRA seed), have collectively reported to inspectors that in 2009 greater than 97% of their conventional seed lots were produced without de tection of the RRA trait (>500 lots tested with <0.00% RRA). If detected, AP was less than 0.5% (overall lot average <0.1%).

Seed Program No Program (e.g.,

common

seed) USDA National Organic Program Certification C ertified Seed Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) Seed AOSCA AASP2010 Identity

Preserved, Certified Seed

Market U.S. domestic conventional

(baseline) Organic forage planting U.S domestic conventional & RRA seed U.S. domestic RRA seed U.S. conventional seed for export

Purity Standard

or Objective n/a No official p urity standards; process-based requirements < 1% off types < 0.5% GE in neighboring conventional seed production Non-detect GE

Spatial isolation from other seed field n/a Customized farm p lan; not uniform mitigation standard 165 ft 900 ft to 3 mi at RRA seed field planting (pollinator specific) > 5 miles

Pro g ram conforms to: n/a USDA-AMS N ational Organic Program Federal Seed Act Industry consensus and RRA seed co. contracts AOSCA I. P. Program

Program monitored by: n/a Local Organic Certifying

Agency State Seed Certifying Agency State Seed Certifying Agency State Seed Certifying Agency

Program obli g ations fulfilled by: n/a Organic, conventional grower Seed company and seed grower RRA seed company and seed grower GE-sensitive seed company and conventional seed grower Growers using the program: Conventional only Conventional only Both, conventional and RRA All RRA, only Conventional only

* Forage Genetics International, West Salem, WI **Idaho Crop Improvement Association, Meridian, Idaho

# Appendix

A

Monsanto Technology and Stewardship Agreement

(MT/SA) and Accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG)••..,SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf,Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForaqeProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedARIZONACOCONINO04141ARIZONAGILA010ARIZONAGREENLEE0001,126196,767ARIZONALAPAZNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting60,29052451,583ARIZONAMOHAVE10,3741558,068ARIZONAPIMA1,8882319,303ARIZONASANTACRUZ020Subtotals000073,678116535,86212%ARIZONAAPACHE02001464,372ARIZONACOCHISE01019,62165142,696ARIZONAGRAHAM3046112,9601,973610ARIZONAMARICOPAYesNonewRRAforageproduction77617182,09975,394175612,404ARIZONANAVAJO0202,694487,561ARIZONAPINAL06859,87354,495175420,575ARIZONAYAVAPAI0330,0000282,981ARIZONAYUMA1,72316708,21225,789129228,082SubtotalSubtotals2,803531,893,1440179,9668271,418,67188%StateTotal2,803531,893,1440253,6449431,954,533CALIFORNIAALAMEDANoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting042,770CALIFORNIAALPINE010CALIFORNIAAMADOR1,61349,692CALIFORNIABUTTE0001,349207,782CALIFORNIACALAVERAS010CALIFORNIACOLUSA14,90049104,403CALIFORNIACONTRACOSTA3,6961522,423CALIFORNIAGLENN13,85110990,271CALIFORNIAINYO3,2731216,177CALIFORNIALAKE588347CALIFORNIALOSANGELES0007,6933059,240CAUfORNIAMARIN000CALIfoRNIAMARIPOSA000-.,----'"":0",',X'S'SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedIDAHOKOOTENAI5,36210011,974IDAHOLATAH4,156908,391IDAHOLEMHI21,47811652,354IDAHOLEWIS4,469579,744IDAHOLINCOLN23,248145104,300IDAHOMADISON15,11418358,374IDAHONEZPERCE09110,414IDAHOPOWER9,9618932,946IDAHOSHOSHONE030IDAHOTETON12,61711024,422IDAHOVALLEY1,304223,585Subtotals0000520,0894,0141,727,99246%IDAHOADA08609,01520,97246188,529IDAHOCANYON7,018315,940,84240,654867230,714IDAHOCASSIA01053,422267284,796IDAHOELMORE01038,569162167,200IDAHOFRANKLIN02033,233320110,584IDAHOGEM2337129,58810,74724143,580IDAHOGOODINGYesNonewRRAforageproduction01033,174289169,518IDAHOJEROME7075577,53242,265286233,523IDAHOMINIDOKA01029,381269168,412IDAHOONEIDA06430,15028,80217897,341IDAHOOWYHEE1,17911877,05448,409307281,034IDAHOPAYETTE4969267,46715,85029075,673IDAHOTWINFALLS2585151,50068,924596395,914IDAHOWASHINGTON130468,41829,86627087,337Subtotals10,021929,051,5660494,2684,8032,434,15554%StateTotal10,021929,051,5661,014,3578,8174,162,147MONTANACASCADENoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting65,292401116,943MONTANADANIELS19,6029526,311MONTANADEERLODGE4,1502113,459...;';,"SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported.AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-OperationsOperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedMONTANAFERGUS158.137520264.997MONTANAGARFIELD00030.92712135.604MONTANAGLACIER28.39715145.795MONTANAGOLDENVALLEY21.2076431.268MONTANAGRANITE8.7205026.982MONTANAHILL13.7969924.359MONTANAJUDITHBASIN79.911181142.981MONTANALAKE33.61837989.981MONTANALEWISANDCLARK31.02828288.048MONTANALIBERTY6.9824311.875MONTANAMADISON47.830215160.160MONTANAMEAGHER18.5835448.779MONTANAMINERAL1.332252.323MONTANAMISSOULA9.15815723.051MONTANAMUSSELSHELL00026,49910444.026MONTANAPARK00038.637205117.514MONTANAPONDERA27.04418852.042MONTANAPOWELL17.6027952.203MONTANARAVALLI15.03733352.990MONTANAROOSEVELT52.24120592.044MONTANASHERIDAN19.74912534.294MONTANASILVERBOW3.585197.060MONTANASWEETGRASS38,48413672.294MONTANATETON42.172240108.722MONTANATOOLE8.7825911.299MONTANAVALLEY00051.908257112.848MONTANAWHEATLAND22.6007033.514MONTANAWIBAUX00019.2727732.690Subtotals0000962.2824.9551.976,45651%MONTANABEAVERHEADYesNonewRRAforageproduction01042.828145141.961MONTANABIGHORN6197341.50270.177293181,466MONTANABLAINE03230.00053,439254135.988SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCoullty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcres·OperationsTonsExcludedIncludedMONTANABROADWATER01020,60811580,074MONTANACARBON0121,253,33634,96330987,750MONTANACARTER560376,00068,447185103,119MONTANACHOUTEAU01025,51914942,578MONTANACUSTER0553,92141,62419891,104MONTANADAWSON01029,73520654,018MONTANAFALLON105322,34173,05016583,380MONTANAFLATHEAD02018,78331550,486MONTANAGALLATIN01054,242372150,592MONTANAJEFFERSON02013,7478341,164MONTANALINCOLN0103,341705,873MONTANAMCCONE01020,62511133,913MONTANAPETROLEUM01026,3045349,588MONTANAPHILLIPS02040,42621182,203MONTANAPOWDERRIVER2,18717410,11268,080190121,469MONTANAPRAIRIE02014,3528828,379MONTANARICHLAND01044,72922792,452MONTANAROSEBUD7498200,10835,36716688,426MONTANASANDERS01013,68512928,181MONTANASTILLWATER01043,45922259,995MONTANATREASURE0107,2783826,923MONTANAYELLOWSTONE02041,66646298,907Subtotals4,220802,587,3200906,4744,7561,959,98949%StateTotal4,220802,587,32001,868,7569,7113,936,445NEVADACARSONCITYNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting020NEVADACLARK1,742280NEVADADOUGLAS05541,706NEVADAELKO12,0768042,599NEVADAESMERALDA12,1141358,110NEVADAEUREKA22,34049106,164NEVADALANDER23,2454492,820SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedNEVADALYON43,451139218,529NEVADAMINERAL0040NEVADANYE9,7874142,319NEVADASTOREY010NEVADAWASHOE4,13410114,842Subtotals0000128,889557617,08949%NEVADACHURCHILL1625129,00025,955294122,839NEVADAHUMBOLDT4,20663,024,79351,041101215,768NEVADALINCOLNYesNonewRRAforageproduction02011,0394753,193NEVADAPERSHING1,96041,067,30830,62574145,593NEVADAWHITEPINE02012,0565542,735Subtotals6,328194,221,1010130,716571580,12851%StateTotal632819422110125960511281197217OKLAHOMAADAIRNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting1907561OKLAHOMAATOKA524101,078OKLAHOMABEAVER3,7863420,502OKLAHOMABECKHAM---5,5277616,930OKLAHOMABLAINE6,5258920,137OKLAHOMABRYAN4,0713111,658OKLAHOMACADDO7,45611620,444OKLAHOMACANADIAN- - -14,54116546,215OKLAHOMACARTER1,339193,707OKLAHOMACHEROKEE3026670OKLAHOMACHOCTAW1,634132,996OKLAHOMACIMARRON5,3901626,933OKLAHOMACLEVELAND3,4824610,993OKLAHOMACOAL2609656OKLAHOMACOMANCHE5,3845811,161OKLAHOMACRAIG1,066212,312OKLAHOMACUSTER9,83512148,291OKLAHOMADELAWARE352181,001••,"",,"SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-OperationsOperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedOKLAHOMADEWEY3,3253913,615OKLAHOMAELLIS4,8783125,770OKLAHOMAGARFIELD7,83810824,312OKLAHOMAGARVIN---17,53513368,099OKLAHOMAGREER---4,4373914,481OKLAHOMAHARMON2,416278,171OKLAHOMAHASKELL2,4421310,935OKLAHOMAHUGHES1,166253,106OKLAHOMAJACKSON- --4,4205914,916OKLAHOMAJEFFERSON3034938OKLAHOMAJOHNSTON-2-OKLAHOMAKINGFISHER- - -12,14910239,621OKLAHOMALATIMER2903-OKLAHOMALEFLORE1,973223,165OKLAHOMALINCOLN---1,509434,672OKLAHOMALOGAN---3,8786910,497OKLAHOMAMAJOR- --8,0799025,063OKLAHOMAMARSHALL-4160OKLAHOMAMAYES1,157333,599OKLAHOMAMCCLAIN10,02210034,842OKLAHOMAMCCURTAIN2,094405,364OKLAHOMAMCINTOSH519161,293OKLAHOMAMURRAY2,254187,483OKLAHOMANOBLE5,3159213,656OKLAHOMANOWATA996253,499OKLAHOMAOKFUSKEE31761,141OKLAHOMAOKLAHOMA- --5,5657517,875OKLAHOMAOSAGE2,902558,210OKLAHOMAOTTAWA680171,300OKLAHOMAPAWNEE1,667386,427OKLAHOMAPAYNE-- -2,560479,524OKLAHOMAPITTSBURG681121,642SeedProduction'Seed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForaQeProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedOKLAHOMAPONTOTOC409141,080OKLAHOMAPOTTAWATOMIE-- -2,510615,679OKLAHOMAPUSHMATAHA49761,186OKLAHOMAROGERMILLS6,2674829,205OKLAHOMAROGERS606242,585OKLAHOMASEMINOLE850132,458OKLAHOMASEQUOYAH968182,183OKLAHOMATULSA1,016242,829OKLAHOMAWASHINGTON2038546OKLAHOMAWOODS- --13,06010640,906OKLAHOMAWOODWARD2,8796411,551Subtotals000214,2962,628729,829 70%OKLAHOMAALFALFA9631,69621,70217868,863OKLAHOMACOTTON-2-813141,665OKLAHOMACREEK-1-1,853243,908OKLAHOMAGRADY27554,35022,97122070,671OKLAHOMAGRANT-1-13,62113836,665OKLAHOMAHARPER-2-3,4213811,823OKLAHOMAKAY-2-6,99111919,145OKLAHOMAKIOWAYesNonewRRAforageproduction-3-6,2268418,238OKLAHOMALOVE-1-32811901OKLAHOMAMUSKOGEE-2-1,735274,242OKLAHOMAOKMULGEE-2-29891,038OKLAHOMASTEPHENS-1-2,222266,829OKLAHOMATEXAS-1-6,6113231,588OKLAHOMATILLMAN-1-18,1349475,361OKLAHOMAWAGONER-1-878171,703OKLAHOMAWASHITA-1-12,70012248,89430%Subtotals371296,046120,5041,153401,534StateTotal37129604633480037811131363OREGONBAKERNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting22,05721580,919"..•0(1;0001.SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-OperationsOperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedOREGONBENTON39092,620OREGONCLACKAMAS1,371424,679OREGONCLATSOP1855513OREGONCOLUMBIA345120OREGONCOOS2688616OREGONCROOK17,97514976,640OREGONDESCHUTES8,16512627,089OREGONDOUGLAS1,9283411,140OREGONGRANT8,7968017,985OREGONHARNEY45,514178150,512OREGONJEFFERSON15,17514665,594OREGONJOSEPHINE463251,904OREGONKLAMATH61,859335271,713OREGONLAKE64,174171268,148OREGONLANE000737223,009OREGONLINCOLN13030OREGONLINN829233,122OREGONMARION0001,740696,219OREGONMORROW18,2695792,461OREGONMULTNOMAH23812640OREGONPOLK342191,402OREGONSHERMAN421141,303OREGONTILLAMOOK32630OREGONUNION26,63331480,843OREGONWALLOWA19,77714769,497OREGONWHEELER4,0064210,743OREGONYAMHILL1,781515,747Subtotals0000323,8942,3111,255,05865%OREGONGILLIAMYesNonewRRAforageproduction0102,3121410,643OREGONHOODRIVER01023614452OREGONJACKSON0104,12710414,850OREGONMALHEUR3,565252,317,74058,166707294,335i@WEill"P";',,',,,-,'Y',':,"r",".l,{;,,i,vQUn",l,iisl'i""",,'''-'..",:VY'¢IW£;c.SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-OperationsOperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd,OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedOREGONUMATILLA02034,341312175,636OREGONWASCO0104,4517018,402OREGONWASHINGTON0101,285375,550Subtotals3,565322,317,7400104,9181,258519,86835%Total3,565322,317,740428,8123,5691,774,926SOUTHDAKOTAAURORANoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting00017,06515952,198SOUTHDAKOTABEADLE00038,312315126,217SOUTHDAKOTABONHOMME28,997352100,562SOUTHDAKOTABRULE00023,81417866,440SOUTHDAKOTABUFFALO10,2963821,181SOUTHDAKOTABUTTE00046,953299119,239SOUTHDAKOTACHARLESMIX42,202358122,162SOUTHDAKOTACLARK23,15820870,286SOUTHDAKOTACLAY17,94614066,019SOUTHDAKOTACODINGTON00022,63224472,022SOUTHDAKOTACUSTER8,5238610,981SOUTHDAKOTADAVISON00019,50420960,524SOUTHDAKOTADAY00016,97823947,623SOUTHDAKOTADEUEL15,88222457,396SOUTHDAKOTADOUGLAS16,15819859,366SOUTHDAKOTAEDMUNDS00027,40116466,818SOUTHDAKOTAFALLRIVER0008,596729,968SOUTHDAKOTAFAULK33,75814982,460SOUTHDAKOTAGRANT18,91922258,049SOUTHDAKOTAHAAKON00044,69114635,926SOUTHDAKOTAHAMLIN00010,29615336,251SOUTHDAKOTAHAND46,311218120,449SOUTHDAKOTAHANSON9,08411028,164SOUTHDAKOTAHARDING56,86913156,085SOUTHDAKOTAHYDE24,9769652,674SOUTHDAKOTAJERAULD20,03411061,931i '''Han,"!:fOOHtP§M!iI£itWO,{\,Q9lJ1MU!!ltln,,,'ISeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForaqeProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedSOUTHDAKOTAJONES00025,6278238,332SOUTHDAKOTALAKE10,95620036,862SOUTHDAKOTALAWRENCE17,73810843,706SOUTHDAKOTALINCOLN6,98820526,174SOUTHDAKOTAMCCOOK11,20720739,346SOUTHDAKOTAMCPHERSON46,056180117,492SOUTHDAKOTAMINER14,75316240,614SOUTHDAKOTAMINNEHAHA00021,27141385,718SOUTHDAKOTAMOODY10,30416342,074SOUTHDAKOTAPERKINS000101,477260138,351SOUTHDAKOTAPOTTER12,1556826,927SOUTHDAKOTAROBERTS00021,61826868,944SOUTHDAKOTASANBORN00024,49315878,542SOUTHDAKOTA SPINK00028,985241103,565SOUTHDAKOTASTANLEY10,4305512,373SOUTHDAKOTATODD00055,694124102,834SOUTHDAKOTAUNION7,75314333,192SOUTHDAKOTAWALWORTH20,74910546,700SOUTHDAKOTAYANKTON29,048309111,003SOUTHDAKOTAZIEBACH34,75410133,260Subtotals00001,161,4118,3702,887,00066%SOUTHDAKOTABENNETTYesNonewRRAforageproduction7595100,00030,98013145,279SOUTHDAKOTABROOKINGS02019,12329965,750SOUTHDAKOTABROWN01032,865315100,125SOUTHDAKOTACAMPBELL02024,82113066,849SOUTHDAKOTACORSON01089,144206124,029SOUTHDAKOTADEWEY2,113950,00065,51418692,402SOUTHDAKOTAGREGORY01064,016330153,946SOUTHDAKOTAHUGHES0109,8169717,901SOUTHDAKOTAHUTCHINSON01023,96630090,463SOUTHDAKOTAJACKSON01051,46116151,950SOUTHDAKOTAKINGSBURY01022,34421871,982.'"',..%::r?.E¥BNSeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf,Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForaqeProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedSOUTHDAKOTALYMAN01021,97711139,503SOUTHDAKOTAMARSHALL324423,78223,53018764,281SOUTHDAKOTAMEADE0530,500150,760489181,724SOUTHDAKOTAMELLETTE02043,47814659,893SOUTHDAKOTAPENNINGTON02055,62129054,028SOUTHDAKOTASHANNON0109,0943910,968SOUTHDAKOTASULLY0206,1213914,082SOUTHDAKOTATRIPP1753076,438343172,293SOUTHDAKOTATURNER02014,11926649,890Subtotals3,37147204,2820835,1884,2831,527,33834%Total3,37147204,28201,996,59912,6534,414,338UTAHBEAVER19,908120102,373UTAHCARBON0005,78614216,774UTAHDAGGETT3,761209,850UTAHDAVIS0003,71515518,078UTAHEMERY00017,48835149,048UTAHGARFIELD9,73815626,741UTAHGRAND2,9454513,868UTAHIRON45,230238226,627UTAHKANE1,443504,885UTAHMORGANNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting0009,40616524,368UTAHPIUTE0008,8707324,732UTAHRICH9,2707822,164UTAHSALTLAKE0003,32415312,577UTAHSANJUAN5,300649,792UTAHSEVIER25,878394109,322UTAHSUMMIT0007,36121417,962UTAHTOOELE5,95114421,645UTAHWASATCH0007,18922723,045UTAHWASHINGTON0005,03115323,003UTAHWAYNE11,73215745,074SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Operations OperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForageProductionHvstd.OperationsPoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncluded;Subtotals0000209,3263,099801,92840%UTAHBOXELDER0211,091,90749,161533190,085UTAHCACHE5806311,70650,741636193,480UTAHDUCHESNE60330,00033,357423110,596UTAHJUAB01015,44515864,677UTAHMILLARDYesNonewRRAforageproduction1,11816426,70072,244421343,717UTAHSANPETE01035,994475139,572UTAHUINTAH02036,019497125,099UTAHUTAH02030,197996139,095UTAHWEBER02016,08654263,969Subtotals1,758541,860,3130339,2444,6811,370,29060%Total1,758541,860,313548,5707,7802,172,218WASHINGTONASOTINNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting673100WASHINGTONCHELAN1,561440WASHINGTONCLALLAM1,633404,025WASHINGTONCLARK431121,356WASHINGTONCOLUMBIA1,284293,462.WASHINGTONCOWLITZ010WASHINGTONDOUGLAS0001,624446,336WASHINGTONGARFIELD394120WASHINGTONGRAYSHARBOR1086121WASHINGTONISLAND1,612203,186WASHINGTONJEFFERSON775105WASHINGTONKING000WASHINGTONKITSAP020WASHINGTONLEWIS638182,079WASHINGTONPACIFIC020WASHINGTONPENDOREILLE1,603360WASHINGTONPIERCE1057399WASHINGTONSANJUAN020WASHINGTONSKAGIT2548843"",SeedProductionSeed-Hay%Hay%Reported,AcresSeed-Seed-InAlf.Hay-Alf.Hay-Alf.Hay-OperationsOperationsStateCounty2007AlfalfaForForaQeProductionHvstd."-",PoundsAcresOperationsTonsExcludedIncludedWASHINGTON020WASHINGTON000632142,432WASHINGTONTHURSTON30716641IA/"c;,uIIljGTONWAHKIAKIIM01011\,,c;,uIIljGTONWHATCOM791162,208000013,72734727,1938%WASHINGTONADAMS01020,982104125,759WASHINGTONBENTON0343,22512,41216267,352WASHINGTONFERRY0103,866569,124WASHINGTONFRANKLIN3115238,52677,441272573,937WASHINGTONGRANT4,249252,308,614117,488549752,332WASHINGTONKITTITAS0108,72116535,824WASHINGTONKLICKITATYesNonewRRAforageproduction01026,51516035,517WASHINGTONIINr.OIN01014,54512741,293WASHINGTONOKANOr:;AN129725,73123,25339973,994WASHINGTONSPOKANE0319,20036,38665677,020WASHINGTONSTEVENS0646,11232,47743658,452WASHINGTONWALLA WALLA10,759147,510,76014,77212393,67811\/'"'"WHITMAN0208,45613027,003WASHINGTONYAKIMA71312409,04537,363608184,071Subtotals16,1618210,601,2130434,6773,9472,155,35692%Totals16,1618210,601,2130448,4044,2942,182,549WYOMINGALBANYNoYes,WithLimitsandGPSReporting6,9723316,137WYOMINGCAMPBELL45,63117761,739WYOMINGCARBON14,0656121,953WYOMINGCONVERSE28,91413562,321WYOMING-,r.58,944369179,960WYOMINGHOT9,7669423,140WYOMINGJOHNSON21,92310353,077WYOMINGIARAMII=22,60610683,138WYOMING39,84827189,104SeedProductionReported,StateCounty2007WYOMINGNATRONAWYOMINGNIOBRARAWYOMINGPLATTEWYOMINGSUBLETTEWYOMINGTETONWYOMINGUINTAWYOMINGWESTONWYOMINGBIGHORNWYOMINGCROOKWYOMINGFREMONTWYOMINGPARKYesWYOMINGSHERIDANWYOMINGSWEETWATERWYOMINGWASHAKIEAlfalfaForForaoeProductionSubtotalsNonewRRAforageproductionSubtotalsTotalsSeed-AcresHvstd.00004,5600004,5604,560Seed-Operations01836291146262/7;Seed-InPounds02,816,1470173,1382,534,28500244,8265,768,3965,768,3960ooAlf.HayAcres25,26912,97430,4975,4854,6106,25121,847355,60235,84577,82985,55037,84445,37620,60715,631318,682674,284Alf.HayOperations15260176293253671,9183322326084072681261162,0894,007PerStateAverageExclusion/Inclusion:Alf.HayTons76,77730,04188,01210,31214,44013,75122,306846,208126,064104,988275,524133,764113,20742,94453,739850,2301,696,438Hay%Hay%OperationsOperationsExcludedIncluded48%52%146%ALALALALAZAZAZAZARARARARCACACACACOCOCOCOCTCTCTCTDEDEDEDEFLFLFLFLGAGAGAGAIDIDIDIDILILILILILILILILILININININIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAKSKSKSKSKYKYKYKYLALALALAMEMEMEMEMDMDMDMDMAMAMAMAMIMIMIMIMNMNMNMNMSMSMSMSMOMOMOMOMTMTMTMTNENENENENVNVNVNVNHNHNHNHNJNJNJNJNMNYNYNYNYNCNCNCNCNDNDNDNDOHOHOHOHOKOKOKOKORORORORPAPAPAPARIRIRIRISCSCSCSCSDSDSDSDTNTNTNTNTXTXTXTXUTUTUTUTVTVTVTVTVAVAVAVAWAWAWAWAWVWVWVWVWIWIWIWIWYWYWYWYSeed Production LevelsTier 1 (27)Tier 2 (12)Tier 3 (11)AKAKAKAKHIHIHIHIAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaHawaiiHawaiiHawaiiSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataSeed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census DataAPACHE APACHE APACHE

COCHISE COCHISE COCHISE COCONINO COCONINO COCONINO

GILA GILA GILA

GRAHAM GREENLEE GREENLEE GREENLEE LA PAZ LA PAZ LA PAZ

MARICOPA MARICOPA MARICOPA MOHAVE MOHAVE MOHAVE

NAVAJO NAVAJO NAVAJO

PIMA PIMA PIMA PINAL PINAL PINAL

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ YAVAPAI YAVAPAI YAVAPAI

YUMA YUMA YUMA



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALPINE ALPINE ALPINE AMADOR AMADOR AMADOR BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CALAVERAS CALAVERAS CALAVERAS COLUSA COLUSA COLUSA

CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE DEL NORTE DEL NORTE

EL DORADO EL DORADO EL DORADO

FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO GLENN GLENN GLENN HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

IMPERIAL IMPERIAL IMPERIAL INYO INYO INYO

KERN KERN KERN KINGS KINGS KINGS LAKE LAKE LAKE LASSEN LASSEN LASSEN

LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES MADERA MADERA MADERA MARIN MARIN MARIN

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MENDOCINO MENDOCINO

MERCED MERCED MERCED MODOC MODOC MODOC

MONO MONO MONO

MONTEREY MONTEREY MONTEREY NAPA NAPA NAPA NEVADA NEVADA NEVADA

ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE PLACER PLACER PLACER PLUMAS PLUMAS PLUMAS

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO

SAN BENITO SAN BENITO SAN BENITO

SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN

SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SHASTA SHASTA

SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA SISKIYOU SISKIYOU SISKIYOU

SOLANO SOLANO SOLANO SONOMA SONOMA SONOMA

STANISLAUS STANISLAUS STANISLAUS SUTTER SUTTER SUTTER TEHAMA TEHAMA TEHAMA TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY

TULARE TULARE TULARE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE

VENTURA VENTURA VENTURA YOLO YOLO YOLO YUBA YUBA YUBA



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported No Seed or Hay Production Reported 

# California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionADA ADA ADA ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

BANNOCK BANNOCK BANNOCK

BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BENEWAH BENEWAH BENEWAH

BINGHAM BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE BOISE BOISE BOISE BONNER BONNER BONNER

BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMAS CAMAS CAMAS CANYON CANYON CANYON

CARIBOU CARIBOU CARIBOU

CASSIA CASSIA CASSIA CLARK CLARK CLARK CLEARWATER CLEARWATER CLEARWATER

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

ELMORE ELMORE ELMORE

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

GEM

GOODING GOODING GOODING IDAHO IDAHO IDAHO

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JEROME JEROME JEROME KOOTENAI KOOTENAI KOOTENAI

LATAH LATAH LATAH

LEMHI LEMHI LEMHI LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN MADISON MADISON MADISON

MINIDOKA MINIDOKA MINIDOKA NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE

ONEIDA ONEIDA ONEIDA OWYHEE OWYHEE OWYHEE PAYETTE PAYETTE PAYETTE

POWER POWER POWER SHOSHONE SHOSHONE SHOSHONE

TETON TETON TETON

TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionBEAVERHEADBEAVERHEADBEAVERHEADBIG HORNBIG HORNBIG HORNBLAINEBLAINEBLAINEBROADWATERBROADWATERBROADWATERCARBONCARBONCARBONCARTERCARTERCARTERCASCADECASCADECASCADECHOUTEAUCHOUTEAUCHOUTEAUCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDANIELSDANIELSDANIELSDAWSONDAWSONDAWSONDEER LODGEDEER LODGEDEER LODGEFALLONFALLONFALLONFERGUSFERGUSFERGUSFLATHEADFLATHEADFLATHEADGALLATINGALLATINGALLATINGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGLACIERGLACIERGLACIERGOLDEN VALLEYGOLDEN VALLEYGOLDEN VALLEYGRANITEGRANITEGRANITEHILLHILLHILLJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJUDITH BASINJUDITH BASINJUDITH BASINLAKELAKELAKELEWIS AND CLARKLEWIS AND CLARKLEWIS AND CLARKLIBERTYLIBERTYLIBERTYLINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNMADISONMADISONMADISONMCCONEMCCONEMCCONEMEAGHERMEAGHERMEAGHERMINERALMINERALMINERALMISSOULAMISSOULAMISSOULAMUSSELSHELLMUSSELSHELLMUSSELSHELLPARKPARKPARKPETROLEUMPHILLIPSPHILLIPSPHILLIPSPONDERAPONDERAPONDERAPOWDER RIVERPOWDER RIVERPOWDER RIVERPOWELLPOWELLPOWELLPRAIRIEPRAIRIEPRAIRIERAVALLIRAVALLIRAVALLIRICHLANDRICHLANDRICHLANDROOSEVELTROOSEVELTROOSEVELTROSEBUDROSEBUDROSEBUDSANDERSSANDERSSANDERSSHERIDANSHERIDANSHERIDANSILVER BOWSTILLWATERSTILLWATERSTILLWATERSWEET GRASSSWEET GRASSSWEET GRASSTETONTETONTETONTOOLETOOLETOOLETREASURETREASURETREASUREVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYWHEATLANDWHEATLANDWHEATLANDWIBAUXWIBAUXWIBAUXYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONEYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKYELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesMontana - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionCARSON CITY CARSON CITY CARSON CITY CHURCHILL CHURCHILL CHURCHILL

CLARK CLARK CLARK DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS ELKO ELKO ELKO

ESMERALDA ESMERALDA ESMERALDA EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

LANDER LANDER LANDER

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN LYON LYON LYON

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL

NYE NYE NYE PERSHING PERSHING PERSHING

STOREY STOREY STOREY WASHOE WASHOE WASHOE

WHITE PINE WHITE PINE WHITE PINE



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionBAKERBAKERBAKERBENTONBENTONBENTONCLACKAMASCLACKAMASCLACKAMASCLATSOPCLATSOPCLATSOPCOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOOSCOOSCOOSCROOKCROOKCROOKCURRYCURRYCURRYDESCHUTESDESCHUTESDESCHUTESDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASGILLIAMGRANTGRANTGRANTHARNEYHARNEYHARNEYHOOD RIVERHOOD RIVERHOOD RIVERJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJOSEPHINEJOSEPHINEJOSEPHINEKLAMATHKLAMATHKLAMATHLAKELAKELAKELANELANELANELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLINNLINNLINNMALHEURMALHEURMALHEURMARIONMARIONMARIONMORROWMULTNOMAHMULTNOMAHMULTNOMAHPOLKPOLKPOLKSHERMANSHERMANSHERMANTILLAMOOKTILLAMOOKTILLAMOOKUMATILLAUMATILLAUMATILLAUNIONUNIONUNIONWALLOWAWALLOWAWALLOWAWASCOWASCOWASCOWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWHEELERWHEELERWHEELERYAMHILLYAMHILLYAMHILLAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production ReportedOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOregon - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionHUGHESHUGHESHUGHESSTANLEYSTANLEYSTANLEYZIEBACHZIEBACHZIEBACHAURORAAURORAAURORABEADLEBEADLEBEADLEBENNETTBENNETTBENNETTBON HOMMEBON HOMMEBON HOMMEBROOKINGSBROOKINGSBROOKINGSBROWNBROWNBROWNBRULEBRULEBRULEBUFFALOBUFFALOBUFFALOBUTTEBUTTEBUTTECAMPBELLCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCHARLES MIXCHARLES MIXCHARLES MIXCLARKCLARKCLARKCLAYCLAYCLAYCODINGTONCODINGTONCODINGTONCORSONCORSONCORSONCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDAVISONDAVISONDAVISONDAYDAYDAYDEUELDEUELDEUELDEWEYDEWEYDEWEYDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASEDMUNDSEDMUNDSEDMUNDSFALL RIVERFALL RIVERFALL RIVERFAULKFAULKFAULKGRANTGRANTGRANTGREGORYGREGORYGREGORYHAAKONHAAKONHAAKONHAMLINHAMLINHAMLINHANDHANDHANDHANSONHANSONHANSONHARDINGHARDINGHARDINGHUTCHINSONHUTCHINSONHUTCHINSONHYDEHYDEHYDEJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJERAULDJERAULDJERAULDJONESJONESJONESKINGSBURYKINGSBURYKINGSBURYLAKELAKELAKELAWRENCELAWRENCELAWRENCELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLYMANLYMANLYMANMARSHALLMARSHALLMARSHALLMCCOOKMCCOOKMCCOOKMCPHERSONMCPHERSONMCPHERSONMEADEMEADEMEADEMELLETTEMELLETTEMELLETTEMINERMINERMINERMINNEHAHAMINNEHAHAMINNEHAHAMOODYMOODYMOODYPENNINGTONPENNINGTONPENNINGTONPERKINSPERKINSPERKINSPOTTERPOTTERPOTTERROBERTSROBERTSROBERTSSANBORNSANBORNSANBORNSHANNONSHANNONSHANNONSPINKSPINKSPINKSULLYSULLYSULLYTODDTODDTODDTRIPPTRIPPTRIPPTURNERTURNERTURNERUNIONUNIONUNIONWALWORTHWALWORTHWALWORTHYANKTONYANKTONYANKTONAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesSouth Dakota - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionSAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN DAGGETT DAGGETT DAGGETT

SANPETE SANPETE SANPETE UTAH UTAH UTAH WASATCH WASATCH WASATCH

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER CACHE CACHE CACHE

CARBON CARBON CARBON DAVIS DAVIS DAVIS

DUCHESNE DUCHESNE DUCHESNE

EMERY EMERY EMERY

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD GRAND GRAND GRAND

IRON IRON IRON JUAB JUAB JUAB

KANE KANE KANE MILLARD MILLARD MILLARD MORGAN MORGAN MORGAN

PIUTE PIUTE PIUTE RICH RICH RICH

SALT LAKE SALT LAKE SALT LAKE

SEVIER SEVIER SEVIER SUMMIT SUMMIT SUMMIT

TOOELE TOOELE TOOELE

UINTAH UINTAH UINTAH

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE WEBER WEBER WEBER



### Alfalfa Hay No Seed Production Reported Seed Production Reported 

# Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed ProductionADAMSADAMSADAMSASOTINASOTINASOTINBENTONBENTONBENTONCHELANCHELANCHELANCLALLAMCLARKCLARKCLARKCOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOLUMBIACOWLITZCOWLITZCOWLITZDOUGLASDOUGLASDOUGLASFERRYFERRYFERRYFRANKLINFRANKLINFRANKLINGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGRANTGRANTGRANTGRAYS HARBORGRAYS HARBORGRAYS HARBORJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONKINGKINGKINGKITSAPKITSAPKITSAPKITTITASKITTITASKITTITASKLICKITATKLICKITATKLICKITATLEWISLEWISLEWISLINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNMASONMASONMASONOKANOGANOKANOGANOKANOGANPACIFICPACIFICPACIFICPEND OREILLEPEND OREILLEPEND OREILLEPIERCEPIERCEPIERCESAN JUANSAN JUANSAN JUANSKAGITSKAGITSKAGITSKAMANIASKAMANIASKAMANIASNOHOMISHSNOHOMISHSNOHOMISHSPOKANESPOKANESPOKANESTEVENSSTEVENSSTEVENSTHURSTONTHURSTONTHURSTONWAHKIAKUMWALLA WALLAWALLA WALLAWALLA WALLAWHATCOMWHITMANWHITMANWHITMANYAKIMAYAKIMAYAKIMAAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production ReportedWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWashington - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWASHAKIEWASHAKIEWASHAKIEALBANYALBANYALBANYBIG HORNBIG HORNBIG HORNCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCAMPBELLCARBONCARBONCARBONCONVERSECONVERSECONVERSECROOKCROOKCROOKFREMONTFREMONTFREMONTGOSHENGOSHENGOSHENHOT SPRINGSHOT SPRINGSHOT SPRINGSJOHNSONJOHNSONJOHNSONLARAMIELARAMIELARAMIELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNNATRONANATRONANATRONANIOBRARANIOBRARANIOBRARAPARKPARKPARKPLATTEPLATTEPLATTESHERIDANSHERIDANSHERIDANSUBLETTESUBLETTESUBLETTESWEETWATERSWEETWATERSWEETWATERTETONTETONTETONUINTAUINTAUINTAWESTONWESTONWESTONAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWyoming - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionCLEVELANDCLEVELANDCLEVELANDPOTTAWATOMIEPOTTAWATOMIEPOTTAWATOMIEADAIRADAIRADAIRALFALFAALFALFAALFALFAATOKAATOKAATOKABEAVERBEAVERBEAVERBECKHAMBLAINEBLAINEBLAINEBRYANBRYANBRYANCADDOCADDOCADDOCANADIANCANADIANCANADIANCARTERCARTERCARTERCHEROKEECHEROKEECHEROKEECHOCTAWCIMARRONCIMARRONCIMARRONCOALCOALCOALCOMANCHECOMANCHECOMANCHECOTTONCOTTONCOTTONCRAIGCRAIGCRAIGCREEKCREEKCREEKCUSTERCUSTERCUSTERDELAWAREDELAWAREDELAWAREDEWEYDEWEYDEWEYELLISELLISELLISGARFIELDGARFIELDGARFIELDGARVINGARVINGARVINGRADYGRADYGRADYGRANTGRANTGRANTGREERGREERGREERHARMONHARMONHARMONHARPERHARPERHARPERHASKELLHASKELLHASKELLHUGHESHUGHESHUGHESJACKSONJACKSONJACKSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJEFFERSONJOHNSTONJOHNSTONJOHNSTONKAYKAYKAYKINGFISHERKINGFISHERKINGFISHERKIOWAKIOWAKIOWALATIMERLATIMERLATIMERLE FLORELE FLORELE FLORELINCOLNLINCOLNLINCOLNLOGANLOGANLOGANLOVELOVELOVEMAJORMAJORMAJORMARSHALLMARSHALLMARSHALLMAYESMAYESMAYESMCCLAINMCCLAINMCCLAINMCCURTAINMCCURTAINMCCURTAINMCINTOSHMCINTOSHMCINTOSHMURRAYMURRAYMURRAYMUSKOGEEMUSKOGEEMUSKOGEENOBLENOBLENOBLENOWATANOWATANOWATAOKFUSKEEOKFUSKEEOKFUSKEEOKLAHOMAOKLAHOMAOKLAHOMAOKMULGEEOKMULGEEOKMULGEEOSAGEOSAGEOSAGEOTTAWAOTTAWAOTTAWAPAWNEEPAWNEEPAWNEEPAYNEPAYNEPAYNEPITTSBURGPITTSBURGPITTSBURGPONTOTOCPONTOTOCPONTOTOCPUSHMATAHAPUSHMATAHAPUSHMATAHAROGER MILLSROGER MILLSROGER MILLSROGERSROGERSROGERSSEMINOLESEMINOLESEMINOLESEQUOYAHSEQUOYAHSEQUOYAHSTEPHENSSTEPHENSSTEPHENSTEXASTEXASTEXASTILLMANTILLMANTILLMANTULSATULSATULSAWAGONERWAGONERWAGONERWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHINGTONWASHITAWASHITAWASHITAWOODSWOODSWOODSWOODWARDWOODWARDWOODWARDAlfalfa HayNo Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesOklahoma - Alfalfa Hay CountiesWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed ProductionWith and Without Seed Production

# A ppendix

C

N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® Alfalfa Seed Production

# Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

# Alfalfa Seed Production 

# I nt r oduct i on The genetic supplier members (hereinafter called the “Companies”) of National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA) have agreed to jointly adopt, as a minimum, the following Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) Seed Production in the United States. Compliance is required under a separate and binding agreement of the Companies to each other in this commitment. Forage Genetics International (FGI) is the exclusive licensed seed producer of RRA and will require all RRA seed production sub-licensees (herein after called the “RRA Seed Contractor(s)”) to become a party to this binding agreement. It is not the intent of this document to establish best management practices for the production of alfalfa seed for GE sensitive markets. Changes to this document will require a recommendation from the Companies and approval by the NAFA Board of Directors. 

# R oundu p 

# R e a dy 

# T rai t 

# S tew ar d s h ip i n 

# S eed 

# P r oduct i on This document establishes RRA commercial seed production policies that exceed industry standards for Certified alfalfa seed production. Specifically, RRA seed production practices will meet or exceed Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) standards for the seed production of Foundation Class alfalfa seed production. All RRA seed growers must complete RRA seed stewardship training and agree to follow the RRA seed production policies as described herein and as required by RRA seed production contracts. 

# RRA S eed 

# C ont ra cto rs ’ 

# R e sp on sibi l i t i e s Isolation. The RRA Seed Contractor will insure that the isolation distance between the new planting and any established conventional seed production meets the following pollinator-specific isolation requirements for RRA seed production. Note the pollinator designated applies to normal pollinating bees introduced or locally cultured for alfalfa seed production in the area. If more than one pollinator species is introduced or locally cultured, the longer minimum distance applies. Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet Alkali bee – 1 mile Honey bee – 3 miles Every year the Companies will collectively sample conventional seed lots, test for adventitious presence of the Roundup Ready trait, and use isolation distance from RRA seed production to monitor the effectiveness of current isolation standards. The Companies, along with three AOSCA representatives of state crop improvement associations or their designees, will analyze the data and make recommendations for changes to required isolation distances, if appropriate.
Reporting. The RRA Seed Contractor shall report GPS coordinates of all established and planned RRA seed production fields to local state seed certification officials as early as possible, but no later than two weeks prior to planting. State officials will confirm minimum isolation and establish a state pinning map for RRA seed production. The RRA Seed Contractor must authorize state officials to report to any seed grower or seed company, on request, the isolation distance between a planned new conventional alfalfa seed field and the nearest RRA seed field. GM-trait sensitive conventional or organic alfalfa seed producers can then use this third party service to assist them in planning their field locations to meet their company’s isolation or field crop history goals or the certification agent may use the data to certify a stated isolation distance. The RRA Seed Contractor shall also notify local state seed certification officials, and officials shall confirm when a RRA seed production field is terminated.

G E -free seed production zones. The RRA Seed Contractor will limit RRA seed production contracts to the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The RRA Seed Contractor will also respect any GE-free alfalfa seed production zone designated as such by a consensus of local seed growers. Recognition and designation of such zones will be based on the requirements of each state. It is envisioned that the local state seed certification agency would play an active role in administering programs of this nature. •

•

•

•

•

• 

# N AFA C oexistence D ocument Adopted January 2008

## 2 N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## C ooperation. All seed companies are encouraged to communicate and work together individually to manage joint seed quality issues and concerns.
RRA seed grower training. The RRA Seed Contractor will require RRA stewardship training for all new RRA seed growers. The RRA seed grower will confirm having received a copy of the NAFA Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production (see Appendix 2).
RRA seed grower contracts. The RRA Seed Contractor shall stipulate which bee species can be introduced for pollination and incorporate key grower stewardship requirements (as listed below) in RRA seed production contracts.

L icense. The RRA Seed Contractor will have an FGI license for RRA seed production, including reporting requirements for acreage planted and seed harvested, by variety. 

# RRA S eed 

# G r owe rs ’ 

# R e sp on sibi l i t i e s

Monsanto T echnology/Stewardship Agreement (M T A). RRA Seed Grower must sign an MTA and are bound by the terms outlined in the current Monsanto Technology Use Guide (TUG). The MTA is a limited-use license for Monsanto traits, and renews automatically each year. The TUG is updated annually.

O bserve patent rights. All RRA stock seed and harvested seed contains patent-protected, Roundup Ready trait, therefore: All seed transfer/sale is exclusive between RRA Seed Grower and the RRA Seed Contractor; no seed may be sold by RRA Seed Grower to other parties. RRA Seed Grower may not save seed for any purpose as per MTA.

O bserve all federal, state and local regulations. It is the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to know and obey current federal, state and local regulations affecting their agricultural practices. Some examples are as follows: Federal L aws and Regulations: Pesticide use labels and restrictions; U.S. Patent Rights; Plant Variety Protection; Federal Seed Act. Phytosanitary laws governing import or export of seeds and pollinators. State L aws and Regulations: Noxious or prohibited weeds, pathogens or insects; Pesticide use labels and restrictions L ocal L aws and Regulations: Pesticide use notifications (field posting); County restrictions or prohibitions on the use of biotechnology, as applicable.

Bees. RRA Seed Grower will manage pollinators to minimize pollen flow to conventional/other variety fields. Only contract-specified bee species can be introduced for pollination supporting RRA seed production. There shall be no bee domicile movement from RRA •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• to conventional alfalfa seed fields until pollination is finished for the year. Once bees are in RRA seed fields, they may only be moved among RRA fields. It is the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to inform their pollinator contractors or bee keepers of this requirement. RRA Seed Grower will locate domiciles to maximize domicile distance to other varieties, to the extent reasonable and appropriate to each field. The main pollinator bee species will be stated on each RRA Seed Grower Contract. Isolation requirements are specific to the main pollinator species. If honeybees are not the contract-stipulated pollinator species, the RRA Seed Grower will discourage neighbors from keeping honeybee hives in proximity to RRA seed production. In cases where this cannot be avoided, RRA Seed Grower is required to report the incident to the RRA Seed Contractor.

Isolation. RRA Seed Grower will assist RRA Seed Contractor with field location planning prior to planting, isolation zone monitoring after planting and facilitate crop improvement inspections as requested. The pollinator species-specific isolation policy is as follows (minimum distance to preexisting conventional seed at planting of RRA): Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet Alkali bee – 1 mile Honey bee – 3 miles Once the RRA seed field is planted, State Certification officials will visit to confirm minimum isolation distances are in place. RRA Seed Grower must cooperate with this verification process. If the RRA Seed Grower learns that new alfalfa seed field(s) are planned or planted in close proximity the RRA seed field, RRA Seed Grower will communicate this information to RRA Seed Contractor. Management strategies for maintaining RRA seed quality (varietal/ trait purity) can then be implemented by the RRA Seed Contractor.

T rait purity. RRA stock seed is guaranteed by the provider to have ≥90% RR plants; up to 10% non-RR plants, or “nulls”, are normal and expected based on the breeding and genetics of the trait. Growers must apply sufficient Roundup ® 

## herbicide to kill the <10% nulls prior to 9 inches of growth in the establishment year. Apply only registered (labeled) Roundup brand herbicides to the field.

W eeds and in-crop volunteers. Manage weeds and volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., conventional practices supplemented with Roundup agricultural herbicide formulations applied according to the label for alfalfa seed production). Integrated weed control strategies: Minimize risk of weed shifts or development of tolerant weeds. Growers are required to use integrated weed control methods. Maintain variety true to type: RRA seed fields need non-Roundup practices to control in-crop Roundup Ready alfalfa volunteers sprouting from prior year

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

### N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## 3 seed crop in carry-over fields. This is consistent with conventional alfalfa seed production practices for certified quality seeds.

Stand take-out. The RRA seed field must be destroyed at the expiration/ termination of the seed contract. Takeout must be completed prior to first flower in the subsequent year so that seed certification inspectors can verify stand termination. Stand termination and volunteer management measures must be sufficient to allow seed certification inspectors to validate stand take-out and to render the alfalfa stand worthless for any unlicensed purpose or use (e.g., unlicensed seed, forage, hay or pasture production purpose). RRA stand take-out date and method must be reported to the RRA Seed Contractor and stand destruction verified by local crop improvement using the RRA stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the information (see Appendix). Plan to use a subsequent crop that allows management of alfalfa and RRA alfalfa volunteers should they occur.
Sanitation requirements. Manage equipment to minimize seed mixture potential between different varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use dedicated equipment for planting and harvesting RRA seed production, when possible. Zero tolerance for seed admixture is not feasible under commercial production conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps to assure that equipment is clean prior to and after use in the Roundup Ready seed field. Examples: Planter inspection, clean-down before and after use; Combine inspection, clean-down thoroughly before and after use; RRA seed bins may only be used for RRA seed; maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; inspect bins before use; Handle all like-trait varieties together; plan for harvest sequence of fields to maintain best separation of varieties by trait type; Clean all seed handling equipment to avoid mixing RRA and conventional seed; Return unused, unopened stock seed to the contracting seed company for credit; maintain in clean storage areas; When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in advance, that the field to be harvested is RRA.

C ommunication. Immediately communicate questions or concerns to the RRA Seed Contractor or to FGI.

Field records. RRA Seed Grower must record and communicate the following to RRA Seed Contractor: Planting date; actual acres planted; seed rate/acre; stock seed received/returned; Accurate field address with latitude/longitude (decimal degrees) and local field map; Roundup herbicide application date(s), rate(s), formulation used; •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Seed box/bin numbers used for harvest; Stand destruct date and methods used using the RRA stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the information (see Appendix). 

# RRA S eed 

# C ontractors’ 

# P roduction 

# S taff 

# R esponsibilities Working in close partnership with seed growers; Complying with binding agreements with local crop improvement organizations: RRA Seed Contractor will report each field location, planting date and stand take-out date to local crop improvement organizations; Coating RRA stock seed purple for easy identification by seed growers; Recommending changes to this document, should the need arise. Roundup Ready ® 

## and Roundup ® 

## are registered trademarks of Monsanto. •

•

•

•

•

•

•



## “Best Management Practices

for Roundup Ready ® 

## Alfalfa Seed Production”

Coexistence Strategy Forum Steering Committee

T

om Braun , Midwest Forage Association Reedsville, WI
Jim C ane, USDA-ARS, Logan Bee Lab Logan, UT
C huck D eatherage , CA Alfalfa Seed Prod. Rsrch. Brd. San Joaquin, CA Paul Frey, Cal/West Seeds Woodland, CA
C hep Gauntt , Washington Hay Growers Association Kennewick, WA
Frederick Kirschenmann , Leopold Ctr. for Sustainable Agric., Ames, IA
Mark Mc C aslin , Forage Genetics International St. Paul, MN
D ave Miller , Pioneer Hi-Bred International Arlington, WI
D an Putnam , University of California Davis, CA
D an U ndersander , University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Allen Van D eynze, University of California, Seed Biotechnology Ctr, Davis,CA
Mark Wagoner , Washington Alfalfa Seed Commission Touchet, WA


### Editor

Beth N elson , President, NAFA, St. Paul, MN 

### Published by NAFA
N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance 4630 Churchill St. #1 • St. Paul, MN 55126 www.alfalfa-forage.org

## 4 N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

# A pp end i x 1

### N ational Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready ® 

### Alfalfa Seed Production” 

## 5 

# A pp end i x 2

# A ppendix

F

S elected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement form Farmers Using Roundup Ready

Alfalfa

## APHIS-2007-0044-0320

Name: Daniel M. Luckwaldt Address: Woodville, WI
Submitter's Representative: Daniel Luckwaldt Organization: Luckwaldt Agriculture Inc.
I am a dairy farmer who planted 100 acres of rou nd-up ready alfalfa when it was available. I seemed to work very good. Additionally it allo wed me to plant my alfalfa in a no-till manner (which leaves a smaller carbon footprint) and not worry about weeds. Seemed like it was the best alfalfa I ever grew and was very easy/simple to manage.

APHIS-2007-0044-0516.1

Name: Gene Robben Address: Dixon, CA
Organization: Robben Ranch
Robben Ranch is a large farming operation located near the town of Dixon, California. This farming operation normally raises approximately 4, 000 acres of alfalfa each year. The hay that is produced on this ranch supplies several dairy and cattle operations in the southern part of the Sacramento valley and the northern part of the San Joaquin valley. Each fall this ranch tries to replace older stands of alfalfa and replaces fields of alfalfa that are of poor quality. These fall plantings can range from 800 to 1,000 acres. Fall planting of alfalfa has been the most successful for Robben Ranch.
Three years ago, Robben Ranch planted 600 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa to see how this new variety would produce and what type of quality it would have. This fall was the third year of production for the new Roundup Ready variety. It was found from production records that the Roundup Read Alfalfa equaled other varieties in production per acre, and had outstanding tests in T.D.N. (total digestible nutrients). The other factor that was a concern was how resistant was this alfalfa to Roundup Herbicide. After a few Roundup sprays, there was no apparent loss of plants or stands over the three year period.
Many farmers know that with our standard varieties of alfalfa, w can spend form $50 - $100 per acre annually for weed control. With Roundup Ready Alfalfa, expenses range from $10 - $30 per acre per year, which is a considerable savings over standard weed control. It was also noticeable that in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa fields almost 100% weed control was obtained.
Robben Ranch hopes the government will release Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed for the 2010 planting season. If so, this ranch will probable plant 1,000 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa this coming fall season. I feel that the government regulators fully analyze the benefit that Roundup Ready Alfalfa has for the American farmer and the environment they will release the seed for sale.
From an environmental standpoint, one can only hope that the regulators will find that with the release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed, several million pounds of current herbicides will be greatly decrease or eliminated. Velpar, Sincor, Direx, Gramoxone, and Treflan TR-10 granules

# -2- are just a few examples of these current herbicides being used. With the reduction of these herbicides, our streams and waterways will be much safer for our environment and us.

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-0813

Name: Kurt Robert Brink Address: Richview, IL
Biotechnology-based breeding methods safely enhance and extend a crop’s yield potential, feed value, adaptation, pest tolerance, environmental benefits, crop management and utilization options, as other biotech crops have dem onstrated. The Roundup Ready alfalfa system provides dependable, cost-effective control of broadleaf and grassy weeds for the life of the alfalfa stand. I have had a plot of RR Alfalfa now for at least 3 years and it has proven to be a major plus for our Dairy business in that we usually are able to maintain at least a RFV of 155 or better in each of 5 cuttings/year. With the ability to control weed growth, it is one of, if not the best stand I have among the 4 fields I do have in alfalfa. It is imperative in these tough economic times t hat we are not deprived of whatever advantage we can glean from the seed technology this va riety provides.Roundup Ready alfalfa can lead to more consistent, high-quality, weed-free hay, resulting in an increased supply of dairy-quality hay. The forage produced from Roundup Ready alfalf a is comparable in composition, nutritional value and safety to that produced from conventional alfalfa varieties, resulting in proven feed safety. Dairy farmers can benefit from increased milk production per ton of feed and fewer animals sickened by weeds in their feed. I urge the USDA to consider biotechnology’s long history of success and allow alfalfa growers to join other American farmers in the benefits and new opportunities offered by biotechnology.

Kurt Brink B&B Dairy Farms Illinois

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-1094 Comment from John Maddox

Name: John Maddox Address: Burrell, CA
I am a dairyman and alfalfa grower. I currently grow 2,400acs of conventional alfalfa and I would like to have the ability to purchase and grow Roundup Ready alfalfa. I did grow 40acs of Roundup Ready alfalfa when it was first avial able and was extremely satisfied with it. The Roundup Ready system is extremely effective in controlling some of our toughest weeds that we have in our hay fields especially nutgrass which is a big problem for us to control with the currently avialable products that we have. It eliminates summer grasses in the alfalfa which gives me greater flexibility in my winter spray applications. I firmly believe that if I am able to grow R oundup Ready alfalfa, I am going to be able to better protect my workers because they will not have to be exposed to the more toxic herbicides that I currently have to use to control my weeds. This is a huge issue for us in California especially

# -3- with the many worker safety regulations that we put in place to provide a safe work environment for our employees. For our dairy, it is of high importance to us to provide the highest quality feed that we can find for our milk cows so that we can maximize their production of high quality milk and butterfat. By growing Roundup Ready alfalfa, I found that my alfalfa was higher in quality and tonnage per acre due to the fact that it was much cleaner than my conventional fields. My 40acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa was the first field that ev er produced 10 tons/acre for the year. We have never been able to do that with our conventional varities. This higher production per acre allows me to use less alfalfa acres to provide me the sa me amount of hay that I currently get from my conventional fields. This frees up some ground for me to rotate into other crops.

Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing seasons for herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a specific area (Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely relied on only one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide-resistant weed population to develop (Kniss, 2010a, p4; Beckie 2006, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This is a reason why crop monitoring and follow up by University and industry weed scientists in cases of suspected resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs. 

# The practice of repeated, in-season mo wing combined with alfalfa's perennial nature reduce the likelihood of glyphosate-re sistant weed development in >99 percent of the crop's acreage. The ability for alfalf a to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to follow alfalfa in the rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the annual grasses of corn and various cereal cr ops. These subsequently rotated crops can tolerate a spectrum of herbicides substantia lly different from the herbicides used in alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and herbicides, both of which are highly recommended for reducing the probability of developing herbicide resistant weeds (Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009, P. 109).

# A ppendix

G

C hart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA Under Partial Deregulation, Prepared by Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 2010)Partial Deregulation Projected Adoption of Roundup Ready Alfalfa05,00010,00015,00020,00025,0000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Year Following Partial Deregulation

Acreage (1,000's)US Alfalfa Acreage (2007)Cumulative RRANorth CentralIntermountainPlainsEast CentralPacfic N.W.South WestSouth EastROUNDUP READY ALFALFA SATISFACTION STUDY(Study #091 113 1108)Prepared By:MARKET PROBE, INC.St. Louis, MissouriDecember 2008This document contains information that is Company confidential. In addition, this report may contain material nonpublic or“inside,” information within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Trading in securities of the Company while in possessionof inside information, or disclosure of such information to others who then trade, is a violation of federal law which may result incriminal and civil liability and is also a violation of the Monsanto Global Standards of Business Conduct. Do not share thisinformation with anyone outside of Monsanto Company, or with any employee who does not need the information in order toperform his or her job. If you share the information with an employee who needs to have the information in order to perform hisor her job, you must make that employee aware of these confidentiality requirements. -- Source: MONSANTO[ Page 2]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Satisfaction StudyStudy #(091 113 1108) DEC 081811341714251820133747131081527204624232817209287991023100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100Overall (n=201)East (n=122)West (n=79)Percent of Respondents7.00 or more6.00 to 6.995.00 to 5.99Less than 5.00Don't knowQ.8b In terms of tons per acre, what was the annual yield on [Established Roundup Ready alfalfa acres][Established non-RoundupReady alfalfa acres]?Yields On Established Roundup Ready Acres Compared ToEstablished Or Past Non-Roundup Ready Acres[Base=All respondents]Tons per acre:Roundup Ready AlfalfaNon-Roundup Ready AlfalfaAverageNon-RoundupReady(tons/acre)AverageRoundupReady(tons/acre)5.04.66.25.95.56.8

# A ppendix

I

P utnam, D. and D. Un dersander. 2009. Understanding R oundup Ready Alfalfa (Full Version). Originally Posted on the Hay and Forage

Grower Magazine We b S ite at: h ttp://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_re ady_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009)

## Appendix I Putnam and Undersander (2009)

Pages 1-3 of Appendix I:
Magazine Version
Holin, F. 2009. Roundup Ready Reality? (Partial version of Putnam and Undersander. 2009. Available at: http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D (August 3, 2010)

Pages 4-6 of Appendix I: Full Version
Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (full version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web site at: http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009).

### January 1, 2009 

# Roundup Ready Reality?
by Fae Holin



## Is emotion trumping science in debates over the rele ase of Roundup Ready alfalfa? Two forage specialists think so. They've put together a paper debunking what they call misinformation presented at annual conferences around the country.

"We want to dispel some of those myths," says Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin extension forage specialist. Undersander and his colleague at University of California-Davis, Dan Putnam, offer "a scientific perspective" for alfalfa growers and industry representa tives as they evaluate Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa.

RR alfalfa, legalized in 2005, lost that designation with a court injunction just about two years later. A USDA environmental impact statem ent, required by the cour t, is nearing completion with a public comment period expected in the next month. A decision on whether t he transgenic crop should again be made available to growers is expected to follow several months later.

In the meantime, the forage specialists want to make sure the alfalfa industry is well-informed. They've offered Hay & Forage Grower a preview of their paper, which will be published in its entirety at hayandforage.com [http://hayandforage.com/under standing_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf].

Here's a synopsis of their concerns:

1. Once you release this gene, you can't call it back.

Undersander and Putnam respond that the gene is alr eady out - more than 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have been planted for hay and a limited amount planted for seed. The real question, they write, is whether growers can continue to plant conventional seed. Their answer: Only non-RR alfalfa is being planted now and, if concerned about contamination, growers can test it for the RR gene.

2. Won't contamination from neighboring fields r esult in all seed being Roundup Ready eventually?

"No," they emphasize, citing that seed production me thods and isolation distances will keep the presence of the gene "at a very low level for seed" and that "non- genetically enhanced (non-G E) seed will always be available."

3. Won't my neighbor's RR hayfields contamin ate my non-GE alfalfa hay production through pollen and gene flow? 

# Pa g e 1 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D

## "No," they write. "There is an extremely low probabil ity of gene flow among hayfields. For this to happen, fields must flower at the same time, pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind), plants must remain in fields four to six weeks after fl owering for viable seed production, seed must shatter to fall to the ground and establish on the soil surface, se edlings must overcome autotoxicity to germinate and seedlings must overcome competition from existing plants."

Pollen can only be carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees don't like to pollinate alfalfa, they add. The specialists discuss the difficulties of the seed ge rminating, concluding that if growers take care to plant non-RR seed, it's unlikely their hayfiel ds will become contaminated with the gene.

4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?
"Yes. The greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production," Undersander and Putnam write. They cite ways the seed industry has agreed to k eep track of transgenic seed and reasons why it's in the companies' best interests to do so.

5. Won't feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?
"Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any ar ea where seed production occurs, whether GE or not. Feral alfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of West ern states because little oc curs elsewhere," write the forage specialists. They discuss reasons why feral seed would have low production and suggest that removing plants from ditc hes and roads is a good idea to prevent gene flow.

6. Won't hard seed be a source of contamination?
"Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for mo re than one year in moist soils, much less after years of hay production," they respond. "T o guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State seed certification standards already require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a two-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed."

7. Much of the hay in my area is cut late wit h mature seed - we have good farmers but weather and equipment problems force late cuttings.

"This occasionally happens," Putnam and Undersander ans wer. "However, plants must remain in a field for four to six weeks after pollination of flowers for viable s eed to form and longer for seed to shatter." Delayed cutting will cause little to no seed production in ha yfields, and hay harvest should remove seed.

The last seven concerns have to do with 8) growing organic hay; 9) export markets; 10) whether seed companies bias the research on RR alfalfa; 11) possible effects it may have on insects, animals or the environment; 12) whether farmers can or will fo llow stewardship protocols; 13) weed resistance to Roundup and 14) whether the risks of RR alfalfa outweigh the rewards.
"There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology," Under-sander and Putnam contend. RR alfalfa will control tough weeds, they write. "Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future.

"It is important that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting thos e farmers who don't wish to adopt it." 

# Pa g e 2 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D2009 Penton Media. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved. You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.5479? icx_id=hayandforage.com/hay/farming_roundup_ready_reality_0101/index.html into any web browser. Penton Media, Inc and Hay & Forage Grower logos are registered trademarks of Penton Media, Inc . The iCopyright logo is a registered t rademark of iCopyright, Inc. 

# Pa g e 3 of 3 Ha y & Fora g e Grower: Roundu p Read y Realit y ?

8/3/2010 htt p ://license.ico py ri g ht.net/user/viewFreeU se.act?fuid=OTQxOT g 4M g %3D%3D

# Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa
A number of concerns have been raised about the release of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa , the first biotech trait in alfalfa

. Many of these concerns have been fueled by mi sinformation. In this article, we provide a scientific perspective on these concerns that we hope will inform

. Concern 1. Once you release this gene – you can’t call it back.
Over 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa ha ve been plan ted for hay over the past 2 to 3 years, with a limited amount planted for seed

. T he real question is whether you can continue to plant conventional alfalfa seed and the answer is a resounding ‘yes’ – all of the seed currently for sale is ‘conventional’ – and you only need to test it (or ask the seed company to test it) with inexpensive test strips to make sure it does not contain the gene if you don’t want it. Conventional alfalfa seed will continue to be available after R oundup R eady alfalfa is released. Concern 2. Won’t contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready, eventually? No. Seed production methods and isolation distances currently recommended by seed companies should keep adventitious presence at a very low level for seed. A gene will increase in a population only i f the new gene gives the plant an advantage over other plants and the conditions creat ing the advantage are consistently present

. Conversely, if plants are grown in an environment where the gene provides no advantage, the gene is more likely to remain in the population at very low levels or to be lost from the population . The formulas for computing these changes in gene frequency can be found in most books on population or quantitative genetics, such as Falconer and MacKay, 1996, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Press. Thus non

- GE seed will alway s be available.

Concern 3

. Won’t my neighbor’s R oundup R eady hay fields contaminat e my conventional or organic alfalfa hay production through pollen and gene flow?

No. T here is almost zero probability of gene flow among hay fields. For this to happen all the following must occur

**•** fields must flower at same time

. :

**•** pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind)

.
**•** plants must remain in field 4 to 6 weeks after flowering for viable seed production

.
**•** seed must shatter, to fall to ground and establish on soil surface

.
**•** seedlings must to overcome autotoxicity to germinate

.
**•** seedlings must to overcome co mpetition from existing plants. Pollen moves among alfalfa plants only when carried by pollinators such as bees, and h oney bees do not like to po llinate alfalfa. Alfalfa seed takes many weeks after flowering to mature sufficiently to germinate and longer to shatter and fall onto the ground. Alfalfa seed does not readily spread. Alfalfa does not germinate well on the soil surface. Germination wil l be further reduced by alfalfa autotoxicity from existing planting in the hay field (this is why interseeding alfalfa to thicken a stand generally fails). Germinating seeds must compete with established plants for water, nutrients and sunlight. Data has shown that interseeded plants generally die during the first growing season . Thus, if a grower takes care to plant conventional seed, it is very unlikely that the Roundup Ready gene will move to their hay fields. (See Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitig ation, and Potential Impact on Production , Special Publication of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) at http://www.cast

science.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=157 )

Concern 4 . Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?
Yes, t he greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production. The seed industry ha s agreed on a field tagging technique in areas where RR alfalfa seed will be grown so neighbors and other seed companies will know where RR seed is being produced. The bulk of non

- GE alfalfa seed is produced for export by seed production companies and it is in their own best interest to control seed production to continue to produce the 30% or more of total production as non

- biotech for export. This large volume of export seed production is much more significant economically than the less than 1 % of total seed market for organic seed production. However, concerns and methodology for exported seed will allow organic seed production indefinitely, making

non

- biotech seed available to growers

. Concern 5

. Won’t feral a lfalfa be a source of contamina tion?

## Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether biotech or not . Feral a lfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere. F eral alfalfa will have low seed production for the reasons described in #3 plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed

- borne fungi when seed develops under damp conditions

. S ee d from any feral plants will contribute to new plants only over a very short term , but removing feral alfalfa from ditches and roads is a good idea for organic and export growers to prevent gene flow

. If feral alfalfa is deemed a problem in a specific are a, then it must be controlled as off types of alfalfa and other problem weeds are currently controlled using cultural and other herbicide methods

. Concern 6

. Won’t hard seed be a source of contamination?

H ard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils (Albrecht et al . 2008 Forage and Grazinglands), much less after years of hay production. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State Seed Certification Standards already require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a 2

- year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed

. Concern 7

. Much of hay in my area is cut late with mature seed – we have good farmers but weather, equip ment problems force late cuttings. Although late cuttings occasionally happen viable seed development is unlikely . However, p lant s must remain in field for 4 to 6 weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter. Delaying harvest 1 to 2 weeks due to weather, equipment problems and other issues will cause little to no seed production in hay fields (see item #3) . Furthermore, hay harvest should remove this small amount of seed so that it doesn’t become a problem.

Concern 8

. Organic producers may have difficulty growing organic hay.

No – there is no reason that organic growers can’t continue to successfully grow organic hay. In fact the presence of R oundup R eady alfalfa hay in the marketplace may increase the valu e of organic hay, for buyers who are sensitive to biotech traits. Current demand for organic hay has been high, in spite of the introduction of R oundup R eady alfalfa. There are a number of growers who currently grow both R oundup R eady alfalfa and organic hay on the same farm without difficulty. Organic growers should 1) select conventional seed that is tested for the trait if their customers have set a standard of no adventitious presence , 2) take simple steps to protect their crop fr om gene flow and 3) identify hay lots after harvest. Feedstuffs c an be tested to ensure low biotech level s desired for these markets

. Organic growers currently are certified to show that their crops are not grown with pesticides or

non

- organic fertilizer s, and similar steps can be taken to show that they do not use genetically engineered crops.

Concern 9

. Couldn’t we lose our entire e xport market?

No. While e xport growers and buyers are sensitive to the presence of biotech traits in crops , they have dev eloped market

- assurance methods to demonstrate that they are marketing non

- biotech alfalfa hay, including testing to assure buyers of the non

- biotech status of hay. Japan , Taiwan, and Korea (main U.S. hay market) already use biotech corn and soybeans and ha ve accepted some RR alfalfa hay

. The European Union has approved use of certain biotech varieties of corn and soybeans in food and feedstuffs

. While significant in some growing regions in the US , exported hay represents less than 1 % of total alfalfa hay production.

Concern 10

. Isn’t the research biased by the seed companies that stand to gain most ? RR technology at has been evaluated at many universit ies . This research is independent of the concerned commercial parties. The goal is to independently test a technology for its viability and environmental safety for farmers and for the general public. These studies must be well

- designed
, accurate and can only be published only after review by anonymous individuals from other in stitutions selected for impartiality.

Concern 11

. Won’t the R oundup R eady gene in alfalfa have a negative effect on insects, diseases, other biota , or the environment? There is currently no evidence that this gene would have a negative effect on insects or animals, or the environment. The R oundup R eady gene has been thoroughly tested as other crops were released (corn, soybeans, cotton) and no impact on any other biota has been found

. N o toxicology issue s have been identified with roundup ready alfalfa fed to animals

. In the past ten years, bill ions of tons of corn, soybeans, cotton and alfalfa have been

## produced with this gene , and there ha s been no documented harm to animals, humans or wildlife. In fact the use of Roundup would replace some more toxic pesticides that have been used and found in ground water (e.g. Velpar).

Concern 1 2

. Farmers can’t/won ’ t follow stewardship protocols

. All technology requires stewardship by farmers (e.g. fertilizer use, pesticide use, irrigation) . F armers must be educated about stewardship needed and required to use appropriate stewardship for any technology. The possibility of gene flow is no different in scope than controlling pesticid e drift, fertilizer contamination from conventional farms, or for that matter, the influence of weeds from organic fields that may contaminate neighbor’s fields. Good farmers know how to do this.

Concern 1 3

. Won’t there be w eed resistance to Roundup from use of RR alfalfa ?
Weed resistance and weed shifts are issue s with all herbicides. New management programs have always resulted in shifts in weed pressure. For example, no

- till crop production has resulted in different weed problems than when crops were grown with conventional tillage. Resistance to glyphosate has occurred in row crop situations. Inclusion of alfalfa might actually slow increase of resistant populations of weeds because an additional mechanical control (frequent hay harvest) is being a dded to the weed management program. T echniques are readily available to avoid weed shifts or weed resistance using the Roundup Ready system as detailed in a recent article (Orloff et al., 2008).

Concern 14

. Risk far outweighs reward/Do we really need this? Are we willing to take this kind of gamble? There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology that has clear potential benefits to farmers and the environment. Currently, many animals are killed or hurt each year by weedy alfalfa fields – something that R oundup R eady technology could help address. Also, some of the conventional herbicides have been found in well
water – something not true with glyphosate. Additionally, R oundup R eady alfalf a would allow farmers to control tough weeds for which no other good method of control exists (e.g. winter annuals suc h as chickweed, wild garlic, wild onion , perennials such as dandelion

. difficult weeds such as nutsedge and dodder, and poisonous weeds such as groundsel ).
Further, if this breeding metho dology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future. Some traits currently under development
, such as a low lignin gene that could mean higher forage yield and fewer cuttings for farmers, a leaf retention gene t o retain leaves through harvesting process, genes which confer pest resistance, or gene s to increase bypass protein
, would never be available to farmers. It is not reasonable or fair to farmers to restrict a technology from use in alfalfa that is availabl e in other crops.

A series of articles on biotech alfalfa and coexistence of GE and conventional alfalfa seed and hay production is available at http://www.alfalfa.org/CSCoexistenceDocs.html 

## and http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+producing/biotech.aspx



## . In summary, it is essential that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don’t wish to adapt it. Research has proceeded with great deliberation in the development of Roundup Ready a lfalfa and shown it to be a good tool that will benefit many farmers. Like every other tool, it must be used with care and appropriate stewardship. It is important for the industry to manage for coexistence of biotech

- adapting and non biotech

- adapting fa rmers, since other important biotech traits are being developed which might be much greater benefit to farmers and society. Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California Dr. Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

# A ppendix

J

R oundup Ready Alfalfa Harvestin g Study, Study #3482 (Originally Submitted as Appendix 6 to Monsanto/FGI Comme nts to Draft EIS)Prepared By:St. Louis, MissouriJanuary 2010ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA HARVESTING STUDYStudy #3482[ Page 2 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client PrivilegeMETHODOLOGYTo achieve the objectives set forthis study, a total of 200 telephone interviews were completedwith growers who had Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in production in 2009 and/or 2010. Theinterviews were distributed regionally:West: WA/OR/ID/CA/NV/UT/AZ .. . . . . . . . . . . . N=95East: All other states, east ofthe Rockies . . . . . . N=105Participants were screened on the following criteria:Actively involved in farmingPrimarily responsible for decisions concerning the management practices followed onalfalfa cropHad 30+ acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in production in 2009 or 2010Not, nor anyone in household, working for a farm chemical manufacturer, distributor, ordealerNot, nor anyone in household, working fora seed company, or as a farmer dealerNot, nor anyone in household, raising alfalfa seed for a seed companyA monetary honorarium was paid ($40-West and $20-East) to all participants. Interviews wereconducted between January 18thand 25th, 2010.[ Page 3 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client Privilege2010 Roundup Ready Alfalfa Penetration[Base=Respondents able to estimate]Q.D How many acres of alfalfa, including both established and newly seeded, will you have this year in 2010?Q.E And, how many, if any, of these [Q.D] acres are Roundup Ready alfalfa, and how many are conventional alfalfa?3840356260650 25 50 75 100Overall (n=199)East (n=104)West (n=95)Percent of alfalfa acresRoundup Ready alfalfa*Conventional alfalfa*To be included in this study, growers were required to have Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in 2009 and/or 2010[ Page 4 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client PrivilegePercent Of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvested At Specific Stage In 2009Q.3 In 2009, what percent of your total Roundup Ready alfalfa did you harvest:4539543337383624141610364770 25 50 75 100Overall (n=198)East (n=104)West (n=94)Aware of productionfields in area (n=8)Percent of Roundup Ready Alfalfa AcresPre-bloomAt or before 10% bloom11% to 20% bloom21% bloom or later[Base=Respondents harvesting Roundup Ready alfalfa and able to estimate]Pre-bloom/At or before10% bloom82%77%90%57%[ Page 5 ]Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study - 2009Study #3482 (091 012 1110) JAN 10Attorney-Client Privilege242890 25 50 75 100Overall (n=42)East (n=27)West (n=15)AverageOf the 18% of Occasions When Harvest Occurred After 10% Bloom,What Percent Were Due To Bad Weather?Q.4b What percent of the time was your decision to harvest Roundup Readyalfalfa after 10% bloom due to bad weather?[Base=Respondents harvesting at least some Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom, and able to estimate]

# A ppendix

K

F itzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. Proceedings of the 42 nd 

# North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28

- 30, 2010

# Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence S. Fitzpatrick * 

# and G. Lowry **



# The alfalfa seed industry has recently implemented two complementary programs that together enable mutual coexistence between convent ional and Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA) seed producers. The 2010 Alfalfa Seed Stewardship Program (ASSP-2010) is an identity preserved process-based certificate offered by state seed ce rtification agencies. It was developed by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) desi gned to serve GE-trait sensitive conventional seed producers (e.g., export). In 2008, the Best Management Practices for RRA Seed Production (BMPs) was adopted by the Nationa l Alfalfa & Forage Alliance. These BMPs are required coexistence protocols that apply on ly to RRA seed-producing companies (i.e., no new requirements are imposed upon external conven tional seed producers). These market-driven, science-based programs were deve loped with the involvement of alfalfa industry stakeholders over a 5-year period (2005 to 2010) using all availa ble market and gene flow data. An array of stakeholders were involved that represented di verse segments of the alfalfa seed and hay industries: scientists, seed certifiers, breeder s, exporters, marketers, producers, growers and organic. These new programs are independent from and more stringent than AOSCA or OECD Seed Certification Programs. Forage Genetics and Pioneer Hi-Bred In ternational (the only companies producing RRA seed), have collectively reported to inspectors that in 2009 greater than 97% of their conventional seed lots were produced without de tection of the RRA trait (>500 lots tested with <0.00% RRA). If detected, AP was less than 0.5% (overall lot average <0.1%).

Seed Program No Program (e.g.,

common

seed) USDA National Organic Program Certification C ertified Seed Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) Seed AOSCA AASP2010 Identity

Preserved, Certified Seed

Market U.S. domestic conventional

(baseline) Organic forage planting U.S domestic conventional & RRA seed U.S. domestic RRA seed U.S. conventional seed for export

Purity Standard

or Objective n/a No official p urity standards; process-based requirements < 1% off types < 0.5% GE in neighboring conventional seed production Non-detect GE

Spatial isolation from other seed field n/a Customized farm p lan; not uniform mitigation standard 165 ft 900 ft to 3 mi at RRA seed field planting (pollinator specific) > 5 miles

Pro g ram conforms to: n/a USDA-AMS N ational Organic Program Federal Seed Act Industry consensus and RRA seed co. contracts AOSCA I. P. Program

Program monitored by: n/a Local Organic Certifying

Agency State Seed Certifying Agency State Seed Certifying Agency State Seed Certifying Agency

Program obli g ations fulfilled by: n/a Organic, conventional grower Seed company and seed grower RRA seed company and seed grower GE-sensitive seed company and conventional seed grower Growers using the program: Conventional only Conventional only Both, conventional and RRA All RRA, only Conventional only

* Forage Genetics International, West Salem, WI **Idaho Crop Improvement Association, Meridian, Idaho