Page 1

- 1



## Appendix 1.
USDA Notifications and States Approved for Environmenta l Releases of MON 88701 Dicamba
- and Glufosinate
- R esistant Cotton and MON 87708 Dicamba
- R esistant S oybeanPage 1

- 2



### Table 1

- 1. USDA Notifications , Permits and States

Approved for MON 88701 Cotton USDA No. Date State /Territory

- N umber of Releases 07

- 241

- 107n 9/28/2007 PR

- 2 08

- 042

- 109n 3/12/2008 TX

- 2, TN

- 1, NC

- 2, MS

- 3, GA

- 4 08

- 056

- 112n

08

- 056

- 117n 3/26/2008

3/26/2008 NM

- 2

TX

- 3, SC

- 2, NC

- 2, MS

- 2, LA

- 1, GA

- 4,

AR

- 1 08

- 266

- 130n 10/19/2008 PR

- 3 09

- 058

- 104n 3/29/2009 CA

- 1 09

- 065

- 111n 4/5/2009 AZ

- 5, GA

- 1, MS

- 3, SC

- 2, TX

- 4 09

- 068

- 108n 4/8/2009 AL

- 1, AR

- 2, AZ

- 1, GA

- 1, IL

- 1, LA

- 1, MS

- 1, NC

- 4, NM

- 2, TX

- 1 09

- 072

- 103n 4/8/2009 AR

- 1, MS

- 2, SC

- 5, TN

- 2, TX

- 5 09

- 224

- 101n 9/21/2009 PR

- 2 10

- 054

- 134n 3/20/2010 TX

- 4 10

- 059

- 109n 3/28/2010 GA

- 2, NC

- 9, SC

- 3 10

- 061

- 102n 7/10/2010 MS

- 1, PR

- 7 10

- 064

- 101n 4/3/2010 CA

- 2, GA

- 1, LA

- 1, MO

- 1, OK

- 3, SC

- 1, AR

- 1 10

- 067

- 104n 4/7/2010 AZ

- 5, IL

- 1, MS

- 4, NM

- 2, PR

- 2, TX

- 10
10

- 071

- 101n 4/9/2010 AR

- 4, AZ

- 2, GA

- 2, KS

- 1, LA

- 1, NC

- 2, NM

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 2

10

- 071

- 102n 4/10/2010 AR

- 1, GA

- 1, LA

- 1, MS

- 1, NC

- 1, SC

- 1, TN

- 1, TX

- 2 10

- 242

- 102n 9/29/2010 PR

- 2 10

- 285

- 105n 11/11/2010 AR

- 1, GA

- 1, LA

- 1, NM

- 1 11

- 045

- 101n 3/16/2011 MS

- 1, PR

- 2 11

- 052

- 105n 3/23/2011 AL

- 1, FL

- 2, GA

- 9, MS

- 1, NC

- 6, SC

- 4 11

- 053

- 105n 3/25/2011 AR

- 3, LA

- 2, MO

- 2, MS

- 8, TN

- 5, TX

- 4 11

- 075

- 107n 4/15/2011 AL

- 1, AR

- 1, AZ

- 4, IL

- 1, LA

- 1, MO

- 1, MS

- 4, NC

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 9

11

- 068

- 103n 4/8/2011 AL

- 2, AR

- 2, AZ

- 1, CA

- 2. GA

- 2, LA

- 1, NC

- 1, NM

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 5 11

- 083

- 104n 4/23/2011 AL

- 1, MS

- 1 11

- 084

- 107n 4/24/2011 NC

- 1 11

- 091

- 102n 5/1/2011 TX

- 1Page 1

- 3



### Table 1

- 1 (Continued)

. USDA Notifications , Permits and

States Approved f

or MON 8870 1 Cotton USDA No. Date State /Territory

- Number of Releases RRReleases Release 11

- 094

- 101n 5/4/2011 AZ

- 1 11

- 111

- 104n 5/21/2011 FL

- 1 11

- 133

- 103n 6/12/2011 IL

- 1 11

- 153

- 101n 7/2/2011 MS

- 1, PR

- 2 11

- 152

- 101n 7/1/2011 GA

- 1 11

- 199

- 102n 8/17/2011 PR

- 1 11

- 290

- 101n 11/16/2011 MS

- 1, PR

- 3 12

- 018

- 101n 2/17/2012 AL

- 1, TX

- 2 12

- 053

- 110n 3/23/2012 AR

- 3, CA

- 1, GA

- 2, LA

- 2, MS

- 11, NC

- 1, TN

- 1, TX

- 2

12

- 046

- 104n 3/16/2012 AL

- 1, AR

- 4, FL

- 1, GA

- 2, LA

- 1, NC

- 3, SC

- 1, TN

- 4, TX

- 2

12

- 051

- 106n 3/21/2012 AL

- 3, AR

- 3, FL

- 1, GA

- 3, MS

- 7, SC

- 1, TN

- 1, TX

- 5 12

- 051

- 105n 3/21/2012 GA

- 5, MS

- 4, NC

- 6, SC

- 2, TN

- 1, TX

- 5 12

- 046

- 109n 3/16/2012 AR

- 1, MO

- 5, TN

- 13,TX

- 2 12

- 055

- 101n 3/25/2012 AR

- 1, CA

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 1 12

- 068

- 101n 4/7/2012 CA

- 4 12

- 053

- 109n 3/23/2012 AL

- 1, NC

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 4 12

- 069

- 101n 4/8/2012 GA

- 9, TX

- 2 12

- 075

- 102n 4/14/2012 AL

- 1, AR

- 2, MS

- 1, NC

- 1, SC

- 1, TX

- 4 12

- 074

- 107n 4/13/2012 TX

- 1 12

- 081

- 101n 4/20/2012 AL

- 1, TX

- 2 Abbreviations: AL = Alabama; AR = Arkansas; AZ = Arizona; CA = California; FL = Florida; GA = Georgia; LA = Louisiana; IL = Illinois; MO = Missouri; MS = Mississippi; NC = North Carolina; PR = Puerto Rico; SC = South Carolina; TN = Tennessee; TX = TexasPage 1

- 4



### Table 1

- 2
. USDA Notifications, Permits and States

Approved for MON 8 7708 Soybean USDA N o. Date State /Territory

- Number of Releases 05

- 269

- 02n 11/16/2005 PR

- 1 06

- 045

- 15n 5/18/2006 HI

- 5 06

- 045

- 17n 5/18/2006 PR

- 3 06

- 052

- 01n 3/20/2006 IL

- 7, KS

- 5 06

- 052

- 02n 4/24/2006 IA

- 7, IL

- 5 , IN

- 2 06

- 052

- 09n 4/24/2006 IA

- 2 , IL

- 6 , IN

- 2 06

- 067

- 05n 4/24/2006 IL

- 2 06

- 090

- 03n 5/5/2006 IL

- 2 06

- 275

- 102n 11/14/2006 PR

- 1 06

- 345

- 101n 1/10/2007 PR

- 3 07

- 018

- 103n 2/17/2007 IL

- 10 , IN

- 3 , MO

- 1 , PR

- 1 07

- 018

- 106n 2/17/2007 IA

- 7 , KS

- 6 07

- 018

- 109n 2/17/2007 IA

- 1 , IL

- 10 , IN

- 3 , MO

- 1 07

- 024

- 101n 3/18/2007 IA

- 7 , KS

- 6 07

- 039

- 101n 3/18/2007 IA

- 4 , IL

- 5 , IN

- 3 , KS

- 3 07

- 043

- 102n 4/10/2007 IA

- 1 , IL

- 2 , KS

- 1 MD

- 1 , WI

- 1 07

- 050

- 107n 4/9/2007 IA

- 1 , IL

- 2 , IN

- 1 , KS

- 1 KY

- 1 , MN

- 1 , NE

- 1 , SD

- 1 07

- 057

- 109n 4/6/2007 AL

- 1, IA

- 3, IL

- 1 IN

- 1, LA

- 1, MN

- 1 07

- 094

- 104n 5/4/2007 MO

- 2 , MS

- 1 , NE

- 1 SD

- 1 , TN , IA

- 1 07

- 094

- 116n 5/4/2007 MN

- 1 07

- 113

- 103n 6/4/2007 PR

- 2 07

- 241

- 103n 9/28/2007 PR

- 1 07

- 250

- 102n 10/7/2007 PR

- 2 07

- 261

- 101n 10/18/2007 PR

- 2 07

- 271

- 101n 10/28/2007 PR

- 2 07

- 312

- 101n 12/5/2007 PR

- 1Page 1

- 5



### Table 1

- 2 (Continued). USDA Notifications , Permits and

States for MON 87708 Soybean USDA No. Date State /Territory

- Number of Releases 07

- 352

- 101rm 3/26/2008 IA

- 8, IL

- 16, IN

- 4 , KS

- 7 , MO

- 1 08

- 030

- 103n 2/29/2008 PR

- 2 08

- 031

- 105n 3/13/2008 IA

- 5 , IL

- 4 , KS

- 5 08

- 031

- 106n 3/1/2008 IA

- 2 , IL

- 5 , IN

- 3 08

- 039

- 107n 3/9/2008 IA

- 5 , IL

- 1 , IN

- 3 , KS

- 5 , MO

- 1 08

- 043

- 107n 3/13/2008 IA

- 3 , IL

- 10 , IN

- 1 , OH

- 1 08

- 049

- 101n 3/19/2008 IL

- 1 , MD

- 1 , WI

- 1 08

- 058

- 101n 3/28/2008 IA

- 3 , IL

- 2 , IN

- 1 , MO

- 1, PA

- 1 , WI

- 2 08

- 059

- 109n 3/29/2008 IA

- 1 08

- 059

- 110n 3/29/2008 IL

- 1 08

- 059

- 112n 3/29/2008 IN

- 1 08

- 060

- 103n 4/2/2008 MN

- 1 08

- 063

- 112n 4/2/200 8 IA

- 4, IL

- 2, IN

- 1 , MI

- 1 MO

- 1 , NE

- 2 08

- 063

- 113n 4/4/2008 MN

- 2 , ND

- 1 , SD

- 5 , WI

- 5 08

- 065

- 101n 4/4/2008 IL

- 2 , IN

- 1 08

- 064

- 102n 4/3/2008 PA

- 1 08

- 064

- 103n 4/3/2008 IL

- 1 08

- 064

- 104n 4/3/2008 AR

- 1 , GA

- 1 , KS

- 5 LA

- 1 , MO

- 1 SC

- 1 08

- 064

- 105n 4/3/2008 AR

- 1 , IL

- 2 , IN

- 1 , KS

- 3 , MD

- 1 MN

- 3 , NC

- 1 , SD

- 1 , WI

- 1, ND

- 1 08

- 072

- 110n 4/25/2008 AR

- 1 , IA

- 1 , IN

- 3 KS

- 1 , MI

- 1 , MO

- 2 08

- 079

- 101n 4/17/2008 NE

- 1, I A

- 3 08

- 084

- 102n 4/24/2008 IA

- 1 , NE

- 1 08

- 182

- 101n 8/1/2008 PR

- 2 08

- 219

- 101n 9/5/2008 PR

- 1 08

- 263

- 101n 10/19/2008 AR

- 1 , IA

- 1 , IL

- 1 , MO

- 1 08

- 266

- 105n 10/22/2008 PR

- 1 08

- 323

- 101n 12/18/2008 PR

- 1 08

- 352

- 108n 1/26/2009 PR

- 1 08

- 357

- 101rm 3/17/2009 IA

- 8 , IL

- 7 , IN

- 3 , KS

- 5 , NE

- 1Page 1

- 6



### Table 1

- 2 (Continued). USDA Notifications , Permits and

States for MON 87708 Soybean USDA No. Date State

- Number of Releases
09

- 007

- 106n 2/25/2009 PR

- 1 09

- 036

- 103n 3/7/2009 IA

- 2 , IL

- 2 , IN

- 1 , NE

- 1 09

- 042

- 103n 3/19/2009 MS

- 1 09

- 049

- 110n 3/20/2009 IA

- 1 09

- 050

- 136n 4/3/2009 IA

- 2 , IL

- 2, IN

- 2 , MD

- 1 , MN

- 1 , OH

- 1 , PR

- 1 09

- 061

- 108n 4/1/2009 AR

- 1, IA

- 1, IL

- 3, KS

- 1, SD

- 1

09

- 061

- 117n 4/1/2009 IL

- 1 , MO

- 2 09

- 068

- 111n 4/8/2009 IL

- 2 , IN

- 2 , MS

- 1 NE

- 2 , OH

- 1 09

- 071

- 102n 4/11/2009 NE

- 1 , SD

- 1 , TN

- 2 09

- 082

- 103n 4/22/2009 IN

- 1 09

- 091

- 103n 5/1/2009 AR

- 1 09

- 093

- 120n 5/3/2009 AR

- 1 09

- 124

- 102n 6/3/2009 PR

- 1 09

- 124

- 105n 5/13/2009 IA

- 1 09

- 135

- 104n 6/14/2009 IL

- 1 09

- 162

- 105n 7/11/2009 PR

- 1 09

- 162

- 106n 7/11/2009 PR

- 1 09

- 222

- 101n 9/9/2009 PR

- 2 09

- 237

- 104n 9/24/2009 PR

- 1 09

- 247

- 101rm 11/17/2009 PR

- 1 Abbreviations: AR = Arkansas; GA = Georgia; HI = Hawai’i; KS = Kansas; KY = Kentucky; LA = Louisiana; IA = Iowa; IL = Illinois; IN = Indiana; MD = Maryland; MI = Michigan; MN = Minnesota; MO = Missouri; MS = Mississippi; NC = North Carolina; ND = North Dakota; NE = Nebra ska; OH = Ohio; PA = Pennsylvania; PR = Puerto Rico; SC = South Carolina; SD = South Dakota; TN = Tennessee; WI =Wisconsin

### Summary of Public Comments Appendix 2.

Page 2

- 1Public Scoping Comments Members of the public were invited to participate in the scoping process for this draft EIS through an announcement of a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with making a determination on the status of Mo nsanto petitions 10

- 188

- 01p ( designated as event MON 87708 soybean ) and 12

- 185

- 01p ( designated as event MON 88701 cotton ). APHIS published a n NOI to prepare an EIS for the two petitions and requested public comments for scoping the EIS in the Federal Regi ster on May 16, 2013. The 60

- day public comment period closed on July 17, 2013. The docket file was published at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

. I n this NOI, APHIS asked for comments, data, and information regarding 18 broad, overlapping issues. APHIS also requested the public to provide suggestions for other issues to be discussed or alternatives to be analyzed in the draft EIS. During this comme nt period, APHIS received 64 comments (see summary in Table 2

- 1) with an additional 16 comments from the virtual public meetings (see summary in Table 2

- 2). Comments were made by interest groups, industry representatives, industry trade organizations, grow ers , private individuals, scientists, agronomists and crop specialists, and a Federal agency

. Full text of the comments received during the open comment period is available online at www.regulations.gov.
In addition to post ing written comments directly to the docket, members of the public were given opportunities to provide their comments directly to APHIS during public meetings held on June 26 and 27 , 2013

. Transcripts of the public meetings are available as follows:
For the June 26, 2013 , virtual meeting : http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/VPM/062613/VPM_062613_transcript.pdf

For June 27, 2013 , virtual meeting: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/VPM/062713/VPM_062713_transcript.pdf In all, a total of 8 0 public comments were received with 64 public comment s submitted to the docket folder on the NOI for the preparation of an EIS on dicamba

- resistant soybean and cotton and a n additional 16 comments were given on the NOI during the virtual meetings. APHIS used the public comments to identify issues to be considered in develop ment of the Draft EIS. A number of commenters indicated they object to APHIS Notice of Intention to prepare an EIS , finding the level of analysis performed in the EAs scientifically sufficient. These commenters felt preparing an EIS unnecessarily keeps v aluable traits and tools currently needed by growers battling herbicide

- resistant weeds. Commenters who were opposed to the deregulation of MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton generally were concern ed about the potential increased use of dicamba by growers with adoption of the deregulated events. While APHIS recognizes these concerns, APHIS does not regulate pesticide use. EPA is reviewing and analyzing the information Monsanto has submitted in support of the registration of their dicamba formu lation. This includes assessing the physical and chemical properties of, fate and transport of, and impacts to the environment and human health Page 2

- 2from the new formulation. APHIS has no input into the decision of permitting the use of the new dicamba uses ; therefore, those issues are not analyzed in this EIS.

Page 2

- 3Table 2

- 1 . EIS Public Scoping Comments Submitted Online
Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt 1 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0002 Anna Fox • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• These crops may be resistant to the herbicides glufosinate but what about all the other organisms in the ecosystem? 2 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0003 Darryl Figueroa • We need to stop using pesticides that are banned in Europe and killing our bees.

• Stop using genetic ally engineered food without long term study RE the impact on our health. GE crops and seeds are creating super weeds and changing the bacteria in our stomachs and changing how we digest food.

• We want and need labelling of all genetically engineered food and products using GE seeds and crops. 3 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0004 Arthur Tesla • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• Spraying these crops with dangerous herbicides makes these crops plant pests!. 4 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0006 Caitlyn Batche • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops require about 4 times more water, and the application of several pesticides. Clean water is a diminishing resource because of exploitation and pollution. In Environmental Protection Agency’s Numeric Nutrient Criteria, pesticides were a major problem in water systems.

• GMO products should be labelled. 5 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0005 Philip Nelson, Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) • These traits have already gone through USDA's rigorous regulatory review protocol and there have been no scientific, findings to warrant additional EIS. On behalf of nearly 83,000 Illinois farmers, I write today to request

that, APHIS mov e expeditiously when completing this seemingly superfluous regulatory review.

• Biotechnology has produced vast improvements in farm production practices, permitting farmers to do more with less. Herbicide

- tolerant seeds are simply another tool for our p roducers to utilize towards helping feed the world's ever increasing population. These technologies will have a positive impact on farming and the food that we produce. 6 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0008 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service

– Elaine Leslie • The National Park Service supports the objective identified or development of science that addresses the Environmental Issues for Consideration identified on pages 28799 [of the Federal Register notice]. The NPS is Page 2

- 4Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt concerned about the indirect effe cts on the soil and water quality in NPS areas as a result of increased herbicide use. We believe the indirect effects on soil and water quality as a result of increased herbicide use of the products proposed to be de

- regulated, be evaluated. 7 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0009 Jean Public • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• I do not believe the tests on these products are adequate. This is new stuff. It has not had rigorous long term testing. 8 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0010 None None • No content

9 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0011 Sergio Benitez • Wants labeling of GMOs

10 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0012 Kelli Lord • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton. 11 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0013 Omar Flores • Two documents, one in English and the other in Spanish (by European Union and Greenpeace Mexico), show the negative health, economical and ecological consequences of having allowed Monsanto's GMO soybean RoundUp(tm) resistant in the Yucatan Pen insula and in Argentina.

• An economical study by the Autonomous University of Yucatan shows that the economical costs of using GMO soybean, not even counting the environmental costs is 55 higher than the total benefit. 12 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0016 Carl Bausch • O pposed to preparation on an EIS.

• The statement of purpose and need is missing from the notices. To what need and for what purposes are petitioners responding in developing and commercializing their products? The answer to this question largely determines the range of reasonable alternatives the agency must consider in the NEPA process.

• Granting (with or without conditions) or denying petitions does not constitute “alternatives” to be considered in NEPA’s environmental impact statement process; rather, the y are decision options for the agency (see my earlier comment for explanation). Alternatives that must be considered under NEPA relate directly to the purposes of and need for proposed actions.

• APHIS NEPA documents are not written in plain language, as re quired by the NEPA implementing procedures (40 C.F.R. § 1502.8).

• Monitoring, which is an essential component of the NEPA process (40 C.F.R. § 1505.3), should be employed in biotechnology permitting to confirm assumptions made in NEPA documents and respon d to many Page 2

- 5Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt unanswered, but oft

- repeated questions.

• APHIS has often claimed that, although individual farmers may be affected by releasing genetically engineered organisms in the area, when examined in total, none of the potential business losses is expected to be so severe as to amount to a significant impact. This determination fails to recognize that environmental “significance” exists at all levels―“society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a).

• APHIS tends to rely on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) consideration of environmental effects in the context of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration process, as well as F DA’s determinations under its enabling legislation. The regulatory and review processes of EPA and FDA cannot be relied upon to relieve APHIS from considering in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process any and all effects assoc iated with release into the environmental of petitioners’ products.

• In the past, APHIS appears to have placed a great deal of reliance on petitioners in complying with NEPA. Agencies have a responsibility under NEPA to independently investigate and asse ss the environmental impacts of proposals under consideration (40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a) and (b)).

• There is considerable uncertainty regarding potential environmental effects of releasing genetically engineered organisms. Although an agency is not precluded from approving a particular proposal involving substantial uncertainty, it must disclose all areas of uncertainty. Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark , 747 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1984).

• The taxpayer and the agricultural biotechnology industry would be better served if APHIS announced it would no longer “regulate” agricultural biotechnology because there has not been a proven plant

- pest risk associated with the technology in decades, perhaps ever. 13 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0014 Sally Smith

- Weymouth • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• Please do not grant Monsanto's request for nonregulated status of herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton. Such herbicides are already wreaking havoc all over the world caus ing crop failures and super weeds, soil depletion, and a plethora of ailments afflicting humans the world over.

• Wants labeling of GMOs 14 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0015 Sarah Stolar • The raise in acceptable levels of glyphosphate on our foods are ridiculous and criminal. Round up is toxic to the environment, soil organisms, and Page 2

- 6Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt people. 15 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0017 Jessica Padgett • Opposed to Monsanto receiving unregulated status for herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton.

• One theory for the cause of the decrease in the bee population is because of the bacterial toxin, Bacill Thuringiensis (Bt), which was created by Monsanto for the GM corn seeds. According to the Health Wyze Report, “Bbacterial toxin Bacill Thuringiensis is known to provoke an immune response in humans and bees. An immune response in a bee prevents proper memory formation, and causes confusion. One of the symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder is bees' decreased navigational ability [1].” The bees are unable t o go back to their hives and end up dying.

• According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system [2].”

• According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, “the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us [5].”

16 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0018 Gregg Langer • This technology will be v ery valuable to our growers as a herbicide option of choice. It will broaden and increase our control options while limiting impact on environment. It will be an essential technology to prevent and control resistance in weed control. 17 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0019 Reid J. Smeda, Professor of Weed Science, University of Missouri • Development of dicamba

- tolerant soybean represents a novel solution to the postemergence control of glyphosate

- resistant weeds. I would urge you to not limit a potentia lly significant management tool (dicamba) because of fears that past mistakes will be repeated. The path forward should be an integrated approach to weed management in soybean.

• I believe that adoption of dicamba

- tolerant soybean technology will be diffe rent than adoptive practices of glyphosate

- resistant soybean, and the potential for selection for dicamba

- resistant weeds will be lower than for glyphosate. Below are my reasons to support the previous statement: 1) In

- crop, growers know that weed size is important for using dicamba. I believe this same mentality can be transferred to postemergence use of dicamba on tolerant soybean. Page 2

- 7Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt 2) I believe that the current mind

- set of soybean growers, especially in Missouri, is to apply labeled rates of residual herbicides in soybean, and clean up escape weeds with a timely postemergence herbicide. This is the pattern that was practiced before gly phosate

- resistant soybeans were introduced, and I believe sets the stage for proper use of the dicamba

- tolerant technology. 3) Current options for postemergence control of glyphosate

- resistant weeds in soybean are limited. We have observed a dramatic increas e in the use of PPO herbicides (lactofen, fomesafen, etc.). However, prior to the introduction of glyphosate

- resistant soybean, a number of biotypes of waterhemp were found resistant to lactofen and fomesafen. Re

- release of Liberty Link® soybean has
resu lted in effective control of glyphosate

- resistant weeds in soybean. However, growers have few other options and my fear is that glufosinate

resistant weeds in soybean will occur. Now is the time to adopt the use of dicamba

- tolerant soybean to preclude se lection for weed resistance to glufosinate. 4) Dicamba use will be limited in amount (total applied per cropping year) and to specific weed sizes, which should reduce selection pressure for resistance. 5) I believe increased grower knowledge about Amaranthus sp ecies will improve decision

- making with dicamba

- tolerant soybean, which will lower the risk for selection of resistant Amaranthus species. 6) In my field trials, we have shown over time that dicamba can provide from 3

- 7 days of residual weed control. This ca n provide some short

- term benefit to growers, but is not a substitute for adoption of preemergence herbicides. Therefore, dicamba is not a stand alone product. 7) Although reduction of production costs remains important, the higher commodity price for soybea n has resulted in openness of the grower to adopt use of residual herbicides to protect soybean yield. Use of residual herbicides will be important for protecting the integrity of the dicamba

- tolerant crop technology. 8) ....herbicide use cannot be reversed or abandoned for the majority of our soybean acres. Continued education on proper herbicide use is, in my opinion, the only path forward. Dicamba

- tolerant soybeans provide crop producers with a highly effective tool, and integration of dicamba should be in the context of proper use of residual herbicides.

18 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0020 J. Christopher Hall, Professor, University of Guelp Emphasize the following points in regards to de

- regulation of dicamba

- tolerant crops; specifically in terms of evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides (e.g., dicamba and others) in weed species:

• ...the risk of evolution of week resistance to herbicides can be Page 2

- 8Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt Mithila Jugulam, Assistant Professor, Kansas State University significantly mitigated through implementation of diversified weed management programs by farmers, that include: use of multiple herbicides with overlapping activity on target weeds and/or the inclusion of mechanical and/or cultural weed control p ractices.

• Compared with other herbicides families, the incidence of resistance to auxinic herbicides is relatively low...

• Information about fitness cost associated with auxin herbicides has been documented in a few species indicating that resistant plants ar e less fit in the absence of herbicide application. This could be a major reason for the limited occurrence of auxinic herbicide

- resistant weeds. Additionally, this could explain why farmers continue to use and derive benefits from these products after r esistant populations have been identified.

• The recessive trait spreads much slower in a population than a dominant trait. Since the resistance to auxinic herbicides in some weeds is determined by recessive genes..., this may be one of the reasons for low
oc currence of auxinic herbicide resistant weeds.

• In many cases the use and, thus, selection pressure of these auxinic herbicides has exceeded that of other herbicides groups to which resistance is more common.

• Definitive mechanisms of resistance to auxinic h erbicides have yet to be defined....This suggests a relatively low probability for cross resistance to other herbicide groups and classes that could occur because of common metabolic resistance pathways.

• The low probability in combination with stringent impl ementation with integrated weed management practices should reduce risks of evolution of resistance to there herbicides. Overall, the key is, educating the farmer of the negative consequences of continuous use of herbicides with the same mode of action an d the positive consequences of implementing efficient weed

- management practices such as herbicide rotations, use of multiple herbicides in mixtures and sequences, inclusion of tillage where necessary and other non

- chemical

- based weed management practices, which will help reduce the chances of evolution of herbicide

- resistant weed populations.

See attached review article: Mithila, J., J.C. Hall, W.G. Johnson, K.B. Kelley, and D.E. Riechers. 2011. Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: Historical pe rspectives, Page 2

- 9Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Sci. 59: 445

- 457.

19 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0020 Fred Yoder, grower, Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association, and former president of the National Corn Growers Association • Farmers should have the choice to use safe and valuable new agricultural technologies to help manage weeds, using multiple modes of action.

• It is important to ensure the USDA regulatory review of new biotech traits does not fall fu rther behind those of other major crop producing countries such as Brazil or Argentina, who are rapidly gaining a larger share of the global market.

• Farmers have many years of experience using products like dicamba, and are very capable of preventing off

- s ite movement through proper stewardship including application techniques, equipment settings, nozzle selection, and consideration of environmental conditions during application, such as wind speed. 20 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0032 Charles Hall, North Carolina Soybean Producers Association • I support the full deregulation of event MON 87708

- dicamba

- tolerant soybeans

- so that soybean farmers will have full access to this technology which, combined with other currently available technologies, will expand options for weed management practices on the farm. Timely access to a safe, sustainable new technology will increase farmer options for cost

- effective weed management. The beneficiaries will be the downstream users of soybean products, including human and livestoc k nutrition products. As demand increases worldwide for human and livestock nutrition, effective weed management will be vital to sustaining the soybean yield increases that will be demanded of U.S. soybean farmers.

• The dicamba

- tolerant soybeans and the s ame tolerance being developed in cotton expands the dicamba weed control window from the current preplant burndown use to allow in

- crop applications of dicamba herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds pre

- emergence and post

- emergence. When combined wi th Roundup Ready, it will allow a new mode of action for improved weed control and weed resistance management. Use of dicamba at planting in this system eliminates having to wait the three weeks required in
non

- dicamba tolerant crops. This translates int o a three week gain on weed control. Additionally, dicamba provides potential residual benefit, depending on soil type and rainfall.

• The dicamba product has a decades

- long record of safety and effectiveness, and is highly effective at combating the major w eed pests of soybeans. North Carolina soybean farmers have the knowledge and training to incorporate Page 2

- 10Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt dicamba

- tolerant soybeans into on

- farm stewardship practices.

• I oppose USDA’s proposal to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is not nec essary and would only serve to delay farmers’ access and ability to use this new tool.

21 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0023 Steve Austin • Wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternative s that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage t hese crops pose. 22 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0024 Victor Miller • Herbicide use, possible selection for and the spread of weeds resistant to the herbicide and drift from applications of dicamba onto dicamba intolerant crops and other areas, seems to be the responsibility of EPA not USDA. All of these questions are under review at EPA, which is responsible for issues related to herbicides and their use.

• This is a safe, widely used herbicide. Over the past 10 years it has been used very successfully on over 25 0 million acres, including corn, wheat, pasture and range land, as well as other crop land.

• The equipment, the knowledge, and the desire to use the products in a responsible manner by the Agricultural Community already exists!

• Glyphosate tolerant weeds are becoming a problem and we as producers need more modes of action to limit this problem. Dicamba is one of those additional modes of action and it becomes criminal to deny that tool to us as we then have less produce to serve to a hungry world. 23 APHIS

- 2 013

- Kenneth Martin, • We are a medium sized food processor and our business was built and Page 2

- 11Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt 0043

- 0025 Director Ag Operations, Furmano Foods, Inc. continues on specialty crops who are highly suspectable to Dicamba drift. Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors like us. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage. Because of these drift issues a large portion of r ow crop growers have discontinued the use of this product.

• I do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, the answer is not in accepting a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. I th ink that USDA should expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to help look for better ways to combat the resistant weed issue from the over use of certain chemicals.

• Approving Dicamba tolerant crops seems very short sighted given t he potential of drift damage that we know has happened in the past. There has to be better alternatives to work at this problem, lets find them. 24 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0026 Mark Jackson, president Iowa Soybean Association • I write to reaffirm our strong support for full deregulation of dicamba

- tolerant soybeans and cotton. Full deregulation of dicamba

- tolerant soybeans will help Iowa growers increase yields in an environmentally

- friendly manner and is consistent with the ISA ’s mission.

• ISA understands USDA APHIS’ reasons for conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on dicamba

- tolerant technologies, and how they appear to relate to potential impacts associated with herbicide use and resistance. However, matters rela ting to herbicide use are regulated under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

• growers need access to weed management technologies with proven efficacy over a broad spectrum of weeds

- like dicamba tolerant soybeans (MON87708) and di camba tolerant cotton (MON88701). As herbicide resistance becomes more prevalent, the arsenal of tools at our disposal to effectively control and manage resistance is limited. Weed scientists tell us that the best way to address herbicide resistance is to implement diversity in weed management practices, including the use of multiple herbicide modes of action. The dicamba

- tolerant system will provide an additional mode of action, while expanding the dicamba weed control window, eliminating planting restric tions and permitting in

- crop applications.

• Access to a broad range of technologies will help us maintain healthy yields and ensure a stable supply of quality soybeans to the food and

Page 2

- 12Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt feed processing industries. USDA’s decision on dicamba

- tolerant technolog ies will have broad implications for the entire soybean value chain in the U.S. and globally.

• we believe that dicamba

- tolerant technologies will enable growers to continue to be good stewards of the land. Compared to some weed control programs, this system may result in fewer herbicide applications. Glyphosate

- tolerant crops enabled widespread adoption of conservation tillage practices. This has been a tremendous advance in sustainable farming practices thanks to the preservation of the topsoil, reduced fue l emissions and better water conservation. The use of dicamba as part of the Roundup Ready Xtend Crop system will help us preserve the value of existing pre

- and post

- emergent herbicides, which continue to bring significant value.

• With regard to concerns a bout dicamba off

- site movement, growers have experience with various cropping systems and are experienced and capable of applying dicamba in a manner that will minimize drift. With the use of an appropriate formulation, following label directions, training and communicating with neighbors, we are confident these concerns will be addressed. Newer dicamba formulations, along with best management practices make it possible for all types of growers to co

- exist and prosper. 25 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0027 Wayne Keeling, Professor, Texas A&M University
Darrin Dodds, Associate

Extension Professor,

Mississippi State University Dr. Stanley Culpepper, Professor, University of Georgia • We believe that the ability to selectively use dicamba in cotton will provide a m uch needed tool for management of broadleaf weeds and in particular Amaranthus spp. , currently the most troublesome weed species in cotton. In particular additional postemergence options in cotton are needed for control of broadleaf weeds and dicamba will be such an option. However with the launch of any new herbicide in a cropping system we must understand how to use it in a sustainable way so to minimize the risk of resistance.

• It is widely recognized that the way to mitigate resistance to herbicides is to use herbicides in diversified weed management systems. The WSSA has define this as using more than one herbicide mode of action that is effective on the targeted specie(s) in mixtures, sequences or in rotation and/or using herbicides in combination m echanical and/or cultural practices. Weed management is ultimately the responsibility of farmers and requires that the weed science community, including industry, academics, crop commodity groups and others reach out to farmers and communicate information on practices to best manage resistance as well as the benefits of implementing these practices. By so doing resistance to our

Page 2

- 13Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt existing herbicide resources, as well as new options such as dicamba, will be minimized.

• We believe that farmers will integrate dicamba into diversified management programs because they will see better overall weed control.

• The risk of resistance for an herbicide is a function of the probability for resistance based upon genetic and biological factors and the probability that far mers will implement recommended best management practices. In the case of dicamba’s use in dicamba and glufosinate tolerant cotton we believe that the risk of evolution of resistance is relatively low. If one balances risk of resistance with benefits of use, the benefits greatly outweigh the risk in this case. 26 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0028 Dale Moore Executive Director Public Policy, American Farm Bureau Federation • Farm Bureau respectfully asks APHIS to abide by the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of its legal obligations under the PPA and NEPA and reconsider its decision to prepare EISs for the herbicide tolerant crops identified in the Notices. Farm Bureau asks APHIS to act expeditiously to finalize the deregulation process for these crops in keeping wit h the Ninth Circuit’s recent RRA decision and the APHIS regulations governing deregulation petitions. 27 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0029 Dennis M. Dixon, Hartung Brothers, Incorporated • Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbici de use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 28 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0030 Kimberly Iott, Iott Ranch & Orchard • Iott Ranch & Orchard, Inc wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Page 2

- 14Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven t o be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these cr ops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will resul t from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 29 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0031 Kevin Wilson • I'm a tomato grower from Indiana,and also a corn and soybean producer as well. What I am asking for is a reasonable ruling that will let me protect my crop as well as use these products as well. The agreement that was worked between DOW agriscience and the SOCC accomplishes this. Monsanto has chosen to ignore the SOCC's request to work out an agreement similar to DOW. The current label that Monsanto is trying to get approval does not address several issues that I feel have potential events that can cause losses of my crops. 30 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0032 Thomas Parker, H & T Parker Farms • H & T Parker Farms wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and v olatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbici de use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant Page 2

- 15Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt damage these crops pose. 31 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0033 A. Stanley Culpepper

- University of Georgia,

Weed Scientist, and grower • Cotton weed management programs in Georgia have undergone, and are continuing to undergo, significant changes. Currently recommended programs are complex, costly, and challenging to implement i n a timely fashion. Growers are desperately in need of new technologies to improve control of Palmer amaranth, reduce the potential for further herbicide resistance development to currently used tools, and to reduce the economic burden that Palmer amaranth is placing on the agricultural industry.

• We admire and respect the desire of USDA and EPA to be certain that no agriculture technology will negatively impact the consumer, the user, or the environment in which we and our children live. Our request is simple, if deemed safe please assist in the movement of all new technologies to our growers as rapidly as feasible.

• Herbicide

- resistance has significantly changed agriculture forever in the Southeast; especially for cotton growers. To combat this pest, gro wers have relied heavily on herbicides, tillage, and hand weeding. Herbicide use in cotton has increased sharply with 2.5

- times more herbicide active ingredient applied to cotton following the confirmation of glyphosate resistance in Palmer amaranth as com pared to before documented resistance. Although grower herbicide input costs have more than doubled following the evolution and spread of glyphosate resistance, Palmer amaranth control is still not adequate. Thus, 92% of Georgia cotton growers hand

- weed 52 % of the crop with an average cost of $23 per hand

- weeded acre, which is an increase of at least 475% as compared to hand weeding costs prior to resistance. In addition to increased herbicide use and hand weeding, growers in Georgia have indicated that the y are using mechanical, in

- crop cultivation (44% of acres), tillage for the incorporation of preplant herbicides (20% of the acres), and deep turning (19% of the acres every three years) to aid in Palmer amaranth control. Current weed management systems ar e extremely diverse, complex, less environmentally friendly, and costly when compared to those systems employed only a decade ago. Growers are in desperate need of new technologies that will aid in the management of glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth, an d other problematic weeds, for long term sustainability. 31 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0033 A. Stanley Culpepper

- University of Georgia,

Weed Scientist, and grower Benefits of 2,4

- D or Dicamba Technologies For the Georgia Cotton Grower: 1. Improved Weed Control: Neither dicamba nor 2,4

- D are consistently effective in controlling Palmer amaranth larger than 4 inches when applied alone (Culpepper et al. 2010; Culpepper et al. 2011; Merchant et al. 2011); Page 2

- 16Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt however, weed management systems including these herbicides ar e more consistently effective than current standards (Braxton et al. 2010; Beckie 2011; Merchant et al. 2013; Richburg et al. 2012; Shaw and Arnold 2012). Weed management programs including 2,4

- D or dicamba would improve a grower’s ability to manage this p roblematic weed in the following ways: 1) improved consistency in weed control especially on dryland production acres where residual herbicides often are not activated with rainfall at planting time, 2) more flexibility with herbicide application timings b ecause glufosinate plus dicamba or 2,4

- D will consistently control Palmer amaranth up to 6 inches in height (at least 2 inches larger than todays standards), 3) less herbicide carryover to subsequent crops because growers would be less dependent on long la sting residual herbicides, and 4) less yield loss from Palmer amaranth crop competition for light, nutrients, and water (Coetzer et al. 2002; Culpepper et al. 2010; Merchant et. al 2013; MacRae et al. 2013). 2. Prevention of Additional Herbicide Resistance D evelopment: USDA has voiced concerns that growers may adopt 2,4

- D or dicamba technologies and rely too heavily on these herbicides thereby developing an even greater weed resistance scenario. Science has clearly shown that there is risk of resistance devel opment to all herbicides; dicamba and 2,4

- D are no exception. In fact, weeds have developed resistance to nearly all forms of weed management including herbicides, tillage, mowing and even hand weeding. Our data and surveys contrast the assumption that rap id development of resistance to 2,4

- D or dicamba would occur in Georgia cotton. First, our data notes that since these auxin herbicides control only very small Palmer amaranth then they must be applied in tank mixtures with other herbicides such as glufosi nate. Second, even mixtures of glufosinate plus 2,4

- D or dicamba will only control Palmer amaranth less than six inches in height and since Palmer amaranth can grow as much as two inches per day selective residual herbicides must be used throughout the sea son. Simply put, data throughout the belt supports the fact that over

use and/or over

- dependence of 2,4

- D or dicamba in cotton would equal poor weed control and eventual crop failure which is a practice no grower would follow. Dicamba and 2,4

- D would be an additional tool to include in the weed management program. The greatest risk for developing herbicide resistance is actually occurring at this moment with the PPO herbicides and glufosinate. These products are being over used as growers have no other effe ctive herbicidal options. New technologies such as dicamba or 2,4

- D could be used to delay resistance Page 2

- 17Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt development to the PPO herbicides and glufosinate and, in turn, systems could be developed using the PPO herbicides, glufosinate, 2,4

- D, and dicamba exten ding the life of each of these chemistries. It is also critical to stress that, at least in Georgia, no weed management program relies exclusively on herbicides. The University of Georgia Weed Science Extension Team stresses to growers at more than 50 mee tings each year that herbicides are only one part of the weed management program. Sustainability is only possible with the adoption and implementation of diverse management programs and Georgia growers have accepted this message as fact (Sosnoskie and Culp epper 2013). Growers are using programs that are complex and diverse integrating herbicides, hand weeding, and tillage or cover crops. Neither dicamba nor 2,4

- D would change this approach but would simply be an additional tool to add into these management systems. 3. Reduction in Herbicide Use: Glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth has increased herbicide pounds of active ingredient applied in Georgia cotton by a factor of 2.5 when compared to herbicide use prior to resistance (Sonoskie and Culpepper 2013). Programs developed by the University of Georgia for 2,4

- D or dicamba technologies suggest the pounds of herbicide active ingredient may be able to be reduced by at least 30% while actually providing better weed control; similar results are also noted in ot her areas across the cotton belt (Edwards et al. 2013; Merchant et al. 2013; Smith and Hagood 2013; Steckel et al. 2013). 4. Reduction in Tillage, Wind Erosion, and Soil Erosion: As the spread of glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth occurred, the adoption of tillage including deep turning of the land with moldboard plows has become common (Sosnoskie and Culpepper 2013). The return of conventional tillage has led to increased wind and water erosion. Neither 2,4

- D nor dicamba technologies would eliminate til lage, but they would greatly reduce the need for deep tillage allowing many growers to return to more reduced tillage production systems. This opportunity to return to reduced tillage systems would be in response to a more consistently effective management program. 31 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0033 A. Stanley Culpepper

- University of Georgia,

Weed Scientist, and grower Concerns With 2,4

- D

- or Dicamba

- Resistant Technologies:

1. Off

- Target Movement: Off target movement of 2,4

- D and dicamba pose the greatest limitation to the adoption of either auxin technology. Although it is currently unknown what restrictions will be in place to minimize off

- target movement by herbicide labels, an enormous amount of research by the registran ts Page 2

- 18Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt and other scientists across the world is being conducted to develop methods to minimize the potential for off

- target movement. These efforts include 1) improving herbicide formulations, thereby reducing volatility and/or drift, 2) improving application equipment techniques and application methods, thereby reducing drift, and 3) developing educational materials to assist growers in reducing off target movement when making pesticide applications (Bagley 2013, Huff et al. 2013; Kendig et al. 2013; Magidow e t al. 2013; Newsom et al. 2013; Reynolds et al. 2013, Sandbrink et al. 2013). Benefits from these efforts will be monumental in minimizing off

- target movement of ALL pesticides, not just 2,4

- D and dicamba, and will greatly improve the ability of a grower t o apply pesticides that stay in the targeted area. In Georgia, the University of Georgia and the Georgia Department of Agriculture are currently developing additional methods to further minimize off

- target movement of auxin herbicides and other pesticides. Also, a cooperative effort between The University of Georgia, Georgia Department of Ag, Agronomic Industry leaders, and Horticultural Industry leaders is underway to further define methods to minimize off

- target movement. 32 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0034 Richard Minor, Past President and current Board Member of The

Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. • I support full and timely deregulation of dicamba

- and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton and dicamba tolerant soybeans, an essential weed management tool that is badly needed by growers. Over the past several years, the pressure from glyphosate resistant weeds has become stronger and harder to manage, despite diligent stewardship. Our growers need multiple

- mode

- of

- action options at their disposal to manage and prevent weed resistance. Farmers in this part of the country have no choice but to manage multiple chemistries to fight and control weeds. The dicamba tolerant traits will provide farmers with a cotton and soybean product that have increased yield opportun ity and tolerance to multiple herbicides with different modes of action for weed control making dicamba tolerant cotton and soybeans an important weed management tool.

• I believe Monsanto has convinced a majority of these growers that proper training and su pport will be available to combat any problems which might have concerned our growers concerning off target applications. In addition, Monsanto has demonstrated new spray technology which has further convinced our specialty crop growers that we will be abl e to adapt these new technologies. We recognize the complexity that can exist from off

- site movement of certain herbicides and impact on vegetable crops. We would point out, however, that through proper application requirements and stewardship, much of th e off

- site movement and, thus, potential damage may be managed and allow fruit and vegetable crops to be grown in proximity to Page 2

- 19Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt traditional row crops. This crop diversity is well know to Georgia growers and on behalf of my members, wanted to express our or ganization’s view that dicamba applications can and have successfully been made, provided care is taken in the type of equipment that is used, applications are not made in strong winds toward a sensitive crop and tank clean out is properly addressed.

• Dica mba has been a safe and reliable resource in modern agriculture, used by growers in over 25 countries including the USA and Canada. In the U.S., dicamba has been used on more than 237 million acres over the past 10 years. Growers have experience and a lon g track record of using dicamba according to label specifications.

• Dicamba has the potential to protect and may also increase the current acres under conservation tillage. Once approved, dicamba tolerance will allow growers to use dicamba in burn down with out plant

- back restrictions while providing effective control of hard to control and glyphosate resistant weeds including pigweed and marestail. More complete burn down has the ability to further enhance conservation tillage.

• This system may lead to fewe r herbicide applications, which may result is better soil and water conservation and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of fewer trips across the field. Maintaining reduced tillage practices will enable our growers to preserve the value of the ir land.

• In addition to helping growers maintain productivity thanks to improved weed management, dicamba tolerant traits will offer efficiencies and convenience to growers and improve their quality of life. 33 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0035 Mike Schulte • As a vegetable farmer, I am quite concerned about the drift possibility of dicamba. Please reconsider the regulations on these types of chemicals as they could well cause hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to a vegetable crop. 34 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0036 S cott Bretthauer, Extension Specialist in Pesticide Application Technology,

University of Illinois • I have conducted research investigating the use of drift reduction technologies for making applications of glyphosate and dicamba. These technologies have inc luded drift reduction nozzles, drift reduction adjuvants, and combinations of the two. The results of this research, and research I’ve seen conducted by colleagues, indicates that applications of dicamba can be made both effectively and safely.

• Applicatio ns of dicamba can be made safely by understanding two key components of drift reduction: droplet size and weather.

• I believe the major drift risk for dicamba applications is particle drift, not vapor drift. This is positive because it means that application technology and understanding weather impacts can be used to reduce the Page 2

- 20Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt risk of drift.... research on the new formul ation of dicamba, which shows volatility is virtually a non

- issue...many off

- target incidents blamed on volatility and vapor drift were in fact caused by particle drift of very small spray droplets that moved off target during an inversion....I have seen many reports from insurance companies, and in many cases the cause of drift was because applications were made during an inversion. Symptoms can be similar to vapor drift because the exposure is very minimal, damage will not show up for sometime after the appli cation, and the pattern does not look like normal particle drift.

• The label for a Monsanto registered pre

- mix of glyphosate and dicamba has specific requirements that extend beyond current requirements for dicamba applications and will help ensure the risk of particle drift is minimized. Proper selection of nozzles and adjuvants has shown that the driftable fraction of the spray volume can be reduced to less than 1 percent in many cases, and one combination of nozzle and adjuvant completely eliminated all d roplets of the size considered to be at risk of drift.

• I believe that applicators can safely and effectively apply dicamba through the use of a combination of drift reduction technologies, including nozzles and adjuvants, operating those correctly through the use of other technologies such as pulse width modulation and auto boom height controllers, and making applications in suitable weather conditions with appropriate downwind buffers zones.

• it is important to consider successful applications are both poss ible and being made today. U.S. farmers need access to new technologies to help control weeds and provide options in their operations. Spray applications can and will be managed to maximize both efficacy and safety. 35 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0037 Jerry Bambauer , Ohio Soybean Association • OSA urges USDA to reconsider the need for the EIS since USDA’s basis for conducting the EIS all relate to herbicide uses. The dicamba uses in question are currently being reviewed by the EPA, and as such EPA will review and mandate the conditions in which it may be used. Conducting a time

- consuming analysis already within the responsibilities of other federal agencies will cause a significant delay in bringing needed technologies to growers.

• Soybean farmers need new technolog ies such as dicamba

- tolerant soybeans to increase yields, manage weed resistance and keep their farming operations profitable.

• Soybean farmers need new technologies such as dicamba

- tolerant soybeans to increase yields, manage weed resistance and keep their farming operations profitable. In light of the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court Page 2

- 21Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt of Appeals on the Roundup Ready alfalfa case

-- which confirmed that issues relating to the use of herbicides are the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA), not USDA

– OSA urges USDA to reconsider the need for the EIS since USDA’s basis for conducting the EIS all relate to herbicide uses. The dicamba uses in question are currently being reviewed by the EPA, and as such EPA will review and mandate t he conditions in which it may be used. Conducting a time

- consuming analysis already within the responsibilities of other federal agencies will cause a significant delay in bringing needed technologies to growers.

• U.S. growers should have the choice to use safe and valuable new agricultural technologies to increase yields and keep their farms profitable. Farmers today need multiple mode

- of

- action weed management tools. Dicamba tolerance would be a valuable addition to the existing soybean weed control option s to maximize yield potential. Dicamba has been used in crops for many decades in the U.S. and continues to be effective on major broad leaf weeds. Farmers have proven they are able to use different application techniques and equipment for different types of pesticides to ensure proper performance of the product as well as on

- target application. OSA understands that newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to first

- generation dicamba products. The petitioner has also addressed the potential for off

- site movement by prohibiting aerial applications and implementing specific environmental and equipment application requirements on the dicamba label, including a wind

- directional buffer when sensitive areas are pre sent, and use of low volatility dicamba formulations.

• The U.S. soybean processing and feed industries, along with the growing U.S. soybean export markets, are very healthy segments of our economy. The availability of these new effective soybean production tools is vital to maintaining that health. Weed resistance pressures underscore the need for timely regulatory approval of multiple mode

- of

- action technologies that can help manage resistant weeds and keep U.S. agriculture productive, sustainable and globa lly competitive. It is important that USDA follow through on its commitment to U.S. farmers by expediting the science

- based regulatory review process and put a stop analyses that are duplicative and outside the scope of its authority. 36 APHIS

- 2013

- 004 3

- 0038 Bill Wykes, Chair, Illinois Soybean

Association • ISA requests USDA to not conduct an EIS on dicamba tolerant soybean and cotton and move quickly to approve these new weed fighting tools so our farmers may have access to them and incorporate them as they see a fit in Page 2

- 22Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt their operations and remain able to co ntrol weeds for the future.

• The proposed EIS is seen as an inherent conflict. Given that the proposed subject of the EIS is to assess impacts on weed resistance and off

- site movement of dicamba which can be attributed to the herbicide application, the subj ect of the EIS would appear to fall under the EPA jurisdiction and not that of USDA.

• We urge the USDA to move quickly to approve new weed management tools, such as dicamba tolerant soybeans and dicamba tolerant cotton, referred to as MON87708 and MON8870 1, respectively. When both the trait and chemistry are used together, farmers will be able to realize several benefits from utilizing the proposed dicamba weed management systems. These benefits include:

– Effective and sustainable management of glyphosate

- resistant weed species including Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, giant ragweed, and marestail

– Provides an additional mode of action and reduces the dependence on ALS and PPO herbicides helping to preserve these herbicide tools

– Improved and more consistent con trol of hard

- to

- control broadleaf weed species

– Crop safety to dicamba and glyphosate herbicides to maximize yield potential

– Application flexibility in the event of challenging weather conditions especially in the spring

– Proactive program for weed resistanc e management

– Preservation of conservation tillage benefits

• U.S. farmers are capable and experienced at making herbicide applications and effectively managing off

- site movement. Just as with other herbicides, off

- site movement of dicamba can be prevented t hrough proper stewardship including application techniques, equipment settings, nozzle selection, and consideration of environmental conditions during application. Equipment and hand held applications facilitate access to weather data, field plot maps and other on board information. The technology and capability exists and is at work on the farm fields across America today. Additionally, newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to first

generation dicamba products to which much of the folklore is attributed. 37 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0039 Andrew LaVigne

- American Seed Trade Association The Notices of Intent published on May 16 identify two issues that led APHIS to conclude that EISs were required by NEPA

– the development of herbicide

- resistant weeds (i.e., weed resistance) and increased herbicide use. Both of these issues relate Page 2

- 23Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt solely to the herbicides, such as 2,4

- D and Dicamba, that would be available for use in conjunction with the crops modified to tolerate their application. As such, these issues are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and are decidedly not subject to APHIS’s jurisdiction under the Plant Protection Act (“PPA”). 38 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0040 Steve Verett, Executive Vice President, Plains Cotton Gro wers, Inc. • Urge APHIS to make a recommendation to fully deregulate dicamba

- tolerant technologies for cotton and soybeans.

• An EIS on dicamba and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton is not warranted from a legal standpoint.

• The competitiveness of the U.S. cotton industry depends on the ability of growers to access new , cost

- effective and sustainable technologies to manage production pressures, such as weed control. Weeds reduce cotton yields by an average of 30 percent. Herbicide resistant weeds are becoming a per sistent problem that could affect the productivity of cotton production across the cotton belt. Texas growers currently experience fewer issues with resistant weeds, but they recognize the need to proactively manage weeds with multiple modes

- of

- action to p revent or delay future resistance issues. The dicamba and glufosinate

- tolerant trait will be stacked with the Genuity® Roundup Ready Flex providing farmers with a cotton product that has increased yield opportunity and tolerance to three herbicides with th ree different modes

- of

action for weed control, making dicamba and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton an important weed management tool. The impact of dicamba and glufosinate

tolerant cotton is that it will provide growers with two additional herbicide modes

- of

- a ction for the control of broadleaf weeds in cotton, including hard

to

- control and herbicide

- resistant broadleaf weeds. Weed resistance pressures underscore the need for timely regulatory approval of multiple mode of

- action technologies that can help manage resistant weeds. 39 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0041 Josh Carey, Carey Farms The widespread use of the dicamba chemistry will endanger many non

- resistant crops through the volatility of the chemical. Specialty crop growers like myself will have significant crop dama ge and loss due the use of this chemical. 40 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0042 Michael Forche, M Forche Farms Inc. • Michael A. Forche wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. D icamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage. Page 2

- 24Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that inc ludes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threa t of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 41 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0043 Robert Wolf, Wolf Consulting & Research LLC, R etired Professor Emeritus and Extension Specialist in Application Technology in the

Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Department, Ka nsas

State University • Particle drift is controllable through equipment selection and conditions of use, such as formulation, spray tips and other technologies, wind speed and direction at application, sprayer speed and boom height. In some of my most rece nt research, selecting the proper nozzle type alone can be shown to reduce spray drift from 13.5% down to 0.5% and in some cases the inclusion of drift control additives can reduce that drift amount even more.

• Newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to first

- generation dicamba products. The research is supporting this and through further research, education and training this point will be stressed.

• Tank contamination will be of concern when switch ing between tolerant and
non

- tolerant crops. This will be addressed through proper tank clean out procedures that adequately clean out herbicide residues from the lining of the tank, boom and inner workings of the sprayer, including all hoses and filters, crevices and drain lines. Newer spray systems are being engineered to improve cleanout.

• Monsanto has addressed one concern of the potential for offsite movement by prohibiting aerial applications and other concerns by implementing specific environmental and equipment application requirements on the draft dicamba label, including a wind

- directional buffer when sensitive areas are present, and the use of low volatility dicamba formulations.

• It is my opinion that US farmers and commercial applicators are ca pable and experienced at preventing off

- site movement. Like any other herbicides, off

- site movement of dicamba can be prevented through proper stewardship including application techniques, equipment settings, nozzle selection, and consideration of environ mental conditions during application.

• Equipment and hand held tools such as smart phone apps that support applications to facilitate access to weather data, field plot maps, nozzle details, and other on board information now exists. This technology and ca pability is at Page 2

- 25Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt work on the farm fields across America today.

• When recommended label practices are followed, growers of various crops can
co

- exist and prosper. I believe that in combination with approved best management practices, including the use of the p roper nozzle type(s), applications using dicamba will have potential to reduce the amount of off

target drift.

42 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0044 Bruce Rohwer, President, Iowa Corn Growers

Association • New technologies are needed to ensure agricultural productivity meets growing demand for food. We believe US farmers should have the choice to use safe and valuable agricultural technologies, such as herbicide tolerant soybeans, to help manage weeds. With the growing glyphosate resistance threat to soil conservation and the limited postemergence options for control of Palmer pigweed, waterhemp, and marestail, farmers need new technology solutions. Without effective weed management practices, herbicide resis tance can decrease farm productivity and increase the complexity of crop production. Tillage may increase in order to control weeds, which increases the risk of erosion.

• Farmers need new tools to manage weed resistance in order to preserve the value of the ir land. Dicamba tolerant technology is a sustainable solution that gives farmers additional choice and helps them to be good stewards of the land. Compared to some weed control programs, this system can equate to fewer herbicide applications, resulting in fewer trips across the field, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced soil erosion, reduced soil compaction and enhanced water conservation.

• The deregulation of MON 87708 helps sustain the long

- term agronomic, environmental, and economic benefits of gly phosate as a weed control tool in soybeans. Growers should be able to access new agricultural technologies to keep agricultural productivity on pace to meet demands for food. In order for farmers to remain competitive, it is critical that the USDA regulato ry review of new biotech traits does not fall further behind those of other major crop producing countries such as Brazil or Argentina. 43 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0045 Steve Smith, Save Our Crops Coalition • Requests APHIS consider a range of possible alternatives beyond out

- right denial or approval of these crops, and requests that APHIS specifically address the problem of non

- target drift damage caused by the increased use of dicamba on dicamba tolerant crop s.

• SOCC requests that APHIS expand the scope of its EIS inquiry to address non

target drift damage impacts cause by the use of dicamba on dicamba tolerant crops, especially in sensitive areas. Dicamba tolerant crops heighten the drift and volatilization c oncerns associated with dicamba. The introduction of Page 2

- 26Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt dicamba tolerant crops is anticipated to increase the use of dicamba in cotton

‐ producing regions. These regions also produce substantial acreages of broadleaf crops that are sensitive to dicamba. Thus, any drift or volatilization from dicamba could be expected to have significant impacts on non

- target crops grown in proximity.

• If APHIS considers spray drift and volatilization impacts but determines on balance that the environmental effect is positive, an d therefore does not anticipate adverse effects within its conclusion, this level of consideration is insufficient. If spray drift and volatility impacts are significant effects, the regulations require APHIS consider and explain them within an EIS. Upon
c onsideration of the “context” factor, APHIS would find the proposed action to be “significant” in multiple contexts. Upon consideration of the “intensity” factor, APHIS would find the proposed action to have “severe” impacts. Thus, upon consideration of th e “context” and “intensity” factors, APHIS would find the proposed action raises substantial questions about whether it may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, APHIS should prepare an EIS addressing dicamba spray drift and volatilizati on impacts associated with Dicamba Tolerant Soybeans and Cotton.

• The use of dicamba has declined precipitously from its peak 1994 level. Monsanto’s petitions do not indicate the rate of change in dicamba use from current use levels. This omission was parti cularly glaring given the intensity of the rate of change. The latest figures place the amount of dicamba applied at about 2.7 million pounds annually. Monsanto’s projected use pattern would represent an approximately 925% increase in pounds applied over current levels, an almost 250% increase in the total acreage treated, and a 5660% increase in soybean acreage treated. Such an increase would represent a dramatic shift in the utilization of an herbicide both in terms of total pounds applied and areas in w hich the herbicide would be used. Even the increase in the use of glyphosate upon the introduction glyphosate tolerant crops, an increase of almost 600% in pounds applied, would be eclipsed by this shift in
use.

• Dicamba has substantial harmful effects on u nmodified broadleaf crops even at very low applications rates, and because dicamba tolerant crops will be grown in such close proximity to unmodified broadleaf crops like soybeans and tomatoes, the potential for non

‐ target plant damage caused by drift and volatilization is great.

• We suggest that APHIS and EPA work together to find solutions that protect against non

- target drift damage caused by the increased use of dicamba on dicamba tolerant crops. Because SOCC cannot be certain that EPA will Page 2

- 27Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt adequately e valuate the potential for environmental harms, at this time, SOCC requests that APHIS withhold a grant of the petition until such time as effective measures are in place to protect against non

- target plant damage, whether imposed by it, or in conjunction w ith other agencies. 44 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0046 Wenonah Hauter

– Food & Water Watch Food & Water Watch urges the USDA to consider the following risks in its upcoming Environmental Impact Statement for dicamba

- tolerant soybeans and cotton:

• Dicamba

‐ resistant cotton and soybeans will lead to an increase in dicamba use, which will spur the evolution of dicamba resistant weeds and the abandonment of conservation tillage practices;

• Higher volumes of dicamba will lead to pollution of surface water, which will impac t non

‐ target plants and animals, including endangered species;

• The volatility of dicamba will result in more occurrences of pesticide drift into neighboring fields, affecting plant health and the livelihoods of nearby farmers;

• Dicamba

‐ tolerant crops will cost farmers more through higher seed prices, the loss of export markets due to contamination of non

‐ genetically engineered (GE) or organic seed and through the presence of dicamba

-- ‐ resistant weeds; and

• Dicamba is dangerous to human health and its continu ed use will endanger agricultural workers and the general public. The USDA’s Environmental Impact Statement must include, at a minimum: • An analysis on how dicamba

- tolerant soybeans and cotton will facilitate increased use of dicamba, leading to the evo lution of dicamba

‐ resistant weeds and the abandonment of conservation tillage practices; • Data on the potential carcinogenicity and long

‐ term risks to human health that dicamba would pose at new application levels and the cumulative effects of its interac tion with other herbicides on human health and the environment; • Studies on the effects of increased application of dicamba on surface water quality and impacts on non

‐ target plants and animals, including endangered species; • A detailed evaluation of the volatility of dicamba, including a map of potentially affected specialty crop growing regions that would be in the proximity of dicamba

tolerant cotton and soybean growing areas. The USDA must look at the impacts of pesticide drift onto neighboring conven tional specialty crop and organic fields, including its effects on plant health and farmer costs; • Research on how the ingestion of foods manufactured from this crop would affect human health and how the continued use of the herbicide in agriculture could Page 2

- 28Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt endanger agricultural workers and the public; and • A detailed examination of the cumulative effects of stacking dicamba

- tolerant corn with other herbicide tolerances, including the costs of contamination to non

‐ GE farmers and the costs that dicamba and g lyphosate resistant weeds would impose on these growers. 45 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0047 Cory Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum Farms • Rosenbaum Farms wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicam ba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America's most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes o nly wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request the USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 4 6 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0048 Curt Utterback, Secretary, Utterback Farms, Inc. Utterback Farms, Inc. wishes to join the concerns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its pote ntial to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregu lation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the scope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and consider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective Page 2

- 29Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 47 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 00 49 E. Keith Menchey, Manager, Science & Environmental Issues, National Cotton Council • With regard to the proposed EIS on dicamba

- tolerant cotton, the NCC believes this activity is not warranted from a legal standpoint and will unnecessarily delay a needed technology for cotton farmers.

• The competitiveness of the U.S. cotton industry depends on the ability of growers to access new, cost

- effective, and sustainable technologies to manage production pressures such as weed control.

• The availability of dicamba

- a nd glufosinate

- tolerant cotton will help the sustainability of related industries (including gins, cottonseed processors, livestock operations, food processors, and textile mills) who could potentially face higher input costs if cotton supplies decrease du e to weed resistance pressures. The loss of cotton acreage could result in the inability to reach “critical mass” of production to support gins and other related infrastructure.

• The use of dicamba

- and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton provides a new weed control system that should provide for fewer herbicide applications resulting in less trips across the field, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced soil erosion, reduced soil compa ction, and enhanced water conservation. In fact, the use of dicamba

- and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton has the potential to protect and may also increase the current acres under conservation tillage. Once approved, dicamba tolerance will allow growers to use dicamba in burn down without planting restrictions, while providing effective control of herbicide resistant weeds. More complete burn down should further enhance conservation tillage. Most importantly, dicamba and glufosinate tolerance will offer a robus t weed management program, incorporating multiple herbicide modes of action, to combat weed resistance.

• Cotton farmers are good stewards of the land and have extensive experience in preventing off

- site movement. Like any other herbicides, off

- site movement of dicamba can be prevented through proper stewardship including application techniques, equipment settings, nozzle selection, and consideration of environmental conditions during application, such as wind speed. Moreover, newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to first

- generation dicamba products. Today, growers of different crops have access to information, resources, equipment, and best management and application practices necessary to enable responsib le usage of dicamba, with benefits to all parties. 48 APHIS

- 2013

- Adam Hartley, grower Dicambia has a long history of volitization after it has been sprayed. You can Page 2

- 30Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt 0043

- 0050 spray this active ingredient on days when the wind is calm and then a few days later it will get up and move onto adjacent crops that are not resistant to it. This will cause a huge liability on row crop producers that have speciality crops raised in the s ame area. Just this year I have had an issue where the railroad sprayed the track and the product got up and moved onto my soybeans on both sides of the railroad. This was caused by volitization and not drift since it was on both sides of the track. Please consider requiring similar limitations and restrictions on the use of dicamba similar to what Dow Agro Sciences supported with their agreement with the SOCC. Those were reasonable and proper and recognizes the need for weed control alternatives but works to protect sensitive crops. 49 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0051 Leon Corzine, LPC Farms, former President of Illinois Corn Growers

Association and the National Corn Growers Association • Opposes preparation of an EIS.

• Supports full deregulation of dicamba

- tolerant soybeans and dicamba

- and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton.

• Technologies like these give farmers choices so we can continue to improve our farms and remain competitive in the global marketplace, pass on reasonable prices to processors and, ultimately, end consumers who buy high

protein soybean

- containing products in the form of food and feed.

• Soybeans resistant to both glyphosate and dicamba will add a new mode of action to the system, allowing for better weed cont rol and harvested soybeans with less foreign material from weed seeds, a valuable characteristic for processors.

• Dicamba

- tolerant soy and cotton are not only likely to help us manage weed resistance, but will enable us to continue to be good stewards of

• th e land. Compared to some weed control programs, this system may result in fewer herbicide applications, less tillage, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and soil conservation. Dicamba tolerance will allow growers to use dicamba in burn down without plant

- ba ck restrictions while providing effective control of hard to control and resistant weeds, further enhancing conservation tillage.

• Growers follow label instructions closely, go through training and and invest heavily in equipment that prevents and minimizes drift. In addition, the new formulations of dicamba have lower volatility than previous generations of the product. Today, growers of different crops have access to information, resources, tools and best management and application practices necessary to
e nable responsible usage of dicamba, with benefits to all parties. 50 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0052 TJ Idlewin, grower I am concerned and do not want to be held liable due to volatilization and drift from dicamba herbicide spray. I not only have specialty crops neighboring my commercial grain crops but will also have some neighbor’s crops that are not dicamba tolerant. I have great concern with drift and volatilization when spraying next to homeowner’s properties and grandmas backyard gardens. Page 2

- 31Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt 51 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0053 Pam Johnson

- National Corn Growers

Association • Opposed to preparation of an EIS. USDA should immediately convey nonregulated status on these traits and make them available to U.S. growers.

• Growers need new tools for weed management. Growers need new tools for weed management. With additional modes of action, growers will be able to more effectively manage glyphosate

- resistant and conventional weeds. 52 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0054 Dallas Peterson, Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Kansas State University • Support the deregulation of dicamba tolerant soybeans, which could provide benefits for control of problematic weeds and provide a needed management tool for herbicide resistance management. New technologies such as dicamba tolerant soybeans wou ld provide an additional tool that could be incorporated into an integrated weed management program to improve overall weed management, including glyphosate resistant weeds.

• The introduction of dicamba tolerant soybean would likely increase the potential f or developing dicamba resistant weeds, but I feel the potential benefits of helping to control existing herbicide resistant weeds far outweighs the risk of developing dicamba resistant weeds. I also believe the risk of developing dicamba resistant weeds i f this technology is introduced is much lower than what has occurred with glyphosate in recent years.

• Many problematic weeds, especially waterhemp and Palmer amaranth germinate over an extended period of time, so later flushes of weeds will not be controll ed by short residual herbicides like glyphosate and dicamba. Consequently, weed management will be much more successful if glyphosate plus dicamba is used in conjunction with preemergence residual herbicides that can provide extended control. The use of p reemergence herbicides as part of an integrated approach has increased in recent years due to the difficulties of controlling glyphosate resistant weeds and because of the improved commodity prices. Although growers were successful with multiple postemerge nce applications of glyphosate before the development of glyphosate resistant weeds, I think farmers now realize the many benefits of using a preemergence herbicide in conjunction with a postemergence treatment. This approach helps minimize potential for early season weed competition and provides more flexibility and better efficacy with the postemergence treatment. The other huge benefit is that by utilizing multiple herbicide modes of action, the risk of developing herbicide resistant weeds is greatly di minished.

• Finally, I think farmers and crop advisers now realize that relying simply on a single technology such as glyphosate in Roundup Ready crops is not a sustainable practice and will eventually lead to the development of herbicide resistant weeds a nd the loss of an effective tool for weed management. 53 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0055 Cathleen Enright

- Biotechnology Industry • Opposes the preparation of an EIS.

• BIO and its members are also concerned that the decision to prepare EISs for Page 2

- 32Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt Organization (BIO) the crops identified by APHIS will unnecessarily delay Issuance of determinations of nonregulated status, causing significant harm to American farmers and the developers of the crops without any additional environmental benefit.

• The delay that will result from preparation of the EISs will deny American farmers the new tools they need to prevent and combat herbicide

- resistant weeds and maximize yields. BIO members have submitted applications to EPA that would authorize use of their herbicides on the associa ted herbicide tolerant crops identified In the APHIS Notices. These herbicides have differing modes of action, enhancing the ability of growers to address weed problems and supporting the continued use of environmentally sustainable practices such as
no

- ti ll farming.

• Delays inherent in the EIS process will also put U.S. corn, soybean and cotton growers at a particular disadvantage in relation to their counterparts in other nations that are now completing their review processes for GE crops on a far more tim ely basis than the United States. In addition, the developers of these crops will suffer further delay in commercializing and offering valuable new products for sale and other developers of Innovative products may reconsider whether to invest in the U.S. m arket. Because the APHIS Notices failed to provide a satisfactory legal or scientific justification for opting to prepare an EIS for the subject products, developers of future products also lack predictability as to whether APHIS will opt to prepare an EA or an EIS, which significantly affects the deregulation timeline and product development decisions. 54 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0056 Rachel Lattimore, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary

- CropLife America • Opposed the preparation of an EIS.

• We strongly urge you to reconsider the need for EISs for these technologies. The proposed EISs would introduce unnecessary regulatory redundancy and potential regulatory confusion by analyzing the proposed use of herbicides that are under active review by EPA and outside the jurisdictional purview of APHIS. 55 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0057 - Agricultural Retailers Association

- American Farm Bureau Federation

- American Seed Trade Association

- American Soybean Association • Oppose the preparation of an EIS.

• Our members, who produce the vast majority of commodity crops in America, must be able to utilize the very best available methods to combat weed resistance problems. Weed resistance is a well understood scientific phenomenon that is not unique to biotechnology or any other form of agriculture. Different herbicides attack weeds by different m ethods or “modes of action.”

• The delay that will result from preparation of the EISs as proposed by APHIS will deny growers the tools they need to prevent and combat weed Page 2

- 33Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt

- American Sugarbeet Growers Association

- Biotechnology Industry Organization

- National Association of Wheat Growers

- National Corn Growers Association

- National Cotton Council resistance and maximize yields through the use of herbicides that have been shown to operate with differing modes of action. The proposed use of these herbicides in conjunction with the associated herbicide tolerant plants also supports the continued use of environmentally sustainable practices such as
no

- till and low

- till farming.

• The de lays inherent in the EIS process proposed by APHIS will put American growers at a further disadvantage to corn, soybean and cotton growers in other nations that are now completing their review processes for biotechnology

- derived crops on a far more timely basis than the United States.

56 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0058 Michael Owen, Extension Weed Scientist, Iowa State University • I support the deregulation of the new technologies as they will be helpful in managing weeds with evolved resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides and giving farmers a choice to use tools to maximize yield potential and meet growing global demand for their product.

• I believe that if growers use these technologies in compliance with the stewardship programs developed by the companies, the potential issues will be minimal. 57 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0059 David Cleavinger, grower, past president of the National Association of Wheat Growers • American farmers count on USDA to be timely and scientific in the review of beneficial new biotech crop technologies. Growing delays in this process have a real cost to farmers who need these tools. In the case of dicamba

- tolerant crops, we are in dire need of new weed management tools that allow us to diversify weed management and thereby address weeds deve loping resistance to other herbicides. Several already have, and more will if USDA continues to delay such an important technology.

• USDA’s delays have already resulted in the US falling behind other countries that have more reliable, science

- based regulato ry processes. Canada, for example has already approved the dicamba

- tolerant soybean trait and South American governments are poised to approve it. 58 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0060 Robert Savage, Director of Risk Management, Red Gold, Inc. Wishes to join the concer ns expressed by the Save Our Crops Coalition in its comment to this docket.

• Non

- target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that Page 2

- 34Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba tolerant crops. Dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous her bicides for non

- target plant damage.

• We do not oppose advances in plant technology, however, we will not accept a range of alternatives that includes only wholesale deregulation or wholesale prohibition of these crops. We request that USDA expand the sc ope of its inquiry to consider uses of its authority to address a range of issues our membership faces.

• We request that USDA strictly analyze changes to agronomic practices, including herbicide use, that will result from deregulation of these crops, and
co nsider where USDA and EPA may be able to jointly develop effective measures to protect against the threat of non

- target plant damage these crops pose. 59 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0061 Phillip Miller, Vice President, Global Regulatory Sciences & Affairs, Monsanto C ompany • Opposed to the preparation of an EIS.

• Because EPA, not USDA, regulates herbicides under FIFRA and according to the Coordinated Framework, and because herbicide resistance is not a proper factor for USDA to consider in making its plant pest risk determination under the PPA, herbicide resistance alone (or any other alleged herbicide impacts) cannot justify the preparation of a full EIS in this instance.

• The vitality of the agricultural economy in the United States depends upon the development of ne w technologies like those GE crops under review. These products will provide important benefits to farmers, and growers should not be required to wait for USDA to perform duplicative and time consuming analyses already within the regulatory responsibilitie s of another federal agency. As numerous growers, grower groups and agronomy professors have previously commented in 2012 for DT soybean and 2013 for DT cotton, such products are needed now and should be approved promptly. 60 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0062 Danny Mu rphy

- American Soybean Association • Soybean farmers need new technologies such as dicamba

- tolerant soybeans to increase yields, manage weed resistance and maintain profitability. As stated in ASA’s comment on MON87708, we strongly support biotechnology and believe the development of biotechnology

- enhanced soybean varieties and products can benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment.

• ASA strongly urges USDA to reconsider the need for the EIS. The delay that will result from preparation of the EISs as proposed by APHIS will deny growers the tools they need to prevent and combat weed resistance and maximize yields through the use of herbicides that have been shown to operate with differing modes of action.

• The proposed use of these herbicides in conjunct ion with the associated Page 2

- 35Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt herbicide tolerant plants also supports the continued use of environmentally sustainable practices such as no

- till and low

- till farming.

• The introduction of soybeans tolerant to both glyphosate and dicamba will allow an additional mode of action to be used in the system, allowing for better weed control and harvested soybeans with less foreign material from weed seeds, a valuable characteristic for processors.

• To meet growing global demand and maintain the United States as the largest producer of soybeans globally, growers need access to new and effective technologies such as MON 87708 to increase yield potential and keep soybean prices stable. U.S. soybeans rely on exports and the EIS would need to take into consideration any i mplications for international trade.

• While ASA appreciates concerns about off

- target movement of dicamba, we are confident that farmers have a long history of successfully using proper equipment and application procedures to avoid and minimize off

- target
m ovement of herbicides. Similarly to other herbicide products, off

- site movement of dicamba can be prevented through proper stewardship, application techniques, equipment settings and consideration of environmental conditions during application, such as win d speed. ASA is pleased that newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to first

- generation dicamba products. We are also pleased that the petitioner has addressed the potential for off

- site movement by prohi biting aerial applications and implementing specific environmental and equipment application requirements on the dicamba label, including a wind

- directional buffer when sensitive areas are present, and the use of low volatility dicamba formulations. ASA be lieves that when recommended label practices are followed, farmers of various crops can co

- exist and prosper. 61 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0063 Joyce Dillard We request that more thorough studies occur on bees and colony collapse, birds and the watershed ecosystems as well as viruses that spread through migration related to watershed ecosystem connectivity. Water contamination is a problem in a watershed not necessarily in the vicinity of the crops, so all avenues need to be studied. The liabilities of the Clean Wat er Act should not be placed on other watershed systems. 62 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0064 Lee Van Wychen, Director Science Policy

- WSSA Science has clearly shown that there is a risk of resistance development to all herbicides, and 2,4

- D and dicamba are no excep tion. In fact weeds have evolved resistance to nearly all forms of weed control including herbicides, tillage, mowing and hand weeding. Some of our members have voiced concerns that growers may adopt 2,4

- D and dicamba technologies and rely too heavily on t hese herbicides thereby developing an even greater weed resistance situation. However, the majority Page 2

- 36Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt of our member scientists view 2,4

- D and dicamba resistant crops as an additional weed management tool to include in an integrated weed management program. T he greatest risk for developing herbicide resistance is actually occurring right now with the PPO herbicides and glufosinate. These products are being over

- used in certain cropping systems as farmers have no other effective herbicide options. The 2,4

- D and dicamba resistant crops could be used to delay resistance development to the PPO herbicides and glufosinate and, in turn, weed management systems could be developed using the PPO herbicides, glufosinate, 2,4

- D and dicamba, extending the life of each of th ese chemistries. Weed management is ultimately the responsibility of farmers and farm advisors. However, the weed science community, including industry, academics, crop commodity groups and others who reach out to farmers, must recommend robust and effective stewardship programs espousing the basic principles of good weed management and encourage adoption of these practices. By doing so, evolution of resistance to our herbicide resources and new options such as 2,4

- D and dicamba resistant crops will be minimized. Research indicates that 2,4

- D and dicamba will fit best in a fully diversified program and such a program is particularly important when glyphosate resistant palmer pigweed and waterhemp are the targets. Resistance to 2,4

- D and dicamba represents no more a threat to agricultural production than resistance to other critical herbicides and the likelihood that it will be used in a manner consistent with best management practices is good. Stacking 2,4

- D and dicamba tolera nce with that of glyphosate, glufosinate, and other herbicide tolerant traits will further facilitate the use of these herbicides in a diversified program. Stacking herbicide traits does not in itself promote the evolution of resistance to more than one he rbicide since, just as for individual herbicides, the evolution of resistance is a function of how the herbicides are used rather than a function of the selectivity of the crop to multiple herbicides. The ability of farmers to use 2,4

- D and dicamba in diversified weed management programs in soybeans, corn, and cotton is not expected to significantly change current farming practices. These herbicide tolerant crops will, however, provide valuable new postemergence options that will allow farmers to most effectively manage their weeds when practicing conservation tillage even in the presence of glyphosate resistant populations. Farmers have clearly shown a preference for postemergence weed control in conservation tillage systems and 2,4

- D and dicamba can be an important part of this system. As the spread of glyphosate

- resistant weeds occurred, the adoption of tillage, including deep tillage with a moldboard plow has once again become more common. Page 2

- 37Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt The return of conventional tillage has led to increased wind and water erosion. Neither 2,4

- D nor dicamba technologies would eliminate tillage, but they would greatly reduce the need for deep tillage allowing many farmers to return to more reduced tillage production systems. New and expanded u ses of existing herbicides are needed for integrated weed management programs in order to mitigate weed resistance and meet our current and future crop production needs. Off target movement of 2,4

- D and dicamba pose the greatest limitation to the adoption of either auxin technology. An enormous amount of research by the registrants and other weed scientists around the world has been conducted to develop methods to minimize the potential for off

- tar get movement. These efforts include 1) improving herbicide formulations, thereby reducing volatility and/or drift, 2) improving application equipment techniques and application methods, thereby reducing drift, and 3) developing educational materials to ass ist growers in reducing off target movement when making pesticide applications. There is no question these research efforts will greatly minimize off

- target movement of all pesticides, not just 2,4

- D and dicamba, and will greatly improve the ability of a g rower to apply pesticides that stay in the targeted area. 63 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0065 Center for Food Safety 2,4

- D

- resistant crops must be viewed as weed control systems APHIS must assess dicamba

- resistant soybeans and cotton as crop systems comprising the herbicide

- resistant crop itself and associated use of dicamba. Monsanto describes its Roundup Ready (RR) crops as RR crop systems, and will also treat its dicamba

- resistant crops in the same manner. Impacts of dicamba

- resistant crop systems on herbicid e use APHIS must assess the shift in dicamba use patterns to be expected in various DR crop adoption scenarios. APHIS should assess both the change in amount applied, per acre per crop, and the shift in use pattern (i.e. amount used pre

- emergence vs. post

- emergence). APHIS should also assess the impact of DR crops on overall herbicide use, keeping in mind that dicamba would likely displace little if any glyphosate, which has a broader spectrum of activity, including (unlike 2,4

- D) activity on grass family w eeds. We refer APHIS to our comments, where CFS makes such projections. Features of HR crop systems that promote HR weeds As discussed in our comments, HR crop systems promote not only (near

- ) exclusive reliance on the associated herbicide(s), but also more frequent use over a broader application window that extends much further into the crop season than would otherwise be po ssible. Resistant weeds with Roundup Ready crops are too often treated superficially as simply the result of excessive glyphosate use, but as Paul Neve has pointed out, the post

- emergence use pattern of glyphosate with RR crops is Page 2

- 38Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt another, independent fact or promoting weed resistance, beyond exclusivity and frequency of glyphosate use. In other words, the timing as well as the exclusivity and frequency of herbicide use is a factor in promoting weed resistance. In practice, applications are often made late post

- emergence to larger weeds, increasing resistance risks still more. Additional evidence comes from weed resistance to ALS inhibitor herbicides, many of which were and are used post

- emergence. ALS inhibitor

- resistant weeds arose in 1987 just five years after the first ALS inhibitor herbicide was introduced, and became extremely prevalent in less than a decade; in fact, by undermining the efficacy of widely used ALS inhibitors (especially in soybeans), resistant weeds provided much of the impetus for adop tion of RR crops (as a means to kill ALS inhibitor

- resistant weeds), just as glyphosate

- resistant weeds have become the rationale for 2,4

- D

- resistant crop systems. We emphasize that while a post

- emergence herbicide use pattern is certainly not a necessary condition for weed resistance to evolve (e.g. atrazine used primarily pre

- emergence and early post

- emergence in corn led to substantial weed resistance), it does appear to be a facilitating factor where present. APHIS must assess the post

- emergence weed
co ntrol paradigm that is a central feature of HR crop systems for its resistance

promoting potential in the case of 2,4

- D

- resistant crops and weeds, in addition to the more obvious factors of exclusivity and frequency of use. Socioeconomic factors associ ated with HR crops and HR weeds As discussed in our comments, pricing strategies influence farmer weed management decisions in such a way as to contribute to evolution of weed resistance. Companies charge fees for HR traits that are substantial enough to c reate a strong incentive for the farmer to make full use of the trait(s) through total reliance on the associated herbicide(s). APHIS should find or develop studies that explore the extent to which pricing strategies for HR crop systems (e.g. high

- priced s eed, low

cost herbicide) reinforce herbicide use patterns that foster resistance in the case of 2,4

- D

- resistant corn and soybeans. RR crops’ major and closely intertwined “benefits” are reduced labor needs for weed management (at least until resistant wee ds emerge) and the simplicity of glyphosate

only weed control. In addition, glyphosate’s superior ability to control large weeds relative to other herbicides broadens the application window for acceptable weed control. These factors together facilitate inc reased farm size, since more land can be managed for weeds with the same labor, and labor needs for weed control are a major limiting factor on farm size. One can expect 2,4

- D

- resistant crops to have similar impacts. APHIS should assess the socioeconomic consequences of 2,4

- D

resistant corn and soybeans, in terms of increased land and rental prices from increased competition for land, increased average size of farms, and accelerated exit of small

- to medium

- size farmers from agriculture. Page 2

- 39Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt HR crops and d rift damage HR crop systems entail a pronounced shift in herbicide use to much later in the season when neighboring crops have leafed out and are more vulnerable to drift damage (from early season herbicide use when drift poses much less risk). Glyphosate has become a leading cause of drift damage in the era of Roundup Ready crops, despite the fact that it is not a volatile or drift

- prone herbicide. This is not merely because its use has increased so dramatically, but also because its use has shifted heavil y to later in the season. 2,4

- D is much more volatile than glyphosate, and is particularly prone to vapor drift. APHIS must comprehensively assess the increased drift damage that would occur with various 2,4

- D

- resistant corn and soybean adoption scenarios, both in terms of lost yield and income, broken down by major crop (e.g. soybeans, cotton) or crop category (e.g. vegetables). APHIS should further assess the extent to which 2,4

- D

- resistant crop adoption would reduce plantings of susceptible crops (e.g. v egetables, grapes) and/or shift acreage to 2,4

- D

tolerant crops that could withstand drift level doses (e.g. corn). In conducting this assessment, APHIS must account for the inevitable use of more drift

- prone 2,4

- D formulations (e.g. because likely to be cheaper than the choline salt), and not presume an ideal world scenario where only potentially less drift

- prone formulations are used. Crop volunteers resistant to 2,4

- D, ACCase inhibitors, glyphosate, glufosinate, etc. as weeds RR crop volunteers have been repeatedly noted as problematic weeds, particularly corn, but also cotton and soybeans; and particularly where RR crops are rotated (see comments). SmartStax corn is even more problematic, since glufosinate as well as glyphosat e are eliminated as control options. APHIS must assess the increased weediness of volunteers of corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4

- D, ACCase inhibitors, glyphosate, and/or glufosinate. Further, since cross

- pollination with other prospective herbicide

- resis tant cultivars will be possible (e.g. dicamba

- resistant corn), APHIS should consider scenarios with volunteers that have stacked resistance. The assessment should include increased costs of control, increased use of herbicides, increased weed resistance ri sks from a narrowing of herbicidal control options and increased reliance on those (few) herbicides still effective. Interplay between HR traits and Bt resistant pests 2,4

- D

- resistant corn will be offered mainly in stacks with Bt traits. Research described in the 2,4

- D comments shows that HR corn volunteers produce lower levels of Bt toxin and thereby promote Bt resistance in corn rootworm; the more HR traits in the corn volunteers, the less likely they will be managed adequately, and hence the more likely they will contribute to Bt resistance. See discussion in 2,4

- D

comments. Page 2

- 40Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt Cross

- resistance between 2,4

- D, dicamba and other synthetic auxin herbicides In our comments, we discuss evidence that certain weeds resistant to 2,4

- D (e.g. waterhemp) also exhibit increased tolerance to dicamba; and that dicamba

- resistant crops have increased tolerance to chlorophenoxy herbicides like 2,4

- D. In view of their common mechanism of action, these findings strongly suggest the potential for evolution of cross

- resistance in weeds to dicamba and phenoxy herbicides. Most weed biotypes resistant to either dicamba or 2,4

- D have not been tested for resistance to the other. APHIS must assess the potential for 2,4

- D crop systems to foster resistance, not only to 2,4

- D, but also to dicamba, and the impacts such cross

resistant weeds (against a background of resistance to glyphosate, ALS inhibitors and/or other herbicides), would have on weed control in soybeans, corn and other crops. Known weed biotyp es with resistance to either 2,4

- D or dicamba should be tested for tolerance to the other, to help establish the potential for such cross

resistance. Non

- target effects of 2,4

- D

- resistant crops Roundup Ready crop systems have dramatically increased use of one of the most effective plant

- killing compounds ever developed. Glyphosate is particularly noted for its efficacy against perennial weeds, which most other herbicides have difficulty controlling. Glyphosate use with Roundup Ready crops is a major factor in the dramatic decline in Monarch butterfly populations over the past two decades (see 2,4

- D

- resistant soybean comments to USDA). Glyphosate has decimated milkweed populations in Midwest corn and soybean fields; and milkweed in such fields is the
m ajor breeding ground for migratory Monarchs that overwinter in Mexico. APHIS must project the impact of 2,4

- D

- resistant corn and soybean systems (with additional resistance to glyphosate and/or glufosinate) in further reducing populations of milkweed in ag ricultural fields and thus exacerbating the decline in Monarch populations. Many glyphosate formulations are extremely toxic to various species of frogs. Massive glyphosate use accompanying Roundup Ready crops has been posited as a likely factor in th e global decline of amphibian populations. APHIS must assess the impacts of 2,4

- D

- resistant corn and soybean systems (with additional resistance to glyphosate and/or glufosinate) on amphibian populations. Impact of HR crop systems on sustainable weed c ontrol Please assess the impact that Roundup Ready crop systems have had on efforts to advance adoption of sustainable weed management techniques (e.g. crop rotation, cover crops); and based on this analysis, similarly project the impacts that 2,4

- D

resist ant crops (with additional resistance to ACCase inhibitors, glyphosate and/or glufosinate) would have on the same. Health impacts of increased 2,4

- D use with 2,4

- D

- resistant crop systems Page 2

- 41Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt Medical scientists have found 2,4

- D use associated with increased risk of non

Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other adverse human health impacts (for discussion see human health section of 2,4

- D comments to EPA). Dioxins continue to contaminate 2,4

- D, and EPA has failed to collect comprehensive, independent data on the dioxin
c ontent of the many 2,4

- D formulation used by farmers. CFS projects a many

- fold increase in use of 2,4

- D with introduction of either or both 2,4

- D crop systems, and thus a further increase in exposure to and disease from this toxic herbicide. APHIS and EPA must assess the increased incidence of disease to be expected with the substantial increase in 2,4

- D use accompanying introduction of these crop systems. 2,4

- D

- resistant crops and tillage Roundup Ready crops have not, as popularly imagined, fostered in creased use of conservation tillage. The major gains in conservation tillage adoption came in the 1980s and early 1990s, in consequence of 1985 and 1990 Farm Bill provisions that tied subsidies to use of soil

- conserving practices. In fact, adoption of cons ervation tillage actually stagnated in the decade of Roundup Ready crop adoption. Instead, the glyphosate

- resistant weeds generated by RR crop systems have led to increased tillage for weed control and hence greater soil erosion. CFS has presented a detail ed analysis to support these conclusions in the 2,4

- D

- resistant soybean comments. APHIS must assess the potential for 2,4

- D crop systems to further increase soil erosion through increased use of tillage to control the 2,4

- D

- resistant weeds that will be gen erated by these crop systems. APHIS should also require the applicants to supply information necessary for meaningful risk assessments that is not in their petitions, or better yet undertake appropriate research to fill in the gaps. For example, the f ollowing information should be available for review by APHIS and the public:

• Proposed herbicide application regime: how much herbicide, how often, window of application.

• Degree of resistance conferred by the transgene in different plant parts and stages of development.

• Expression of the transgene in pollen, nectar; levels of herbicide residues and metabolites in pollen, nectar.

• Herbicide residues and metabolites in plant tissues from the time of application through post

- harvest. APHIS needs to analy ze the following areas:

• Agricultural production impacts, including and not limited to burden on organic and non

- transgenic agricultural production and potential harms to
non

-- ‐ target crops from the adoption of the HR crop system.

• Environmental impacts, in cluding but not limited to:

- Herbicide use and changes in herbicide use patterns; Page 2

- 42Comment # Comment ID Commenter Comment Excerpt

- Gene flow from 2,4

- D

- resistant corn and soybeans to compatible varieties and the resulting increased weediness;

- Agricultural practices, including herbicide use, effects on tillage; and

- Weed resistance and volunteers.

• Socioeconomic impacts, such as:

- Transgenic contamination and their effects on both domestic and export markets, as well as, consumers and farmers’ right of choice

- Changes in seed industry market concentration a nd their impacts,

- Effects on the methods and costs of weed control

• Human health impacts, such as:

- Herbicide use, including impacts on farm workers; and

- Safety of food products

• Livestock health, such as:

- Herbicide use; and

- Safety of animal feed.

• Threaten ed and endangered species, such as:

- Herbicide use; and

- Quality of crop tissues as food sources.

• Disease and pest impacts stemming from 2,4

- D

- resistant soybeans and corn and the associated herbicide use. 63 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0065 Center for Food Safety Comments to USDA APHIS on Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide

‐ Tolerant DAS

‐ 40278

- 9 Corn , Zea mays , Event DAS

‐ 40278

‐ 9

- Center for Food Safety, Science Comments II See Comment Summary for DEA for DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn 64 APHIS

- 2013

- 0043

- 0066 Center for Food Safety Comments to USDA APHIS on Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Dupont

- Pioneer’s Petition (11

- 244

- 01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Insect

- Resistant and H erbicide

- Resistant Pioneer 4414 Maize: Event DP

- 004114

- 3

Page 2

- 43Table 2

- 2
. Public Scoping Comments Submitted During Virtual Public Meeting Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue June 26, 2013 Victor Miller grower and past chairman U.S. Grains Council As USDA surveys the topics to be considered in the development of the draft EIS, I would first offer that USDA should take a hard look at the question is an EIS even warranted. USDA's and APHIS' reasons for cond ucting the EIS all appear to relate to potential impacts associated with herbicide use, possible selection for, and spread of weed resistance to herbicides...from applications of dicamba on the dicamba intolerant crop and other
areas. Use of dicamba is no thing new. According to industry estimates, dicamba has been used successfully on more than 250 million acres over the past 10 years. In 2012, it was the fifth most widely used herbicide in the U.S. in terms of acres treated, used on over 32 million acres of farmland across the range of crops, including 12 million acres of corn, 6 million acres of wheat, 4 million acres of other crops, and 10 million acres of fallow for (indiscernible). Additionally, any homeowner who has gone to their local Weed

B

- Gon herb icide product has used dicamba without certification or licensing. The equipment, the know

- how, and the ability to successfully apply dicamba as part of the new dicamba tolerant soybean and cotton weed control system under review exists today. I have purch ased upgrades through my current system to accommodate the new requirements, and I'm confident that I and other producers will do this successfully. The ability to choose dicamba within my soybean acres will allow me to have a badly needed additional mode of action to control weeds such as waterhemp and lambsquarters that are a problem on my farm. Without it, I am left with few viable alternatives to
c ontrol weeds in my field, resulting in poor yields, which means I produce less on these acres. This means I get paid less for my crop, I deliver fewer beans to my local elevator, and this cascade of impact carries on down the line, as the elevator adds (in discernible) fewer beans and more weed seed to foreign material that end up at the local crushing plants. The crush plant profitability is hurt, and so is bean quality that is made into animal feed, soybean oil, biodiesel, food ingredients, and ultimately either used domestically in many applications or sold to foreign buyers Page 2

- 44Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue for their use in international markets. Now, not only has my income been impacted, but very possibly, hungry people in foreign markets have less to eat. Looking on the bright side, incorporating dicamba tolerant soybeans into my weed management program allows me to reduce dependence on ALS and PPO herbicides and would offer a proactive program for weed resistance management and preserve the value of glyphosate, an herbicide that stil l controls most of the weeds on my farm. Lastly, I adopted no till, also called conservation tillage, because of the great environmental benefits that it creates: reduced soil erosion, increased moisture and benefit to top soil. Here, I use Roundup to r emove the weeds in my field before I plant instead of tilling them under. With dicamba tolerant soybeans, I have another tool to assist me in my conservation tillage efforts and potentially help me and other farmers to expand this practice. Without dicamba tolerant beans, I may be forced to till my fields if and when weed pressure dictates, which could lead to soil erosion, impaction, and unsatisfactory weed control. In closing, restricting the use or denying access to these new technologies would have a negative effect on U.S. farmers' operations, reduced weed control capability, increasing costs, reducing farm returns, and impacting the producer's ability to meet foreign market demand. And also, it stands a very great chance of reducing conservation ti llage options. Ultimately, this has a very negative impact on the food supply of not only the U.S. but the world as well. I urge you to complete your report and remove promptly so that other farmers may have access to this knowledge. Ray Gaesser grower and First Vice President of the American Soybean Association Those traits (indiscernible) are much needed. They will allow us, on our farm at least, to continue to no till. If we don't have those products, we may have to go back to tillage to deal with s ome of the weeds that we have. So I would really urge you to move forward with the approval of both the dicamba and the 2,4

- D for our soybeans and our corn... We use them [2,4

- D and dicamba] on our farms. I've been farming 25 years now, and I've had exper ience using both of those products in a different formulation for all that time. And, really, I've never had any problems with it, (static

- call interference) response to our own crop or our neighbor's. As the previous Page 2

- 45Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue speaker said, we are tested in Iowa. As is required of all of our applicators that come from the co

- ops and from the industry, are tested, and understand the need and the right way to apply herbicides. We used to use a lot of those products, and now with glyphosate, we use less in order to address the issues of weed resistance in particular, and the real need for multiple modes of actions. All of our universities are saying that we need multiple modes (indiscernible) of action to avoid weed resistance. So I would urge you to move forward with both of these applications. David Shaw Past President, Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Biotechnology has allowed us to maximize yields in economics, to be able to mitigate the potential development of herbicide resistance, and to be able to e ffectively gain tremendously with the development of conservation tillage practices in the United States. Herbicide resistance has developed substantially over the last few years, but is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has been recorded and noted for over 40 years now. One of the primary practices that we scientists recommend in managing proactively herbicide resistance is the ability to use a wide diversity of mechanisms of actions with different herbicides that affect plants in different ways. We need more herbicide options to be able to manage these and to be able to preserve the utility of those that we already have. The ability to effectively use dicamba and 2,4

- D in soybean and cotton will help fill this critical need.

We have seen the develo pment of herbicide resistant plants most notably in the last few years with glyphosate resistance in (indiscernible) crops. This problem has become widespread, in several of our major commodities. And dicamba and 2,4

- D, also the ability to use a different mechanism of action than what is currently available in these crops to be able to more effectively and proactively mitigate and delay the evolution of herbicide resistance. There are a number of factors that come into play in the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds and crops. However, we scientists understand that this is a function of managing the practices and the herbicides that are available for weed management. It is as such not a plant biotechnology issue. It is a use of the technology and Page 2

- 46Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue the r otation and a development of an overall plan using various management practices that have been identified. Weed management is ultimately the responsibility of farmers and farm advisors that requires the entire community of weed scientists, industry, acade mia, crop commodity, and others to be able to effectively steward herbicide resistance management. By using the development of resisted crops that have the tolerance to dicamba and 2,4

- D, this represents no greater threat than the development of any herbic ide technology that has hurt in the past. Dicamba best fits in a fully diversified program that utilizes many different mechanisms of action of herbicides, and is therefore a tool that can be used either in stacked (indiscernible) or as stand alone to b e able to offer the growers options that 16 they currently do not have. It is also noted that one of the major challenges that we have with the development of herbicide resistance is the losses that we are now experiencing in conservation tillage acres. D icamba and 2,4

- D tolerance will certainly allow us to help preserve these valuable gains and the preservation of our soils in the United States. We urge the USDA to expedite the necessary review process that will lead to final approval of dicamba and 2 ,4

- D tolerant crops, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this comment. Victor Miller grower and past chairman U.S. Grains Council I would like to make an additional comment on the fact or the idea that we as private applicators applying herbicide s to our crops, the amount of time that we spend in reading and understanding and following the label is of paramount importance to us. And as we look at this, there are many reasons for doing it, but the two that stick out the most are the fact that if we do not follow those label requirements, we risk unsatisfactory control. And worse yet, we risk crop injury, which is at the ultimate end a reduction in our incomes. And so, I think it's very important for USDA to understand that we spend a great deal of t ime doing exactly what is on that label. Ray Gaesser grower and First Vice President of the American Soybean Association I'd like to talk from my heart, and I really don't understand the fear of these products, because on our farms

-- and I have 25 year s in this experience

-- we've been using these products for all that time, for a decade now, and we haven't had a problem. And they've been used all over the world for a decade. And you have all the data and Page 2

- 47Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue the experience that I would think you need. I ca n't understand why there is a need for an environmental impact assessment. I just really struggle with that. It's going to delay my ability and my fellow farmers here in the United States to use these products in a new way that allows us to (indiscernible) of this issue; that let's us use multiple modes of action to avoid these resistances in the first place and let's us farm the way we really need to run our land so that we can continue, and not have to use facilities to incorporate some of the other herbi cides that can work okay, but it's not very good for my part of the country where we're having (indiscernible). So I would really encourage you to move forward to deregulate these products, to not do the EIS. You have all the data in the world. You have al l the data you need to move forward with these two products, and I would encourage you to do that. Michael McCarty grower We've been fighting this [resistant weeds] for probably the last five or six years. We have glyphosate tolerant cotton, soybeans, all that was great. We followed the stewardship requirements, followed everything that was presented to us, all that by the bo ok. And now we've come upon a resistant, amaranth, pigweed. And it is totally destroying the infrastructure on our cotton industry. We've gone from a 2800

- acre cotton farm down to 1500 acres. And trying to maintain, it's a battle we just can't fight. We do n't have enough tools in our arsenal. There aren't enough

-- it's enough technology for us to overcome this problem, so we're just totally out of the cotton industry now. We have zero acres of cotton. And I've got a $600,000 cotton picker that's sitting un der the shed

-- it's decreased in value, probably now cut in half because there's nobody interested in buying it so they can plant cotton. My problem is, I know that there's technology out there, and why haven't we been able to use it? It's out there for us. I've been to two fields, test spots, looked at different things, read different articles about it. And my main concern is we're getting ready to totally lose it. And I'm just voicing a concern from the field standpoint. I read all these

-- these peopl e in Austin and California and all these different places that are trying to tell us what we need to be doing and how we need to do it. I'm telling you from the field level, we need the technology, and we need it quick. These other countries Page 2

- 48Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue are already us ing it, and we're at a disadvantage to them. I know some of the problems are worried about drift management, whether or not we can control it. We've got the John Deere, the green release, all technologies, everything in our arsenal to keep drift down, (in discernible), GPS equipment, stuff that doesn't have any overlap. We've got sprayers that will cut off to keep from overlapping. It's an amazing amount of technology that's out there to keep out drift control down. I know that was one of the problems that I read about. It was a concern. Farmers are some of the most responsible people because we get back from the earth whatever we put in it. If we destroy our ground, we overlay chemicals, then we don't get anything back. That's how we make a living. We're not going to do that. We're not going to abuse anything, nothing like that. No farmer that's still in business has ever abused a chemical because simply there's EPA regulations; there's everything that can toss us out. And it's just not going to happen. My deal is

-- my main concern is let's get this technology. You've been going over this for three years, and steady having meetings, talking about them. Come back with another set of meetings. You can only meet so long. You can only have so many (indiscern ible) to do this for, so let's open it up. Let's give us the technology we need so we can start using them. June 27, 2013 Genna Reed Food and Water Watch Our previously submitted comments outline issues that must be considered carefully in ( indiscernible). Environmental Impact Statement. The Food and Water Watch analysis of USDA data revealed that for every 1 million acres of dicamba tolerant soybean plant, there could be an additional 2 millions of dicamba applied to crop. Even if just a mil lion dicamba tolerant soybean acres are planted, that would be 17 times the current dicamba volume used on soybeans.
If 2,4

- D corn were adopted as quickly a Roundup Ready corn, about 1 million acres a year between 1997 and 2001, 2,4

- D application on corn is easily increased by nearly three Page 2

- 49Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue (indiscernible), from 3.5 million pounds to 5.5 million pounds in two years 21 of 2,4

- D tolerant corn introduction. USDA must look at the economic cost to development of 2,4

- D and dicamba tolerant weeds could have on ( indiscernible). Farmers face significant costs from (indiscernible).and increased production costs. These costs can range from $12 to $50 an acre, or as much as $12,000 for an average bag of corn or soybean farm, or $28,000 for an average cotton farm.

Si nce U.S. farmers have found herbicide

- resistant weeds in their fields, they've changed farming methods to control them, resulting in higher weed control costs and even tillage and hand tilling. Additionally, USDA must also look at the impacts that these
re sistant and multiple herbicides could have on farmers and agriculture. Second, increased applications of 2,4

- D and dicamba will lead to elevated surface water pollution, which will not only affect the quality of water near agriculture, but will impact plan ts and animals, including endangered species. USDA must consider the biological opinion of the National Marine Fishery Service regarding 2,4

- D registration and specific (indiscernible), and look carefully at the individual and synergistic effects of incre ased volumes that of these chemicals on non

- target organisms, threatened and endangered species. Robert Wolf retired professor emeritus, application technology in the biological and agricultural engineering department, and extension specialist, Kansas St ate University My main responsibility while at Kansas State was to conduct an extension and research program in our chemical pesticide application with a particular emphasis on novel technology. My research focus was and continues to evaluating novel types for improved pest control efficacy while minimizing the straight drift. In retirement, I have formed a consulting company, Wolf Consulting and Research and continued working with the application industry as a researcher and a trainer. As a part of my consulting work, I have had the opportunity to work with Monsanto's dicamba tolerant soybean train team and trained Monsanto employees and others on the topic of spray technology basics, including the focus on selecting and using Page 2

- 50Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue proper nov els for the application with dicamba as a part of a prescribed weed control system as it relates to the introduction of these dicamba tolerant crops. For the past four years, the focus of this reach has involved conducting commercial size sprayer oriente d research trials involving spray nozzles and drip

- producing (indiscernible) to support this training, with the most recent efforts used in resistant weed plots (ph). As the USDA considers areas of study for the plant environmental impact statement, I wou ld like to offer some thoughts and consideration, as well as my perspective on the new weed control tool. Current spray technologies for residual off

- site movement and the application practices available to make herbicide applications accessible.

Some fo rces of concern include off

- site movement caused by particle drift, volatility, contamination due to improper clean out and making applications in unfavorable environmental conditions. Here are some of my key points. Particle drift is controllable throug h equipment selection and conditions of use, such as formulation, spray tips, and other technologies, wind speed and direction of application considerations and sprayers feed and (indiscernible). In some of my most recent research, selecting a proper nozzl e type alone was shown to reduce (indiscernible) as much as 13 and a half percent, down to as low as half a percent. And in some cases, with the inclusion of drip control additives reducing drip even more. Newer dicamba formulations have been developed to substantially reduce volatility compared to earlier generations of dicamba products. The research is supporting this and to further research, education and training at this point will be stress, and contamination will be a major concern when switching bet ween tolerant and non

- tolerant crops. This will be addressed through proper cleanout procedures that adequately clean out herbicide residues from the lining tank and inner workings of the sprayer, Page 2

- 51Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue including all (indiscernible) 45 builders, crevices, drain lines, et cetera. Newer spray systems are being engineered to improve this cleanout process. Monsanto has addressed one concern of the potential for off

- site movement by prohibiting aerial applications and other concerns by implementing specific environme ntal and equipment applications comments on the draft dicamba label, including wind directional buffer when sensitive areas are present and the use of low volatility dicamba formulations. In my opinion, the U.S. farmers and applicators are capable and exp erienced after many on

- site movement. Like any other herbicides off

- site movement of dicamba can be prevented through proper stewardship, including application techniques, equipment settings, nozzle selection, and consideration of the environmental conditi ons during the application. Equipment and other hand

- held tools, such as Smartphone apps that support applications to facilitate access to weather data, field crop mass, nozzle details and other information now exist in this technology, and its capabiliti es are being used in fields across America today. Correct label practices are followed and growers of various crops will co

exist and prosper. I believe that in combination with approved best management practices, including the use of proper novel type, or types, applications using dicamba will have the potential to reduce the amount of off

- target drift. In closing, the use of dicamba does not (indiscernible) at 2012 pictures indicating its use in over 32 million acres of farmland in the U.S. The equipment know

- how and ability to successfully apply dicamba as a part of the new dicamba tolerant soybean and cotton weed control systems exist today. Putting these application details on a label is an effective means of communicating and requiring these strategie s to be followed. Restricting the use or denying access to these new technologies, based on concerns for off

- site movement because it may not be controlled or labeled formulations may not be successfully applied (indiscernible) Page 2

- 52Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue exaggeration are a huge diss ervice to the farmers who I understand the USDA is representing. Jim Broten Grower and past chairman, U.S. Grains Council I just want to comment that in spite of the, problems with weeds (indiscernible), including (indiscernible). These weeds compete with our crops for (indiscernible), water, and (indiscernible), and they hurt our fields. If left without effective control, these weeds can decrease our (indiscernible). Bill Bridgeforth Grower and chairman, National Black Growers Council ...we produce cot ton and soybeans on our farm. And the pigweed problem has become a very serious issue for us. This year, pigweed threatens our profitability. It could take the whole farm, just that one weed alone. We do have

-- each year, we'll have some areas of our farm where the technologies that we're using now and the chemicals we're using, they just do not work. And we'll have to abandon those crops. It's not a large percentage of the acres, but we do have it. It does happen. Without another mode of action on the p igweed, we're going to see more and more of this

-- we're just going to have to start

-- we're going to start seeing more acres that will have to be amended because the pigweed is just taking over. And so I believe that the dicamba technology in cotton an d soybeans on our farm is going to be very important. We're already using all the technology and precision. All the tools out there that can help us be better farmers, we're using them. And we just think that the approval of dicamba cotton and soybeans wil l keep us on track to being good farmers with a high level of productivity. Michael Owen extension weed scientist and professor (weed management), Iowa State University I would like to suggest a couple of things. First of all, that as the previous speaker indicated, growers not just in the south or the Delta, or in the Midwest, need as many tools to manage weeds as possible. Weeds represent the most important, most prolif ic and most consistent pest complex that causes reductions in yields and profitability throughout the world. And having new tools to help manage those pests are incredibly important.

A comment was made earlier that the de

- registration or deregulation of these traits

-- and I am speaking both to Docket 42 and to Docket 43. The statement was made that there will be an Page 2

- 53Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue increased use of these two herbicides, dicamba and 2,4

- D. I would look back not that far in history where 2,4

- D/dicamba was the most prevalen t herbicide treatment used in corn production across the United States. And thus, I do not see that this change in the technology is going to dramatically change how over the history these two herbicides have been used. Importantly, I would also point out that the concern for the EIS reflects the concern for evolved resistance to these herbicides. The fact is that these herbicides represent no more greater risk than any other herbicide in whether or not they will select for herbicide resistant weed biotype . It is the decision on how those herbicides are used and the management practices that dictate the level of selection pressure and the likelihood of herbicide resistant weeds. The truth is that there are already some leaves that evolve resistance to dica mba and some leaves that evolve resistant to 2,4D. The manner by which the companies are prescribing the use of these new technologies and the concomitant use of these herbicides to such that selection pressure by their rules will be reduced significantly; and thus in my opinion, reduce the probability that new leaves will indeed be selected and have the training for resistance to either 2,4

- D or dicamba. The other point is that we talk about these concerns about volatilization. And again, the new formulat ions of the 2,4

- D and of the dicamba are such that volatization potential is minimized. It's not eliminated but if you significantly minimize

– and once again, it is the decision as to how these herbicides are applied, as Dr. Wolf explained, will determine the risk of all target movement, based on the stewardship programs that the companies are placing in effect in anticipation of deregulation. My sense is that the potential for off

- target movement of these herbicides has been managed very effectively.

he other comment that was made is that if these trades were deregulated, that we will lose opportunities for conservation tillage. The fact remains that these products specifically do support the success of conservation tillage in all row crops that Page 2

- 54Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue form the soybean and the cotton, where these new genetically

engineered traits will be sold and these herbicides will be used. The final point that I want to make is that it was suggested that. But the final point that I want to make is that it was suggested that herbicides are now a major problem with regard to how widely they are used and how other alternative strategies have been compromised as a result of the ubiquitous use of herbicides. This is not new. This has been an agricultural fact over 40 years. And
s o, I do not see where the deregulation of the corn, cotton and soybeans, with traits for either 2,4

- D or dicamba is dramatically going to change. The amount of herbicides or the acres of herbicides treated crops, will occur.
I think that in fact, the indu stry has learned from their historical efforts with developing products and having them cause selection pressure resulting in herbicide resistance. There's historical knowledge, and they're putting this into practice with the stewardship programs that they now are beginning to up into place. I think this will change grower behavior. And by changing grower behavior the potential negative consequences of these new genetically engineered crops or the use of either 2,4

- D or dicamba will be minimized. Kip Tom grower, Tom Farms This is nothing new to us. We've experienced a lot of

-- in Argentina as well, so we're not surprised we're seeing some of it here. And when I say that, I'm talking about the (indiscernible). Well, I've got to tell you that on May 10th of this year, USDA took an action

- oriented step by delaying the regulatory approval of the dicamba tolerant technologies for corn and soybeans and the 2,4

- D tolerant technologies for soybeans and corn from Dow, requiring an environmental impact statement.

T his move threaten, though, severe delays to the Farmers Act, that's multiple weed control technology across three major U.S. crops: corn, cotton, and soybeans. These technologies have been under USDA for approximately three years, a timeline that is alread y much longer than expected. And now the USDA is initiating a process that's taken as long as four years, when I think Page 2

- 55Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue about Roundup Ready alfalfa in the past. Unacceptable. USDA's stated purposes for the EIS revolves around stewardship of chemistry herb icide

- resistant weed and (indiscernible), which is EPA's goal as determined by Congress decades ago and upheld in federal courts as recent as last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA has no legal authority to reg ulate these matters, and it's hurting farmers with delays, while it takes this overreaching step. These traits already have been approved by the Canadian government for the Canadian soybean farmer. This is bad enough, but further delays may result in Arge ntina and South American governments also close to approving these technologies. If it delays another three years, it's going to put the U.S. way behind most other countries and access to these technologies to address an issue that we have today.

Continue d delays and lack of predictability in USDA's process hinders innovation and creates insurmountable barriers to entry for a variety of new tools and competitive product choices that would benefit all of us in U.S. agriculture and our consumers globally. Th e impact of U.S. delays are potentially not deregulating these technologies on our farm and our communities, and the U.S. farmer's ability to compete for supplies and growing global markets. We all know the numbers. Today we're feeding 7 billion people, an d we're on the pathway to feed 9 billion people by the year 2050, a big job to do, especially when we have to face some of the challenges we do in these regulatory processes. This technology is critical to allow successful over

- the

- top control broadleaf w eeds, crops and soybeans, cotton and corn. Several broadleaf weed species, such as palmer amaranth, waterhemp, and (indiscernible) must be controlled with a limited set of tools, including tillage and other less effective chemistries that also face the sam e resistant issues, and (indiscernible), and farmers are forced to (indiscernible). Page 2

- 5 6Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue The weeds are only on USA (indiscernible), but will continue to get worse as a great cost to farmers and consumers who benefit from the productivity. Failure to deploy mul tiple tools for the sake of diversifying management by farmers result in the development of resistance to one herbicides at a time, which can lead to multiple herbicide resistance evolving. When a new tool finally gets approved, all the pressure's on it. If major global competitors have access to this technology and U.S. farmers do not, it will hurt global competitors, exports, and economic value. This is very important in all American agriculture to see if this gets moved forward. If U.S. gives up leaders hip in these important technologies, it will be a major setback in reaching the critical goal of growing production to meet the demand of a growing and hungry population on planet earth. U.S. farmers already manage these tools and many others responsibly . Although it is EPA's job to regulate matters related to chemistry, USDA should know that farmers use herbicides responsibly and understand the risk of careless misuse. Farmers and applicators who use these tools are highly sophisticated. These have to be in order to stay in business. Awareness and compliance with labels is higher than ever as the applicator training and experience. The sophistication of application equipment, safety features, and GIS systems is far beyond what most of the public, includin g regulators, ever experienced in their vehicles, offices, or Smartphone apps. As it relates to herbicide resistance, farmers have rapidly adopted diverse weed management programs that put more weight on multiple herbicides, tillage and cultural practices and one herbicide. This has been the (indiscernible) neglect of safe resistance.

These new tools are critical of broadleaf control that do not provide the full strength and control of (indiscernible) or even the same timing flexibility, not effective in a ll tall weeds. It is impossible for a farmer to rely exclusively on them the way glyphosate (indiscernible) was often used for many years, which leads to resistant weeds. After decades of use on hundreds of Page 2

- 57Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue millions of acres over time, there are very few w eed resistance to these chemistries. As it relates to drip and off

- site movement, these chemistries are very familiar to farmers who have used them over the last several decades. In 2012, over 30 million acres of U.S. crop (indiscernible) was treated with dicamba. A large crop market was done. Farmers and applicators are eager to use the new formulation and technologies to reduce any drip on off

- site movement. This is motivated by a good neighbor stewardship, inherent to agriculture as well as financial motives that (indiscernible) costly damage

. In conclusion, many farmers who grow sensitive crops and specialty crops also grow row crops, and benefit from the use of herbicide tolerant technologies. This is more mutual need to understanding and stewardship than (indiscernible) between different crop types, as most farmers produce a variety of crops for economic and agronomic reasons. This is not about a soybean farmer and a vegetable farmer, or a cotton farmer and a soybean farmer. It's about farmers and farmers. I hope that my comments paint a clear picture for our needs here in rural agriculture. But we need this technology today because the problem is becoming more evident each and every year we wait. Danny Murphy Current president, American Soybean Association As I've traveled around the cou ntry speaking to the soybean farmers this year, I continually hear the story of farmers having to deal with resistance to mainly palmer amaranth, and their frustration and desire for these new chemicals to be able to help combat that resistance. Many of th ose farmers have adopted no

- till practices. They're comfortable with those, but their only alternative at this point is for many years to go back to tillage, which results in soil erosion and more expensive reduction costs. So it was really disappointing to see the additional delay in both the dicamba and 2,4

- D products. I really feel like the farmers really need these tools to be able to combat this resistance. I think it's critical for us

-- for USDA and APHIS to move these products Page 2

- 58Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue alone and give farmer s the opportunity to use them. Both of these products have been used, probably 2,4

- D over 50 years and dicamba over 40 years, that they've used. So farmers are familiar with those products, and I think they understand how to use them. They understand the l abels that we operate under today, and they're used to dealing with off

- target movement and drift and understand what they need to do to correct that. I also would like to respond as a farmer in Mississippi that grows cotton and corn and soybeans. I'm for tunate in this area that I do not have resistant palmer amaranth today. My field's more isolated, but I'm really concerned that the next time I spray, that it may show up. So these tools, both dicamba and 2,4

- D, would really provide me an alternative to an alternate chemistry to make sure that I don't develop resistant palmer, or glyphosate resistant palmer. And it would really be a great benefit to me if I was able to insert one of those products in my application and be able to make sure that I don't deve lop that resistance in the future. I've begun to adopt no

- till (indiscernible) farming just as those farmers across the nation have, and super savings in soil erosion and reduced reduction cost, reduced inputs for diesel and labor and equipment. We really need to be able to continue to use these practices. I can say that we really need the availability of the best technology. And to delay the vote for 2,4

- D and the dicamba

-- and there are a number of products that are coming down the line as that will als o be available and help to combat this resistance. So I think it's critical for U.S. agriculture and U.S. farmers that we have these products available. Barron Brown Grower This technology is really made for the (indiscernible). I am fortunate enough that I was in the

-- been a part of the Roundup Ready (indiscernible). And I had several acres of the dicamba resistant soybeans. (Comments are indiscernible.) Soybeans are not always important. From my logic, they're also important to crop in the United States. They're found on over more than 55 million acres. We've got to have this technology. That's Page 2

- 59Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue basically all I really have to say. Bryan Young Professor of wheat science, Southern Illinois University Ultimately, the responsibility that I have with th e university is to develop solid recommendations for growers to implement in their field, primary corn and soybeans, as well as some wheat, to be successful and profitable in managing weeds and productivity. So in terms of experience with herbicide

- resis tant crops, obviously, I've been involved with the use of herbicide

- resistant crops with both corn and soybean to date, and I have been involved with testing both the dicamba tolerant soybean system, as well as the 2,4

- D tolerant soybean system, the Roundu p Ready, and then corn and beans (indiscernible). I think I first want to comment on what brought you to this point. So there's a need for the technology because we have seen a rapid decline in recent years in the robust weed control that we can achieve with glyphosate in some geographies because of resis tance. But it's not just resistance to glyphosate, it's resistance to the other herbicides that we have used in the past, such as the inhibiting herbicides, the triazine herbicides, the PTO

- inhibiting herbicides.
And so, it's been a culmination that's be en building for years were you selected for herbicides as to weed biotypes that have been extremely problematic, and now it's represented within the (indiscernible) complex, as well as amaranth and pigweed family, both waterhemp and palmer amaranth. And so , there's a definite need. I'll just share that on Friday, I had a phone call from somebody who is involved with the industry giving recommendations to growers. And they wanted me to provide them, what criteria do I give to the grower to determine if the y just dig up the entire soybean field and try again because they applied all available herbicides to date this year, and they still have waterhemp that they were not able to control. And so they obviously need additional tools. So we've gotten to this p oint where the previous herbicides that Page 2

- 60Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue we've utilized are not working out, (indiscernible) herbicides resistance, and we need additional tools, and in some cases more herbicides, which sounds like more fuel on the fire, but I would contend that is probabl y the best solution we have to date until another alternative presents itself. But none have as of yet. So we've gotten to this point in some ways because of our efforts to be more sustainable in crop productivity and crop production. I was part of an ana lysis looking at the sustainability of U.S. soybean production. That was a publication by CAS (ph), Council for Cultural Science and Technology (ph), and I was the author for the part of weed management side. And that publication spoke towards the greatest component, at least towards sustainability, of soybean production in the U.S., its conservation tillage practices. And because we are reducing the amount of tillage that we use pre

- plant or in the fall, or even row cultivation, that means we rely more hea vily on herbicides today that we ever have. And so, it would be logical to expect that an outcome of that would be greater selection pressure for herbicide

- resistant weeds. So it's not a surprise that in our efforts to be more sustainable in soil conservat ion practices, that we have greater challenges in how we utilize our herbicides. Now, how do these two technologies fit, the 2,4

- D and dicamba technology? Well, actually we've used these herbicides for decades. That has been mentioned by some of the growe rs as well as Mike Owen and Bob Wolf, who participated thus far. So we're really expanding their use window, so it allows greater flexibility utilizing the herbicides to provide a greater benefit in overall weed management, and I would say the sustainabili ty or stability, if you will, of our weed management practices. So I think they're a key component, and right now they're the only component that we have available because the discovery of new herbicides active ingredients, like that have come in the past 50 years, that pipeline of new active ingredients has dried up temporarily possibly. But we don't have any alternatives, so we're going back to the older herbicides that growers have decided that didn't provide as much benefit. And so these two technologi es, Page 2

- 61Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue 2,4

- D and dicamba, provide another

-- some other options that I would suggest might be favored than some of the other alternatives that we might be considering, especially when it comes to conservation practices and some of the deep tillage that might be occurring in some areas because of these resisting weeds. So the other thing I want to comment about is I have tested both the technologies that have been listed on ready to extend, and in the program, if you will, the herbicide program concept. Now, h ow we achieve weed control with these technologies in the future, as stated before, it's not just a 2,4

- D or a dicamba, and that's all you need like we did with squat (indiscernible), and soon won't develop resistance.

I think in most cases I've seen resi dual herbicides, which represent different herbicide modes of action that are utilized prior to planting and then after planting. And then other herbicides, that all provide solar (ph) activity. It might be glufosinate or glyphosates, around the liberty in volved in the mixtures as well. So what I have tested in my research on glyphosate

- resistant waterhemp (indiscernible) and glyphosate

- resistant marestail, with these technologies has been multiple herbicide modes of action to develop a more sustainable we ed management program. So it's not just based on a single herbicide active ingredient. It's more robust, so I think that it is a more sustainable approach to achieving a well

- rounded IPM approach for how we manage our weeds. And those are the things I thin k are important because, as stated before, 2,4

- D or dicamba will not control all of our weeds. It's going to be required to involve other herbicides. And I think that is the part that's different than where we went through with the Roundup Ready system bac k in 1996 when it was released. So moving forward over the next ten years, obviously weed management is going to get a lot more difficult because if we don't have other alternatives to glyphosate that are viable or another older herbicide like the PPO

- inh ibiting herbicides, we're going to continue to use those herbicides, and we're going to continue to Page 2

- 62Commenter Affiliation Concern/Issue get more resistance to those herbicides and create an even larger problems than what we have today. So it's going to be a challenge to manage these until we get these tools that tell us as scientists be more

-- that are able to develop these solutions. And as growers or crop consultants to devise a program on a field

- by

- field basis to be sustainable as m uch as possible, as well as being effective and profitable in wheat management and crop production. Jim Broten Grower and past chairman, U.S. Grains Council As you can see, the farmers across the nation all emphasize the importance of our needed to use bo th 2,4

- D and dicamba. And to use it with glyphosate tolerance would just be fantastic. We are in a world market. We need it to feed the world, but we also need to be competitive. And we need all the advantages that we can have, and we need to encourage USD A to pass this quickly as they can.

Page 2

- 63

### Weed Management and Herbicide Use Appendix 3.

Page 3

- 1Weed Management and Herbicide Use Weed control programs are important aspects of soybean and cotton production intended to prevent the establishment of plants other than the intended crop. In crop production systems, these plants, identified as weeds, are controlled using a number of tactics to maximize the production of food, fiber, and fuel ( Green and Martin, 1996 ) . The goal of weed management is to reduce weed populations, allowing for more efficient use of herbicides and other cultural practices to control weeds.
Each field has a finite amount of resources, i.e., light, nutrients, and moisture, available for the gr owth and development of crops. Weeds allowed to compete with crops can ultima tely result in crop yield loss. Once the critical period of weed control (CPWC) has been reached, if weed control is delayed, the yield loss can increase fairly rapidly. Knezevic concluded that delaying the time of weed removal after the starting point of CPWC will cost soybean producers an average of 2% in yield lo ss per every leaf stage of delay ( Knezevic et al. , 2003 )

. According to Iowa State University research, uncontrolled weeds of 3

- 4 i nches in corn at the V

- 3 to V

- 4 growth stage have been shown to decrease yields by about 3 bushels per acre per day ( Rose nberg, 2013 )

. For cotton , if weed control is implemented later than 30 days after crop emergence, it will result in a crop loss yield of greater than 1 % ( Schutte et al. , 2010 )

. Weeds species present varyi ng degrees of competitiveness. Table 3

- 1 shows the potential yield losses associated with specific weed species prese nt at two different densities. The impacts to yield are based on normal weather conditions and adequate soil moistu re and assume that the weeds emerged with the crop. Crops under drought conditions or other stresses may have higher yield losses. According to the data, at higher densities annual broadleaf weeds impact yields more than annual grasses ( Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2009 )

. The degree of yield loss for a crop can be related to:

• Environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture, etc.),

• The distribution of weed species within a given field;

• Weed density; and

• The timing of weed emergence (i.e., weed height) relative to the crop growth stage ( Knezevic, 2 007 )

. Therefore, weed management programs should not only focus on minimizing weed density and yield reductions, they should also include approach es to minimize weed seed banks. Eliminating weeds before seed production diminishes contributions to the w eed seed bank and provides the best assurance for im proving future weed management. Weed control programs vary by crop, weed problem, geography, and cropping system (e.g. , no

till, conventional

- till, etc.). Many growers use a combination of weed control techniques , including cultural, mechanical, and chemical. Practices that establish a dense, vigorous crop canopy quickly (e.g. , higher seeding rates, optimum soil fertility, proper seedbed preparation, seeding depth) provide competition to smother weeds. The keys components to successful weed management are:
Page 3

- 2• Knowing the exact identity of all weeds in the field;

• Treating (if necessary) while the weeds are small;

• Tailoring c ontrol measures to the type of weed and its size ( Linker et al. )

. Although weed control typically involves an integrated approach that includ es herbicide use, crop rotation, weed surveillance, and weed monitoring ( Farnham, 2001 ; IPM, 2004 ; 2007 ; Hartzler, 2008 ; University of California, 2009 ) , currently, herbicides are the most common and efficient tactic to manage weeds within agroecosystems ( Gianessi and Reigner, 2007 )

. Various strategies utilized for weed management are discussed in the following sections.
Chemical Control

- Herbicides
Herbicides are chemicals that move into a plant and disrupt vital biological process. Herbicides have been the primary tactic used to manage weed communities in cotton and soybean since the mid

- 1960s and will continue to be an important feature of row crop weed manageme nt for the foreseeabl e future. One study, which examined aggregated data on crop yield losses and herbicide use, estimated that even if additional tillage and hand weeding labor replaced the use of herbicides, U.S. crop production would decline by 20 percent with a $16 billion loss in value if herbicides were not used ( Gianessi and Reigner, 2007 )

. Herbicide use is not regulated by APHIS but rather by EPA under FIFRA and its amendments. Before selecting a herbicide program, growers should know what weeds are present or expected to appear, the soil texture and organic matter content, capabilities and limitations of the various herbicides, and how to best apply the herbicides ( York and Culpepper, 2000 ) . Additionally, when selecting an herbicide, a grower must consider, among other factors, whether an herbicide can be us ed on the crop (herbicides are registered by EPA for specific uses and crops), potential adverse effects on the crop, residual effects that can limit crops that can be grown in rotation, effectiveness on expected weeds, and cost. To be effective, herbicide s must (1) adequately contact plants, (2) be absorbed by plants, (3) move within the plants to the site of action without being deactivated, and (4) reach toxic levels at the site of action ( Penn State Extention, 2013 )

. Herbicides are classified according to their effects on plants as either selective or nonselective. Selective herbicides will kill weeds without signific ant damage to desirable plants. Nonselective herbicides kill or injur e all when applied at an adequate rate ( Penn State Extention, 2013 )

. Herbicide action is either contact or systemic. Contact herbicides kill only plant tissue c ontacted by the chemical. Systemic herbicides are absorbed from the point of application, either the roots or foliage, and move within the plant to other plant parts. Systemic herbicides may be effective against both annual and perennial weeds, but are particularly effect ive for control o f established perennial weeds. However, systemic movement of an herbicide in perennial weeds can vary seasonally ( NC State University, 1998 )

. Applications of herbicides to a crop or weed are described acc ording to when they are applied:

• Pr e

- plant (i.e., burndown): applied to so il before the crop is planted. In burndown situations, there is no crop present requiring post

- emergence selectivity if soil

- residual

Page 3

- 3herbicide is a component of the burndown application. Bu rndown applications in both cotton and soybean often incorporate glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4

- D and may include paraquat or glufosinate to control weeds prior to planting the crop.

• Pre

- plant incorporated (PPI): for PPI, herbicides are applied to soil and mechanically incorporated i nto the top 2 to 3 inches of soil before the crop is planted.

• Pre

- emergence: applied after the crop is planted, but prior to emergence of the crop

. Pre

emergent herbicides are generally not effective after weeds have established

.
• Post

- emergence: applied after the weeds and crop emerges. Early post emergence application occurs when the crop has just emerged and the weeds are small. Post

emergent herbicides selectively target weeds relative to the crop. The post materials have activity when applied to leaves and can be used over the top of crops if the crop is resistant to the active ingredient. Most herbicides used as pre

- plant and pre

- emergent applications are residuals, herbicides that remain active for several weeks and theoretically work contin uously after application. These types of herbicides are finding increasing use in the management of glyphosate

- resistant weeds. (See Appendix 4, H erbicide U se T rends , for more details). Examples include acetochlor, trifluralin, metolachlor, metolachlor

- S, pendim ethalin, atrazine and alachlor. The se herbicides work by controlling weeds be fore they germinate or emerge. Usually residual herbicides need to be activated by water ( Hager and McGlamery, 1997 )

. In rainfed crops, residual herbicides may fail to become activated during drought. The foliar product controls emerged weeds wh ile the residual material controls weeds prior to germination or emergence. When herbicides are applied, biochemical pathways that control the growth and development of plants are interrupted and plant death and injury occurs ( Sosnoskie and Hans on )

. These biochemical pathways control the growth and development of plants; when herbicides are applied, these processes are constrained and pla nt injury and death will occur. Most herbicides bind to, and thereby block the action of, a specific enzyme

. Herbicides are classified according to their mode of action, which is the overall manner in which the herbicide affects a plant at the tissue or cellular level. The Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) has classified herbicides by group number, based o n their mode of action. Brief descriptions of these groups are provided ( Sosnoskie and Hanson ) : Group 1: herbicides inhibit the action of acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) need ed for the synthesis of lipids. Grasses, but not broadleaf weeds, are affected. Group 2: herbicides inhibit the action of acetolactate synthase (ALS) needed for the synthesis of three amino acids (isoleucine, leucine, and valine). Group 3: herbicides inhib it cell division (mitosis inhibitors). Group 4: her bicides are growth regulators. At low concentrations, they mimic the plant growth hormone auxin and are re ferred to as synthetic auxins. At high concentration they produce distinctive symptoms on broadlea f weeds; twisted and curled stems, malformed flowers, thickened or stunted roots, and cupped, strapped or otherwise deformed leaves. Grasses are usually resistant.

Page 3

- 4Group 5, 6, and 7: herbicides inhibit photosynthesis leading to a buildup of highly reactiv e free radicals that damage chlorophyll and cell membranes. Group 8 : herbicides inhibit fatty acid and lipid biosynth esis but not ACCase ( Group 1). Group 9 : herbicides inhibit the action of the enzyme enolpyruvyl shikimate

- 3

- phosphate synthase (EPSPS) n eeded for the synthesis of three aromatic amino acids (tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine) that are produced through the shikimate pathway. Group 10: herbicide s inhibit glutamine synthetase. These herbicides stop the conversion of glutamate and ammon ia to glutamine which causes ammonia to accumulate in the plant, inhibiting photosynthesis and destroying plant cells. Group 12: herbicides inhibit carotenoid biosynthesis. Lack of carotenoids results in destruction of chlorophyll, which is needed for pla nt photosynthesis. Group 14: herbicides inhibit pr otopophyrinogen oxidase (PPO). PPO inhibitors block the production of chlorophyll and cause reactive molecules to form in the cell, resulting in the destruction of existing chlorophyll molecules, carotenoi ds and cell membranes. Group 15: herbicides block mitosis by inhibiting the synthesis of very long chain fatty acids. Group 20, 21, 29: herbicides inhibit the synthesis of cellulose needed for the synthesis of cell walls. Group 22: herbicides inhibit photosystem I (PSI) forming reactive molecules that destroy lipids, eventually breaking down plant cell membranes. Group 27: herbicides inhibit 4

- hydroxyphenyl

- pyruvate

- dioxygenase needed for the synthesis of carotenoids

. Herbicides with a common chemistr y are grouped into “families.” Also, two or more families may have the same site of action, and thus can be grouped into “classes.” Table 3

- 1 provides WSSA herbicide groups with information on modes of action, chemical families, and example active ingredients and herbicides.
Table 3

- 1
. Herbicide G roups with E xample A ctive I ngredients and H erbicides.
Site of Action Group (WSSA Group) Site of Action Number of Resistant

Weed Species in U.S. Chemical Family Active Ingredient Herbicide Lipid Synthesis Inhibitors 1 ACCase Inhibitors (acetyl CoA carboxylase) 15 Aryloxyphenoxy propionate (“FOPs”) fenoxaprop Puma diclofop Hoelon fluazifop Fusilade quizalofop Assure II
Page 3

- 5Site of Action Group (WSSA Group) Site of Action Number of Resistant

Weed Species in U.S. Chemical Family Active Ingredient Herbicide Cyclohexanedione (“DIMs”) clethodim Select sethoxydim Poast Phenylpyrazoline (“DENs”) pinoxaden Axial XL

Amino Acid Synthesis Inhibitors 2 ALS Inhibitors (acetolactate synthase) 44 Sulfonylurea (“SUs”) chlorimuron Classic foramsulfuron Option halosulfuron Permit iodosulfuron Autumn nicosulfuron Accent primisulfuron Beacon prosulfuron Peak rimsulfuron Resolve thifensulfuron Harmony tribenuron Express metsulfuron Ally triasulfuron Amber chlorsulfuron Glean sulfofsulfuron Maverick mesosulfuron Osprey Imidazolinone (“IMIs”) imazamox Beyond imazaquin Scepter imazapic Cadre imazethapyr Pursuit Triazoloyrmidine flumetsulam Python
c h loransulam

methyl FirstRate pyroxysulfam PowerFlex diclosulam Strongarm Triazolinones thiencarbazone Component of Caperno Pyrimidinyl(thio) benzoate pyrithiobac Staple Sulfonylaminocar bonyl

triazilonones flucarbazone Everest

propoxycarbazone Olympus 9 EPSP Synthase Inhibitor 13 glyphosate RoundUp

Growth Regulators (Synthetic Auxins) 4

19 Specific Site Unknown 10 Phenoxy 2,4

- D 2,4

- DB Butyrac MCPA Benzoic acid dicamba Banvel Carboxylic acid chlo pyralid Stinger fluroxypr Starane picloram Tordon Auxin Transport 0 Semicarbazone diflufenzopyr Component of Status Photosynthesis 5 Photosynthesis 24 Triazine prometryn Caparol Page 3

- 6Site of Action Group (WSSA Group) Site of Action Number of Resistant

Weed Species in U.S. Chemical Family Active Ingredient Herbicide Inhibitors

6

7 II Inhibitors (binding sites other than 6 and 7) atrazine Aatrex simazine Princep Triazinone hexazinone Velpar metribuzin Sencor Photosynthesis II Inhibitors (binding sites other than 5 and 7) 1 Nitrile bromoxynil Buctril

Benzodiazole bent a zon Basagran

Photosynthesis II Inhibitors (binding sites other than 5 and 6) 7 Ureas Lorox

Nitrogen Metabolism 10 Glutamine Synthesis Inhibitor Phosphonic Acid glufosinate Liberty

Pigment Inhibitors 13

27 Diterpene Synthesis Inhibitors 1 Isoxazolidinone clomazone Command

HPPD Inhibitors 1 Isoxazole isoxaflutole Balance Pyrazolone topramezone Impact Triketone mesotrione Callisto tembotrione Laudis

Cell Membrane Disruptors 14

27 PPO Inhibitors 2 Diphenylether acifluoron Blazer fomasefen Reflex lactofen Cobra oxyfluorfen Goal N

Phenylphthalamid
e flumiclorac Resource flumioxazin Valor Aryl triazinone sulfentrazone Spartan carfentrazone Aim fluthiacet

- ethyl Cadet Photosystem I Electron Diverter 5 Bipyridium paraquat Gramoxone Inteon diquat Reglone Seedling Root Growth Inhibitors 3 Microtubule Inhibitors 6 Dinitroaniline ethalfluralin Sonalan pendamethalin Prowl trifluralin Treflan Seedling Shoot Growth 8 Lipid Synthesis 8 Thiocarbamate butylate Sutan + EPTC Eradicane Page 3

- 7Site of Action Group (WSSA Group) Site of Action Number of Resistant

Weed Species in U.S. Chemical Family Active Ingredient Herbicide Inhibitors

15 Inhibitors Long

- chain Fatty Acid Inhibitors 1 Chloroacetamide acetochlor Harness alachlor Intrro metalochlor Dual dimethanamid Outlook Oxyacetamide flufanacet Define Pyrazole pyroxasulfone Zidua Sources: ( Armstrong, 2009 ; Glyphosate Stewardship Working Group, 2012 )

. Mechanical Weed Control

– Tillage Prior to planting, the soil must be stripped of weeds that would otherwise compete with the crop for space, water, an d nutrients. Tillage is use d to prepare a seedbed, address soil compaction, incorporate fertilizers and herbicides, manage water movement both within and out of a production field, and control weeds ( Heatherly et al. , 2009 )

. Soil cultivation or tillage can be very valuable in many situations and should be considered as an alternate weed control practice where appropriate:

• Tillage serves as another way to control weeds and break certain weed patterns

• Tillage reduces complete reliance on herbicides

• Periodic tillage is a reliable cultural practice that also provides the benefits of removing trash build

- up on the soil surface and levels ruts or rough spots in fields.

Some form of c onservation tillage is utilized by t he majority of cotton and soybean growers. Tillage can supplement chemical control (i.e., herbicides) and, in the case of light weed infestations, could provide sufficient control if used alone. Cultivation shou ld be shallow to reduce crop root damage and to avoid breaking through any residual herbicide layer and bringing up untreated soil and weed seed. Use of tillage is optimized when weeds are small and should not be practiced for a week prior or after post

- em ergence herbicide application ( York and Culpepper, 2000 )

. Tillag e can be a useful weed control method in some situations but may not be appropriate for all producers or areas

. For example, tillage is not a good practice where soils are susceptible to erosion. Also, no

- till soybean production is less successful in heavi er, cooler soils more typical of northern latitudes ( Kok et al. , 1997 ; NRC, 2010 )

. Although tillage may control weeds, fuel costs and machine maintenance may represent substantial farm expenditures ( NRC, 2010 )

. This fact and the availability of herbicide technology have driven producers to increasingly adopt c hemical management strategies. For example, i n 2012, 98 percent of soybean acreage was treated with synthetic herbicides ( USDA

- NASS, 2013 )

.

Page 3

- 8Cultural Weed Control The successive planting of different crops on the same land is known as crop rotation. In contrast, the planting of the same crop on the same field in successive years is known as continuous crop production. Crop rotations are used to optimize soil nutrition and fertility, reduce pathogen loads, cont rol volunteers (carry over in successive years), and limit the potential for weeds to develop resistance to herbicides ( IPM, 2004 ; 2007 ; USDA

- ERS, 2010 )

. Crop rotation is also a key element of successful weed control as it often reduces the populations of weeds that closely mimic the appearance of the young crop or are tolerant to herbicides often used in these crops. Crop rotation should be an integral componen t of a weed management program. Crop rotation generally leads to healthier crops that are more competitive with weeds. Moreover, certain weeds are more easily or more economically managed in one crop than in another

. Additionally, crop rotation allows use of different herbicide chemistries on the same field in different years. This can prevent weed population shifts (changes in the species composition), avoid selec tion of herbicide resistan t weeds , and help to keep the overall weed population at lower levels. Weed control in cotton is essential to maximize both yield and quality of cotton fiber. The slow early growth of cotton does not permit the crop to aggressively compete against weed species that often grow more rapidly and utilize the available water, nutrients, light, and other resources for growth ( Smith and Cothren, 1999 ) . Cotton yields can be reduced substantially if weeds are uncontrolled. Palmer amaranth has been reported to cause yield losses as high as 54 percent ( Morgan et al. , 2001 ) and johnsongrass and barnyardgrass have been reported to reduce yields by 90 percent and 98 percent , respectively ( Vargas et al. , 1996 ) . Based on 2005 data, not using herbicides in cotton would result in an increased production cost of approximately $2.3 billion annually and an estimated yield lo ss of 27 percent ( Gianessi and Reigner, 2006 )

. Weed

- crop competition studies have demonstrated that the control of weeds during the first four to eight weeks after co tton planting is critical as weeds compete against the crop for water, nutrients, light and other resources necessary for growth ( Smith and Cothren, 1999 ) . The primary weed competition factors affecting yield loss potential are the weed species, weed density, and the timing/duration of weed competition. Cotton emergence and above ground growth is relatively slow during the first few weeks after planting, and does not permit the crop to aggressively compete against often more rapidly developing weed species ( Smith and Cothren, 1999 ) . In addition, cotton is primarily planted using wide row spacing which delay s crop canopy closure until layby stage of cotton and extends the window of weed

- crop competition. Crop rotation is a common practice on U.S. soybean fields, with approximately 95 percent of the soybean acreage planted in some form of a crop rotation syste m since 1991 ( USDA

- ERS, 2013 )

. A variety of crop s may be rotated with soybean. In terms of acreage however, corn is the most commonly rotated crop. In a survey of major corn/soybean production states, corn and so ybean were alternated on 72 to 80 percent of acreage, other rotations were grown on 16 to 20 percent of acreage, and soybean was grown continuously on 5 to 12 perce nt of acreage between 1996

- 2002 ( Sandretto and Payne, 2006 )

. Other crops that may be rotated with soybean include wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, barley, oats, and dry beans.

Page 3

- 9The mitigation of pest cycles on an agricultural fi eld is one of the primary b enefits of crop rotation. The rotation of other crops following soybean production may disrupt pest life cycles that are more adapted to soybean fie ld cultivation than other crops ( Poole, 2004 ) through the creation of a relatively unstable agroecosystem ( Weller et al. , 2010 )

. For example, crop rotation may encourage the use of alternative herbicides to further control broadleaf weeds in the same field in successive years that would not otherwise be used if cont inuous soybean was grown ( Gunsolus, 2012 )

. Planting high

- quality, weed

- free crop seed is another cultural practice that kee ps weed infestations low and easier to manage. One of the most effective means of reducing weed competition is to establish a highly competitive crop. This is best accomplished by planting good quality seed into a well

- prepared seedbed with good fertility and soil moisture. Higher seeding rates can help establish a competitive crop and for some weed species delaying planting will allow for destruction of early flushes of weeds via tillage or non

- selective herbicide application. Integrated Weed Management

To reduce or mitigate against the selective pressures associated with the use of a single weed management practice, agronomists have recommended that growers adopt a diverse weed management strat egy, also known as integrated weed management (IWM) ( Norsworthy, 2012 ; HRAC, 2013 )

. Effective IWM in crops usually involves a combination of cultural, mechanical, and chemical methods. Th us, IWM does not exclude any one management technique. IWM integrates practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, competitive crop cultivars, the judicious use of tillage, and targeted herbicide application to reduce weed populations and selection pressu res toward the development of herbicide resistant weeds ( Mortensen et al. , 2012 )

. Resistance management begins with good agronomic practices, including the implementatio n of IWM to incorporate diverse weed control practices to reduce the frequency of herbicide applications and decrease selection pressure for herbicide resistant weed populations ( Norsworthy, 2012 )

. I WM programs that use h erbicides from different groups, vary cropping systems, rotate crops, and use mechanical as well as chemical weed control methods will prevent the selection of herbicide

- resistant weed populations ( Powles, 2008 ; Green and Owen, 2011 ; Sellers et al. , 2011 ; Gunsolus, 2012 ; HRAC, 2013 )

. The Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, an i ndustry

- based group, has developed the following general principles of weed resistance management:

• Apply integrated weed management practices. Use multiple herbicide sites

- of

- action with overlapping weed spectrums in rotation, sequences, or mixtures;

• Use t he full recommended herbicide rate and proper application timing for the hardest to control weed species present in the field;

• Scout fields after herbicide application to ensure control has been achieved. Avoid allowing weeds to reproduce by seed or to pro liferate vegetatively; and

• Monitor site and clean equipment between sites.

Page 3

- 10For annual cropping situations, the following recommendations of the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee ( HRAC, 2013 ) are provided:

• Start with a clean field and control weeds early by using a burndown treatment or tillage in combination with a pre

- emergence residual herbicide as appropriate;

• Use cultural practices such as cultivation and crop rotation, where appropriate; and

• Use good agronomic principles that enhance crop competitiveness.
References Armstrong, J. "Herbicide How

- to: Understanding Herbicide Mode of Action." Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, 2009. Vol. PSS

2778. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version

11370/Pss2778web.pdf

. Farnham , D (2001) "Corn Planting." Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University of Science and Technology. Last Accessed: April 6, 2011 http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/ pm1885.pdf

. Gianessi, L and Reigner, N (2007) "The value of herbicides in U.S. crop production." Weed Technology. (21): p 559

- 66. Gianessi, LP and Reigner, NP (2006) "The Value of Herbicides in U.S. Crop Production 2005 Update." CropLife America. http://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2005

- update

- report

- and

- data.pdf

. Glyphosate Stewardship Working Group. "GWC

- 3, Corn and Soybean Herbicide Ch art." Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crop Series 2012. http://www.glyphosateweedscrops.org/Info/MOA_060807.pdf

. Green, DJ and Martin, RJ (1996) "Dealing with Perennial Broadleaf Weeds in Conser vation Tillage Systems." Green, JM and Owen, MD (2011) "Herbicide

- resistant crops: Utilities and limitations for herbicide

- resistant weed management." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 59 p 5819

- 29. Gunsolus, J (2012) "Weed Control in Soybean." Last Accessed: January, 2013 http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/weedbull/Soybeans.pdf

. Hager, A and McGlamery, M. "Principles of Postemergence Herbicides." Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Cooperative Extension Service, 1997. 3. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/pastpest/articles/v977h.html

. Hartzler, B (2008) "Timeliness Critical to Protect Corn Yields." Iowa State University Extension. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2008/0523BobHartzler.htm

. Heatherly, L; Dorrance, A; Hoeft, R; Onstad, D; Orf, J; Porter, P; Spur lock, S; and Young, B (2009) "Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Conventional, Transgenic, and Organic Production Systems." Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. http:// www.cast

- science.org/publications/index.cfm/

. HRAC (2013) "Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC): Resistance Management Strategies." http://www.hracglobal.com/

. IPM (2004) "Crop Profile for Field Corn in Pennsylvania." Department of Agronomy, Penn State University. IPM (2007) "Crop Profile for Corn in the Northern and Central Plains (KS, NE, ND, and SD),."
Page 3

- 11Knezevic, S (2007) "Timing Weed Control in Corn to Get t he Most Effect." http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archive/

- /asset_publisher/VHeSpfv0Agju/content/891332

. Knezevic, SZ; Evans, SP; and Mainz, M (2003) "Yield Penalty Due to Delayed Weed Control in Corn and Soybean." Crop Managment. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2003/delay/

. Kok, H; Fjell, D; and Kilgore, G (1997) "Seed bed Preparation and Planting Practices

- Soybean Production Handbook." Kansas State University. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/c449.pdf

. Linker, H; Coble, H; Van Duyn, J; Dunphy, E; Bach eler, J; and Schmitt, D (unknown) "Chapter 3

- Scouting for Weeds." http://ipm.ncsu.edu/soybeans/Scouting_Soybeans/scouting_for_weeds.html

. Morgan, GD; Baumann, PA; and Chandler, JM (2001) "Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. ." Weed Technology. 15 (3): p 408

- 13. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/0890

- 037X(2001)015%5B0408:CIOPAA%5D2.0.CO%3B2

. Mortensen, DA; Egan, JF; Maxwell, BD; Ryan, MR; and Smith, RG (2012) "Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management." Bioscience. 62 p 75

- 84. http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/75

. NC State University (1998) "Postemergence, Non

- Selective Herbicides for Landscapes and Nurseries " http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil

- 648.html

. Norsworthy, JK, Ward, S. M., Shaw, D. R., Llewellyn, R. S., Nichols, R. L., Webster, T. M., Bradley, K. W., Frisvold, G., Powles, S. B., Burgos, N. R., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. (2012) "Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations." Weed Science. (Special issue): p 31

- 62. ht tp://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS

- D

- 11

- 00155.1

. NRC (2010) The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804

. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2009) "Chapter 12: Weed Control: Crop Yield Losses Due to Weeds." http://www.omafra.gov. on.ca/english/crops/pub811/12crop.htm

. Penn State Extention (2013) "Herbicides " http://extension.psu.edu/pests/weeds/control/introduction

- to

- weeds

- and

herbicides/herbicides

. Poole, T (2004) "Crop Rotation." University of Maryland

- Maryland Cooperative Extension. Last Accessed: December, 2012 http://extension.umd.edu/publications/p dfs/fs784.pdf

. Powles, SB (2008) "Evolution in action: Glyphosate

- resistant weeds threaten world crops." Outlooks on Pest Management. 12 p 256

- 59. Rosenberg, M (2013) "Effect Of Weed Competition On Corn " http://igrow.org/agronomy/corn/effect

- of

- weed

- competition

- on

- corn/

. Sandretto, C and Payne, J (2006) "Soil Management and Conservation." United States Department of Agriculture

- Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/eib16_4

- 2.pdf

. Schutte, BJ; Hager, AG; and Davis , AS (2010) "Respray Requests on Custom

- Applied, Glyphosate

- Resistant Soybeans in Illinois: How Many and Why." Weed Technology. 24 (4): p 590

- 98. http://naldc.na l.usda.gov/download/47592/PDF

.
Page 3

- 12Sellers, BA; Ferrell, JA; and MacDonald, GE (2011) "Herbicide Resistant Weeds." http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag239

. Smith, CW and Cothren, JT (1999) Cotton: Origin, history, technolo gy, and production . New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Sosnoskie, LM and Hanson, B (2013) "Understanding herbicide mechanisms (modes) of action and how they apply to resistance management in orchards and vineyards." http://ceventura.ucdavis.edu/?blogtag=mode%20of%20action&blogasset=19 305#

. University of California (2009) "UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Corn." University of California Agriculture and Nat ural Resources, UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu

. USDA

- ERS (2010) "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: Corn Varieties." http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable1.htm

. USDA

- ERS (2013) "Crop & Livestock Practices: Soil Tillage and Crop Rotation." USDA

Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm

- practices

management/crop

- livestock

- practices/soil

- tillage

- and

- crop

- rotation.aspx

. USDA

- NASS (2013) "2012 Ag ricultural Chemical Use Survey Soybeans." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.g ov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/20 12_Soybeans_Highlights/ChemUseHighlights

- Soybeans

- 2012.pdf

. Vargas, RN; Fischer, WB; Kempen, HM; and Wright, SD (1996) "Cotton weed management." Cotton Production Manual . Davis, California: University of Cali fornia Division of Agricultrue and Natural Resources. p 187

- 88. Weller, S; Owen, M; and Johnson, W (2010) "Managing Glyphosate

- resistant Weeds and Populations Shifts in Midwestern U.S. Cropping Systems." Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p 213

- 33. York, AC and Culpepper, AS (2000) "Weed Management." http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/plymouth/cropsci/cornguide/Chapter8.html

.

Page 3

- 13

### Herbicide Use Trends and Predicted XtendTM Use on Appendix 4. Dicamba

- Resistant Soybean and Cotton

Page 4

- 1Herbicide Use Trends The following information was presented in Monsanto’s Petitioner’s Environmental Report for Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 and Dicamba

- and Glufosinate

- Tolerant Cotton MON 88701 (ER) (citation). Additional information can be obtained in the ER, which w ill be posted by USDA as supplementary information to the Federal Register docket for this EIS: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS

- 2013

- 0043
Herbicide Use

– Soy bean The use of herbicides has become an important part of managing weeds in soybean

. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean acreage received an herbicide application in 2012 ( USDA

- NASS, 2012b )

. The availability of herbicide

- tolerant soybean products is an important aspect of weed management in U.S. soybean production

. Herbicide

- tolerant soybean was introduced to provide growers with additional options by improving crop safety (no herbicide damage to the crop) and improving weed control

. In 2013, 93% of the U.S. soybean crop was her bicide

- tolerant ( USDA

- ERS, 2013 ) ; almost all is glyphosate

- tolerant

. As a result and as shown by the 2012 use data shown in Table 4

- 1 (ER Appendix A, Table A

- 8 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) , glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, being applied on 98 percent of the soybean acreage in 2012, including for pre

- plant burndown and post

- emergence in crop applications ( USDA

NASS, 2012b )

. In 2012, dicamba

- treated acres in soybean accounted for only 87 thousand acres, or 0.07% of the total pre

- emergent treated acres ( USDA

- NASS, 2012b )

. This is primarily because dicamba is phytotoxic to current soybean varieties and is therefore currently only labeled for application at timings that avoid contact with the growing plant, such as pre

- plant treatments prior to planting, depending on rate and rainfall. Over 35 different herbicide active ingredients are registered and ava ilable for use by soybean growers to control weeds

. The ten most widely used alternative herbicides in soybean are listed in Table 4

- 2 (ER Table II.B

- 6 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. Alternative soybean herbicide use has almost doubled between 2009 and 2012

. Integration of DT soybean into the glyphosate

- tolerant soybean system and the subsequent use of dicamba will result in the displacement of some currently used, or foreseeable future use, non

- glyphosate herbicides

. Some non

- glyphosate alternative herbicides have less benign human health and environmental characteristics as compared to dicamba, and reduced agronomic flexibility due to soybean planting restrictions, rotational crop planting restrictions, the need for adequate soil moisture for activation, or t he need to apply prior to planting to minimize crop injury. 1 The properties of these alternative herbicides are summarized in Appendices A and C (see ER ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) to provide a baseline for comparison to dicamba use on DT soybean

. Herbicide weed control programs in conventional soybean consist of pre

- emergence herbicides used alone or in mixtures

. Mixtures of two pre

- emergence herbicides are used to broaden the

1 In order to approve a new use of a herbicide EPA must conclude that the herbicide, when used according to the label, does not pose an unreasonable adverse effect to humans or the environment, and, in order to establish a tolerance for the use of a herbicide on a food or feed crop, find there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health from non

- occupational (food, water and residential/recreational) exposures to the herbici de

. Therefore, all alternative herbicides used in soybean production can be used safely, and do not pose an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment

. Page 4

- 2Table 4

- 1
. Herbicide Applications Registered for Use in Soybean in 2012 1

Herbicide Chemical Family Mode

- of

- Action (MOA) Percent

Treated

Acres Total Area Applied (Percent/MOA) Quantity Applied (1000 lb) Total Quantity Applied (1000 lb/MOA) Glyphosate glycine EPSPS inhibitor 98 100 109,336 110,589 Sulfosate glycine 3 1,253 Pendimethalin dinitroanaline Tubulin inhibitor 2 4 1,559 2,865 Trifluralin dinitroanaline 2 1,306 Metribuzin triazinone PSII inhibitor 3 11 675 1,753 Sulfentrazone triazolinone 8 1,078 Chlorimuron

- ethyl sulfonylurea

ALS inhibitor 11

26 187

590 Cloransulam

- methyl triazolopyrimidine 4 83 Flumetsulam triazolopyrimidine * 14 Imazamox imidazolinone * 6 Imazaquin imidazolinone * 34 Imazethapyr imidazolinone 5 221 Rimsulfuron Imidazolinone * 4 Thifensulfuron sulfonylurea 5 31 Tribenuron

- methyl sulfonylurea 1 10 Acetochlor chloroacetamide Cell division inhibitor 1 9 635 6,553 Metolachlor chloroacetamide 7 5,683 Dimethenamid chloroacetamide 1 235 Paraquat bipyridilium PSI disruption 3 3 813 813

Page 4

- 3Table 4

- 1 (continued)

. Herbicide Use in Soybean in the U.S. in 2012 1

Herbicide Chemical Family Mode

- of

- Action (MOA) Percent

Treated

Acres Total Area Applied (Percent/MOA) Quantity Applied (1000 lb) Total Quantity Applied (1000 lb/MOA) Clethodim cyclohexenone

ACCase inhibitor 9

14 524

907 Fenoxaprop aryloxyphenoxy propionate * 7 Fluazifop

- P

- butyl aryloxyphenoxy propionate 3 195 Quizalofop

- P

- ethyl aryloxyphenoxy propionate 2 118 Sethoxydim cyclohexenone * 63 Acifluorfen diphenylether

PPO inhibitor 1

29 210

2,477 Carfentrazone

- ethyl triazolinones * 1 Fluthiacet thiadiazole 2 10 Flumiclorac

- pentyl N

- phenylphthalimide 1 35 Flumioxazin N

- phenylphthalimide 11 602 Fomesafen diphenylether 8 1,347 Lactofen diphenylether 2 192 Saflufenacil pyrimidinedione 4 80 2,4

- D phenoxy Synthetic auxin 15 15 6,021 6,108 Dicamba benzoic acid * 87 Total 132,979 * Area receiving application is less than 0.5 percent. 1 Data derived from ( USDA

- NASS, 2013 )

. Planted acreage for the nineteen primary soybean production states was 72.9 million acres, which represented 96.5% of total planted acr es. Source: Appendix A, Table A

- 8 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ,

Page 4

- 4spectrum of control to both grasses and broadleaf weed species

. Preemergence herbicides are followed by postemergence applications to control weeds that emerge later in the crop

. Total postemergence weed control programs were seldom used in conventional soybean prior to 1995 when glyphosate

- tole rant soybean was first introduced

. Prior to glyphosate

tolerant soybean, soybean planted in a no

- till system would receive a preplant burndown herbicide application for broad

- spectrum control of existing weeds at time of planting, followed by different soil residual herbicides at planting and possibly still other herbicides applied postemergence to the crop and the weeds

. In conventional soybean s, the typical herbicide program consisted of multiple soil residual herbicides applied preemergence to the crop and weeds and, possibly, other herbicides applied postemergence to the crop and weeds

. Therefore, multiple herbicides and/or multiple applicati ons were generally used in conventional and no

- till non

- glyphosate

- tolerant soybean

. The average number of herbicide applications per acre in soybean rose from 1.5 in 1990 to 1.7 applications in 1995, reflecting the use of at

- plant and postemergence applic ations or two postemergence applications ( Gianessi et al. , 2002 )

. Table 4

- 2
. Ten Most Wi dely Used Alternative Herbicides in U.S. Soybean Production in 2012

Herbicide Treated Acres (millions) 1 Pounds Applied (millions) 1 2,4

- D (acid, salts, and esters, 11.58 6.02 Flumioxazin 8.49 1.56 Imazethapyr 3.86 1.35 cloransulam

- methyl 3.09 0.60 chlorimuron

- ethyl 8.49 0.52 Fomesafen 6.18 0.22 Clethodim 6.95 0.19 pendimethalin 1.54 0.08 Tribenuron 0.77 0.04 flumiclorac

- pentyl 0.77 0.01
1 ( USDA

- NASS, 2012b ) S ource: Table II.B

- 6 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Selective herbicides are designed to kill specific types of plants, usually grasses or broadleaf weeds, and have proven e ffective to reduce in

- crop tillage or cultivation to control weeds in soybean production

. The development of selective herbicides has progressed since the introduction of the first herbicide (2,4

- D) for weed control in corn in early 1940s

. Although the pri mary purpose of tillage is for seedbed preparation, tillage still is used to supplement weed control with selective herbicides in soybean production

. Refer to Appendix A ( see ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) for details on alternative herbicides used in soybean production. In glyphosate

- tolerant soybean, a total of 53 differen t non

- glyphosate herbicides had been used in the preemergence ( PRE ) timing, while 37 different non

- glyphosate herbicides had been used in the postemergence ( POST ) timing Table 4

- 3 ( ER Table A

- 9 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

.

Page 4

- 5Table 4

- 3 . Non

- Glyphosate Herbicides Used in Glyphosate

- Tolerant Soybeans from 2002 to 2011 a Preemergence (PRE) Active Ingredients Postemergence (POST) Active Ingredients 2,4

- D 2,4

- DB Acifluorfen Alachlor Bentazone Carfentrazone

- ethyl Chlorimuron Chlorsulfuron Clethodim Clomazone Cloransulam

- methyl Dicamba Diflufenzopyr Dimethenamid Dimethenamid

- P Ethalfluralin Fenoxaprop Fluazifop Flufenacet Flumetsulam Flumiclorac Flumioxazin Fluthiacet

- methyl Fomesafen Glufosinate Imazamox Imazaquin Imazethapyr Iodosulfuron Lactofen Linuron MCPA Metolachlor Metolachlor

- S Metribuzin Metsulfuron MSM A Nicosulfuron Norflurazon Paraquat Pelargonic acid Pendimethalin Pyraflufen ethyl Quizalofop Rimsulfuron Saflufenacil Sethoxydim Simazine Sulfentrazone Sulfosate Thifensulfuron Tribenuron methyl Trifluralin 2,4

- D 2,4

- DB Acetochlor Acifluorfen Alachlor Bentazone Carfentrazone

- ethyl Chlorimuron Clethodim Cloransulam

- methyl Dicamba Dimethenamid Dimethenamid

- P Fenoxaprop Fluazifop Flumetsulam Flumiclorac Flumioxazin Fluthiacet

- methyl Fomesafen Imazamox Imazaquin Imazethapyr Lactofen Linuron Metolachlor Metolachlor

- S Naptalam Paraquat Pelargonic acid Pendimethalin Pyraflufen ethyl Quizalofop Sethoxydim Sulfosate Thifensulfuron Tribenuron methyl

a Unpublished market research data ( Monsanto, 2012b ) Source: Table A

- 9 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. Herbicide Use

– Cotton Herbicides are used on essentially all (>99%) cotton acres, and in 2011 approximately 39
m illion pounds of herbicides were applied pre

- or postemergence in cotton production ( Brookes a nd Barfoot, 2012 ; Monsanto, 2012b )

. According to 2010 market data 2 , there were approximately 46.3 million herbicide

- treated cotton acres

. Herbicides were applied to 21.8 million acres prior to the planting or emergence of cotton (preemergent) and to 24.5 million acres after the emergence of cotton (postemergent)

. For clarification, the market survey data counts one treated acre as the application of one active ingredient (a.i.) one time to an acre

. If the same a.i. is applied a second time to that same acre or if two a.i.s are applied, it counts as two treated acres

. USDA reports that 11.0 million acres of cotton were planted in 2010, 3 so that the 46.3 million herbicide

- treated cotton acres means tha t on average each planted

2 Monsanto Company. 2011. Farmer Survey Data. St. Louis, MO.

3 USDA Statistics for crops and geog raphic regions are available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp

. Page 4

- 6acre received at least 4 herbicide treatments

. Cotton acres also received on average four treatments with herbicides during the 2011 growing season ( USDA

- ERS, 2012 )

. Herbicide

- tolerant cotton is planted on the majority of U.S. cotton acres (73% in 2011 ), which allows for the postemergence in

- crop use of glyphosate for control a broad spectrum of weeds

. Glyphosate is the most widely

- used herbicide in cotton, applied on 91% of cotton acres with an average of 2.4 applications per growing season ( Monsanto, 2012b )

. In 2010, between 49 and 76% of the growers w ho plant glyphosate

- tolerant (GT) cotton applied non

glyphosate herbicides prior to planting, at planting, or postemergence

. Percentages varied among cropping systems, with 76% of GT cotton in a rotation system with GT soybean receiving non

- glyphosate herb icide applications, whereas non

- glyphosate herbicides were only applied 49% of the time in continuous cotton cropping systems ( Prince et al. , 2011a )

. Over 30 different herbicide active ingredients are registered and available for use by cotton growers to control weeds

. Table 4

- 4 (ER Table A

- 33 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) provides a summary of the herbicide applications registered for use in cotton in 2011, demonstr ating that herbicides are used on essentially all (>99%) cotton acres in the U.S ( Brookes and Barfoot, 2012 ; Monsanto, 2012b )

. Approximately 39 million pounds of herbicide active ingredient were applied to cotton in 2011

. Of these treatments, 50% (23.3 million acres) were made with glyphosate herbicides, and the remaining 50% of treatments were made with more than 25 other active ingredients. The number of glyphosate applications on an average cotton acre was between 2 and 3 applications per year at an average rate of 2.0 pounds acid equivalent (a.e.) of glyphosate active ingredient per acre per crop year. Approximately 53% to 64% of growers used a non

- glyphosate herbicide in addition to glyphosate in the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems in 2005 ( Givens et al. , 2009a ) . In 2007, approximately 39% of the growers often or always used herbicides with different modes

- of

action in the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems ( Frisvold et al., 2009 )

. Non

- glyphosate herbicides with different modes

- of

- action are also frequently used to provide residual weed control, improve control on certain weed species, and e xtend weed control or control resistant weed species ( Prince et al. , 2011a )

. The non

- glyphosate herbicides applied on cotton in 2011, included ALS inhibitors (trifloxysulfuron, pyrithiobac), longchain fatty acid inhibitors (acetochlor, metolachlor), microtubule inhibitors (pendimethalin, trifluralin), PSII inhibitors (prometryn, fluometuron, diuron) , PPO inhibitors (flumioxazin, fomesafen), synthetic auxins (2,4

- D, dicamba), glufosinate, MSMA and paraquat ( Monsanto, 2012b )

.

.

Page 4

- 7Table 4

- 4
. Herbicide Applications Registered for Use in Cotton in 2011 1

Herbicide Herbicide Family Mode

- of

Action (MOA) Cotton Acres Treated

(%) Cotton Acres Treated

per MOA Quantity Applied (1000 lb

a.i. 2 ) Total Quantity Applied/MOA (1000 lb a.i. 2 ) Glyphosate Glycine EPSPS inhibitor 73 73 20,015 20,015
Pendimethalin Dinitroanaline Microtubule inhibitor 16 40 1,964 5,043 Trifluralin Dinitroanaline 24 3,079
Diuron Urea
PSII inhibitor 15

34 1,727

3,737 Prometyrn Triazine 10 1,102 Fluometuron Urea 8 870 Linuron Urea <1 38
Acifluorfen Diphenylether <1 1 Carfentrazone Triazolinone

PPO inhibitor <1

38 <1

856 Flumiclorac N

phenylphthalimide <1 <1

Flumioxazin N

phenylphthalimide 19 192
Fomesafen Diphenylether 17 626 Oxyfluorfen Diphenylether 1 36 Pyraflufen Phenylpyrazole <1 <1 2,4

- D Phenoxy Synthetic Auxin 17 27 1,659 2,023 Dicamba Benzoic acid 10 364 Pyrithiobac Benzoate ALS inhibitor 14 21 113 120

Page 4

- 8Table 4

- 4 . (continued)

. Herbicide Applications Registered for Use in Cotton in 2011 1

Herbicide Herbicide Family Mode

- of

Action (MOA) Cotton Acres Treated

(%) Cotton Acres Treated per MOA

(%) Quantity Applied (1000 lb

a.i. 2 ) Total Quantity Applied/MOA (1000 lb a.i. 2 )

Thifensulfuron Sulfonylurea <1 <1 Thibenuron Sulfonylurea <1 <1 Trifloxysulfuron Sulfonylurea 6 6 Acetochlor Chloroacetamide Long

- chain fatty acid inhibitor 8 25 1,502 4,587 Metolachlor Chloroacetamide 17 3,085
Norflurazon Pyridazinone Inhibition of carotenoid <1 <1 2 2
Paraquat Bipyridylium Photosystem

I

- electron 10 10 735 735
Glufosinate

ammonium Phosphinic acid Glutamine synthesis 10 10 800 800

MSMA Organoarsenical Cell membrane 6 6 1,066 1,066

Clethodim Cyclohexanedione ACCase inhibitor <1 <1 3 3 Fluazifop Aryloxphenoxy propionate <1 <1
Diflufenzopyr Semicarbazone Auxin transport <1 <1 3 3

Clomazone Isoxazolidinone Diterpene synthesis <1 <1 <1 <1
Total 99.4 38,992
1 Updated version of Table VIII

- 9 of petition 12

- 185

- 01p_a1 ( Monsanto, 2012a ) with 2011 data ( M onsanto, 2012b )

. 2 lb a .i.= pounds active ingredient.

Source: Table A

- 33 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.

Page 4

- 9Dicamba is currently labeled for use in cotton although its use is limited to preplant applications due to cotton’s susceptibility to dicamba

. Consequently, the average application rate preplant in cotton is 0.26 pounds of dicamba per acre with one application per season

. Dicamba preplant use in cotton has been on the rise in recent years, increasing from 140,000 acres in 2004, to 590,000 acres i n 2008, and 1.4 million acres, or 9.6% of U.S. cotton acres, in 2011 ( Monsanto, 2012b )

. This is primarily because it is a leading recommended herbicide for control of glyphosate

- resistant marestail and Palmer amaranth in the Southeast and Midsouth region ( McClelland et al. , 2006 ; AgWatch, 2011 ; University of Georgia, 2012 ) The ten most widely used alternative herbicides in cotton in 2010 are listed in Table 4

- 5 (ER Table B

- 18 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) , compared to 2007 use

. Table 4

- 5
. Ten Most Widely Used Alternative Herbicides in U.S. Cotton Production

Herbicide 2007 Applications (million lb) 1 2010 Applications (million lb) 1 Trifluralin 2.8 3.1 Diuron 1.3 1.3 Pendimenthalin 1.3 1.2 S

- metolachlor 0.6 1.1 Prometryn 0.6 0.4 2,4

- D, dimethylamine salt 0.3 0.4 Fluormeturon 0.3 0.4 MSMA 0.4 0.3 Fomesafen 0.05 0.2 2,4

- D, ethylhexyl ester 0.1 0.1

1 ( USDA

- NASS, 2014 ) Source: Table B

- 18 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Soil residual herbicides play an important role in cotton weed management by providing control of a number of weeds species that continuously germinate in cotton prior to canopy closure ( Wilcut et al. , 2003 )

. Soil residual herbicides, such as pendimethalin, trifluralin, diuron, fluometuron, acetochlor, and metolachlor, are applied to more than 40% of the current cotton acres ( Monsanto, 2012b )

. In addition, many of the soil residual herbicides are limited by app lication restrictions, plant

- back restrictions, the need for adequate soil moisture for activation, and the need to apply prior to planting or with hooded sprayers in

crop to minimize crop injury

. Approximately 20% of growers applied a fall residual herbic ide to control weeds prior to planting the following spring, and 60% (continuous cotton system) to 75% (GR cotton/GR soybean rotation) applied a mixture of glyphosate and a synthetic auxin herbicide (2,4

- D or dicamba) as a spring burndown application ( Prince et al. , 2011a )

. Post emergent residual herbicides, such as metolachlor and acetochlor, were applied on over 25% of cotton acres in 2010 ( Monsa nto, 2012b )

. In glyphosate

- tolerant cotton, a total of 38 different non

- glyphosate herbicides had been used in the PRE timing while 40 non

- glyphosate herbicides had been used at the POST timing (Table 4

- 6) ( ER Table A

- 34 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ).
Page 4

- 10Table 4

- 6 . Non

- Glyphosate Herbicides Used in Cotton from 2002

- 2011

Pr eplant/preemergence A ctive I ngredients Postemergence A ctive Ingredients 2,4

- D 2,4

- D 2,4

- DB Acetochlor Alachlor Acifluorfen Bromoxynil Alachlor Carfentrazone

- Ethyl Bromoxynil Clethodim Carfentrazone

- Ethyl Clomazone Clethodim Cyanazine Cyanazine Dicamba Dicamba Diflufenzopyr Dimethipin Diuron Diuron Fluazifop DSMA Flumiclorac Fenoxaprop Flumioxazin Fluazifop Fluometuron Flumiclorac Fomesafen Flumioxazin Glufosinate Fluometuron Lactofen Fomesafen Linuron Glufosinate Metolachlor Hexazinone Metolachlor

- S Lactofen MSMA Linuron Norflurazon Metolachlor Oxyfluorfen Metolachlor

- S Paraquat Metsulfuron Pendimethalin MSMA Prometryn Oxyfluorfen Pyraflufen Ethyl Paraquat Pyrithiobac

- Sodium Pelargonic Acid Quizalofop Pendimethalin Rimsulfuron Prometryn Saflufenacil Pyraflufen Ethyl Sethoxydim Pyrithiobac

- Sodium Sulfosate Quizalofop Thifensulfuron Rimsulfuron Tribenuron Methyl Sethoxydim Trifloxysulfuron Sulfosate Trifluralin Trifloxysulfuron Trifluralin Total 38 40 Source: Table A

- 34 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.

Page 4

- 11Further details on the use of non

- glyphosate herbicides in cotton producing states can be found in Prince et al. ( 2011a ; 2011b ) , where it is reported that approximately 50% of surveyed growers who did not have glyphosate

- resistant weeds on their farm used a non

glyphosate residual and/or postemergence herbicide in the 2009 growing season

. For growers who h ave on

- farm herbicide

- resistant weed populations, the percentage of growers was higher, with 72% to 75% reporting the use of non

- glyphosate herbicides

. Older studies report that approximately 40 to 50% of the growers utilizing glyphosate

- tolerant crops indicate that applying herbicides with different modes

- of

- action in sequence, rotating herbicides with different modes

- of

- action across the season, or tank mixing glyphosate with other herbicide modes

- of

- action are effective management practices to minimize the evolution and/or development of glyphosate resistance ( Powles et al. , 1996 ; Diggle et al. , 2003 ; Beckie, 2006 ; Beckie and Reboud, 2009 )

. The use of non

- glyphosate herbicides in cotton production is expected to continue to increase as mo re growers adopt more diversified weed management strategies

. Refer to Appendix A (see ER ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) for details on alternative herbicides used in cotton production.
Volume Projections for Proposed New Uses of Dicamba The following sections of A ppendix 4 present Monsanto’s projections of the increases in dicamba usage volumes based on the proposed new dicamba application rates for DT soybean and cotton. Monsanto has submitted an application to EPA to amend current registration s of DGA salt formulation for new uses of dicamba on dicamba

- re sistant soybean and cotton. The application is currently being evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

. Details on and supporting information for Monsanto’s calculations can be found in the Environmental Report prepared by Monsanto ( Monsanto, 2013 ) and posted by USDA as supplementary infor mation to the Feder al Register docket for this EIS: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS

- 2013

- 0043 Impact of DT Soybean Deregulation on Dicamba Usage Use of Low

- Volatility DGA Salt of Dicamba

– Proposed Changes in Dicamba Registration: Monsanto has submitted to EPA an application to amend EPA Reg. No. 524

- 582 to register a new use pattern for dicamba on DT soybean

. The current and proposed uses
are summ arized in Table 4

- 7 ( ER Table IV.A

- 1 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

.

Page 4

- 12Table 4

- 7
. Summary of Dicamba Uses on Soybean
Current Approved Uses Proposed Uses on DT soybean

Application Timing Maximum Single Application Rate (lb a.e./acre) Maximum Annual Application Rate (lb a.e./acre) Maximum Single Application Rate (lb a.e ./acre) Maximum Annual Application Rate (lb a.e./acre)
Pre

- emergence 0.50 1

2.0 1.0 2

2.0 Post

- emergence Not labeled 0.50 (V3) + 0.50 (R1/R2) 3
Pre

- harvest (7 days prior to harvest) 1.0 Not labeled

1 14

- 28 day planting interval based on product application rate 2 No planting interval 3 In

- crop application through V3 with a sequential application through R1/R2 growth stage as needed

. Total of all in

- crop applications from emergence up to R1/R2 is 1.0 lb a.e./acre. Source: Table IV.A

- 1 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. In the pending application to EPA, Monsa nto requested approval only for the low volatility DGA salt formulation of dicamba (U.S. EPA Reg. No. 524

- 582) for use on DT soybean, and has proposed that dicamba application s be limited to ground application s only ( i.e ., no aerial spraying) , as well as proposing additional enforceable directions for use

. Monsanto has also requested the establishment of a tolerance for soybean forage and hay; n o other revisions to the dicamba residue tolerances are necessary, including animal products such as meat and milk

. Combination with Glyphosate

- Tolerant Soybean

. DT soybean is intended to be combined with glyphosate

- tolerant soybean utilizing traditional breeding techniques

. Soybean containing both DT soybean and glyphosate tolerance will allow the use of glyphosate and dicamba herbicides in a diversified weed management program , which includes the use of residual herbicides or other cultural practices, to control a broad spectrum of grasses and broadleaf weed species, and to sustain and complement the b enefits and value of the glyphosate use in the glyphosate

- tolerant systems

. The combined system will support long

term sustainability of weed management in soybean and, in turn, support sustained, economic soybean production. Inclusion of Potential Impact s from Herbicide Use: As discussed above, it is EPA’s regulatory authority under FIFRA to register pesticide products for their intended uses

. EPA has sole authority to regulate the use of any herbicide

. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, this e nvironmental report evaluates potential impacts of dicamba use associated with DT soybean on the human environment

.

Page 4

- 13Anticipated Weed Management Recommendations for D T Soybean : Monsanto’s weed management system recommendations are shown in Table 4

- 8 ( ER T able IV.A

- 2 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. The recommended use patterns for dicamba on DT soybean will vary across U.S. soybean growing regions based on differences in growth habits and competitiveness of certain glyphosate

- resistant weed species

. Option 1 would be recommended for more aggressive glyphosate

- resis tant weed species, such as Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri ) and waterhemp ( Amaranthus rudis )

. These weed species are very fast growing, highly competitive with crops, high seed producers, very densely populated, and germinate and emerge throughout the growing season ( Keeley et al. , 1987 ; Nordby et al. , 2007 ; Fast et al. , 2009 ; Sprague, 2012 )

. Two sequential postemergence applications will generally be required to control late

- season emergence of these weed species

. However, low rainfall conditions and/or early crop canopy closure that can be associated with narrow row spacing of soybean can reduce late

- season weed emergence and potentially reduce the number of dicamba postemergence applications

. Option 2 would be used for less aggressive glyphosate resistant weed species, such as horseweed ( Conyza canadensis ), common ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia ) and giant ragweed ( Ambrosia trifida ). These weed management system recommendations represent a high

- end proposal for dicamba use associated with DT soybean when combined with glyphosate

- tolerant soybean

. The actual number of applications and timing of applications of dicamba or glyphosate that the grower will make will vary depending on the specific weed spectrum, weed infestation levels, and the agronomic situation of the individual soybean field

. Applying a residual herbicide preemergence in sequence with glyphosate plus dicamba postemergence , or tank mixing a residual herbicide with glyphosate plus dicamba postemergence could be considered as an alternative to two postemergence applications of glyphosate plus dicamba for season long weed control.
Table 4

- 8
. Proposed Weed Management System Rec ommendations for DT Soybean Combined with Glyphosate

- Tolerant Soybean.

Application

Timing Conventional Tillage 1 Conservation Tillage (No

- till or reduced till) 1

No GR Weeds GR Weeds or Suspected GR Weeds 2 No GR Weeds GR Weeds or Suspected GR Weeds 2 Option 1 4 Option 2 5 Option 1 4 Option 2 5

Pre

- emergence/ Pre

- plant Burndown 3 Residual Residual Residual Residual plus Glyphosate plus Dicamba Residual plus Glyphosate plus Dicamba Residual plus Glyphosate plus Dicamba Post

- emergence 1 (V1

- V3) Glyphosate plus Dicamba Glyphosate plus Dicamba Glyphosate plus Dicamba Glyphosate plus Dicamba Glyphosate plus Dicamba Glyphosate plus Dicamba Post

- emergence 2 (V4

- R1)

--- Glyphosate plus Dicamba --- --- Glyphosate plus Dicamba ---

Page 4

- 141 Anticipated average rate for dicamba is 0.38 pound a.e. per acre except for fields with glyphosate resistant (GR) species where a 0.5 pound a.e. per acre postemergence application rate will be recommended in most situations

. See Appendix A (Monsanto ER ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. 2 GR indicates glyphosate

- resistant 3 Monsanto and ac ademics recommend the use of soil residuals as part of a comprehensive weed resistance management program to ensure that at least two effective herbicide modes

- of

- action are used in soybean and to provide protection against additional resistance developmen t to existing herbicides used in soybean production. When a residual plus glyphosate plus dicamba is recommended the residual may be applied separately or in tank mixture with glyphosate plus dicamba. 4 Option 1 would be used for more aggressive glyphosate resistant weed species, such as Amaranthus spp
. 5 Option 2 would be used for less aggressive glyphosate resistant weed species, such as horseweed. Source: Table IV.A

- 2 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. Potential Additional Dicamba Use

. It is impossible to determine the exact amount of acreage on which DT soybean may be grown if deregulated. Projections on the annual application of dicamba used on DT soybean are based on market adoption rates and the dicamba use pattern on DT soybean

. The maximum possible annual application of dicamba on DT soybean , based on 100% adoption of a cross all U.S. soybean acreage (75 million acres) and applications of dicamba at the maximum labeled rates ( proposed at 2.0 lbs a.e. per acre per year), would be 150 million pounds dicamba (as acid equivalent or a.e. )

. However, as discussed below, the actu al total anticipated application will be much lower.

F or the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that DT soybean will occupy 40% of the U.S. soybean acreage at peak penetration

. This estimate is based on a number of factors: 1) the percentage of non

- glyphosate herbicides currently used in glyphosate

- tolerant soybean, 2) current and historical use of dicamba in corn, 3) the development of glyphosate

- resistant weeds in soybean cultivation areas, 4) the effectiveness of other non

- glyphosate herbicides
u sed in glyphosate

- tolerant soybean, s; and 5 ) the foreseeable future introduction of new competitive biotechnology

- derived traits in soybean. Similarly t he anticipated use patterns for dicamba on DT soybean will vary across U.S. soybean growing regions

. This variability is dictated by growth habits and competitiveness of certain glyphosate

- resistant weed species

. As discussed above in Anticipated Weed Management Recommendations for DT Soybean , weed management recommendations will vary based on cultivation practices (i.e., tillage) and spectrum of glyphosate

- resistant weeds present in the field

. Based on weed management trials conducted across regions and weed spectrum a single early season in

- crop application per year of dicamba at 0.38 lb a.e. per acre is expected on the majority of DT soybean acres

. However, in no

- till or conservation tillage soybean systems, an additional preplant application at 0.50 lb a.e. per acre could also be common practice, and in areas where glyphosate resistant weeds, especially Ambrosia and Amaranthus species, are present two in

- crop applications at 0.5 lb a.e. each may be needed in some situations. See Appendix A (of Monsanto’s ER: ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) for additional information supporting these anticipated use patterns.
Based on the anticipate dicamba application and use rate analysis s ummarized above, use of DT soybean on 40 % of U.S. soybean acres would result in approximately 20.5 million lbs a.e. of dicamba applied to DT soybean annually (including preplant, preemergence and in

crop applications) , see Table 4

- 9 (ER Table IV.A

- 3 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. Currently 233 ,000 lbs a.e . of dicamba are applied preplant to commercially available soybean ( Monsanto, 2012b )

. Page 4

- 15The potential increase in dicamba usage associated with DT soybean production is expected to displace, in part, some of the current herbicides used in soybean today

. Dicamba offers a relative reduction of risk potential in comparison to some of the alternative non

- glyphosate herbicides currently available to soybean growers ( see Appendices E and F ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. Dicamba could be expected to conservatively replace approximately 21% of the projected total acres treated (TAT) 4 for all non

- glyphosate herbicides used in preplant/ preemergence application timing and 56% of the projected TAT for all non

glyphosate herbicides used in postemergence application timing at peak dicamba use based on a projection that 40% of total planted soybean acres may be treated with dicamba following the introduction of DT soybean

. At projected peak penetration of dicamba use in DT soybean, an increase in both total soybean acres treated and total pounds of non

glyphosate herbicides applied to soybean is projected, however estimated increases are 12%
o r less of the total herbicide use projections if DT soybean is not commercialized.

4 The use of TAT p rovides a way to look at herbicide use that is independent of the various use rates of herbicides. If a herbicide is used more than once on an acre the TAT will reflect this multiple use, and consequently the TAT may exceed the number of crop acres planted . This provides a more complete view of herbicide use. Page 4

- 16Table 4

- 9
. Projected Dicamba Use on DT Soybean

Use Scenario Dicamba Treated DT

Soybean

Acres (x1,000,000) # PRE applications PRE application rate (lb /acre

a.e.) # POST applications

(V3 or V3

& R1) POST application rate (lb/acre

a.e.) Total lb of Dicamba

(000,000) a Total Annual lb of Dicamba Maximum labeled use pattern, 100% adoption 75 1 1.0 2 0.50 150 150 Anticipated use pattern, 100% adoption

no

- till acres b 30 1 0.5 1 0.38 26.4 conventional tillage acres c 45 1 0.38 17.1 Total 44 Anticipated use pattern, anticipated peak adoption of dicamba

- treated DT soybean acres

no

- till acres b 12 d 1 0.5 1 0.38 10.6 conventional tillage acres c 18 d 1 0.38 6.8 Resistant Amaranthus spp. a cres e 5 2 0.31 f 3.1 Total 20.5 g

a Total lbs dicamba is calculated combining the lbs of dicamba PRE and POST, where the lbs dicamba used either PRE or POST is calculated by multiplying the

number of applications by the application rate for the respective application timing. b No

- tillage is practiced on 40% of the U.S. soybean acres ( CTIC, 2007 )

. c Conventional tillage acres also includes acres where reduced or minimum tillage is practiced and where it is assumed that a p reemergent application of dicamba will

be needed for weed control. d Monsanto projects dic amba to be used on 40% of U.S. soybean acres (i.e., 30 million acres).

e These acres are a subset of the no

- till and conventional tillage acres.
f Monsanto anticipates that two POST applications at 0.5 lb/acre a.e . each will be needed on acres resistant with A maranthus spp

. Since these acres are a subset of the

no

- till and conventional tillage acres where a single POST application at 0.38 lb/acre dicamba a.e. has already been accounted f or, the POST application rat e is adjusted to avoid double counting of dicamba use on this subset of acres (i.e., adjusted POST application rate = 0.5 lb/acre

– (0.38÷2) lb/acre). Page 4

- 17g This figure is slightly less than the estimate of 22 million pounds described in Section VIII.H of the petition because it subtracts out the single 0.38 lb/acre a.e. application already accounted for in the no

- till and conventional tillage calculations.

Page 4

- 18Impact of DGT Cotton Deregulation on Dicamba Usage The deregulation and commer cialization of DGT cotton will expand dicamba use to in

- crop postemergence applications to address hard

- to

- control and herbicide

- resistant broadleaf weeds found in U.S. cotton production

. The impact that DGT cotton will have on overall dicamba use will dep end on the level of DGT cotton adoption by growers

. Therefore, the extent of DGT cotton acreage following the deregulation of DGT cotton is difficult to forecast

. Monsanto estimates that dicamba

- treated acres could ultimately reach 50% of the total U.S. co tton acres

. This estimate is based on a number of factors, including: (1) the percentage of non

- glyphosate herbicides currently used in glyphosate

- tolerant cotton; (2) the development of glyphosate

- resistant weeds; (3) the effectiveness of other non

- glypho sate herbicides used in the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton weed control systems; (4) the perceived risk of offsite movement onto dicamba

- sensitive crops; and (5) the foreseeable future introduction of new competitive GE

- derived traits in cotton. Approximately 53% to 64% of growers used a non

- glyphosate herbicide in addition to glyphosate in the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems in 2005 ( Givens et al. , 2009a )

. In 2007, approximately 39% of the growers often or always used herbicides with different modes

- of

- action in the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems ( Frisvold et al. , 2009 )

. Regardless of the availability of DGT cotton, the future use of non

- glyphosate herbicides is expected to increase in order to support the management of glyphosate

- resistant w eeds

. Additionally, grower educational programs on weed resistance management conducted by industry and universities encourage the use of non

glyphosate herbicides with alternative modes

- of

- action in glyphosate

- tolerant cropping systems as a proactive meas ure to minimize the potential for development of glyphosate

- resistant weeds ( Powles, 2008 ; Beckie et al. , 2011 )

. These programs will likely drive a further increase in non

glyphosate herbicides applied in cotton production. A second factor impacting dicamba

- treated cotton acreage is the current and future need for control of glyphosate

- resistant weeds

. Glyphosat e

- resistant weeds have been identified in multiple states ( Heap, 2014 )

. When a glyphosate

- resistant weed biotype has been confirmed to be present in a geographical area, growers in that area are advised proactively to implement glyphosate

- resistant weed management pr ograms to ensure effective control of the resistant weed biotype regardless of whether the weed species has been confirmed to be resistant on a grower’s farm

. Therefore, the acreage in an area where responsive weed resistance management practices are imple mented is potentially greater than the actual acres known to be impacted by glyphosate

- resistant weeds

. University weed scientists recommend that growers implement best management practices, including a non

- glyphosate herbicide with a second mode

- of

- action , in their cropping systems to minimize the development and potential spread of glyphosate

- resistant weeds in the future ( Hurley et al. , 2009 ; Owen et al. , 2011 ; Norsworthy, 2012 ; University of Georgia, 2012 ; Culpepper et al. , 2013 )

. It is anticipated that even in locations where glyphosate

- resistant weeds are present, glyphosate will continue to be the base herbicide applied to DGT cotton as a combined trait product with glyphosate

- tolerant cotton

. Table 4

- 4 (ER Table A

- 33 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) provides a summary of the herbicide app lications registered for use in cotton in 2011, demonstrating that herbicides are used on essentially all (>99%) cotton acres in the U.S ( Brookes and Barfoot, 2012 ; Monsanto, 2012b )

. Approximately 39 million pounds of herbicide active ingredient were applied to cotton in 2011

. These alternati ve herbicides will compete with dicamba and are expected to reduce the Page 4

- 19potential dicamba use on DGT cotton integrated into the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems and in future combined trait products containing DGT cotton. Another factor influencing the n umber of dicamba

- treated cotton acres in the future will be the introduction of competing herbicide

- tolerant traits in cotton

. Currently, there are numerous herbicide

- tolerant cotton products that are under regulatory review or have recently been authorized

. This includes several products that have tolerance to multiple herbicides with different modes

- of

- action

. These new GE

- derived herbicide

- tolerant cotton products are anticipated to be introduced in future years and will compete with Monsanto’s DGT cotton and glyphosate

- tolerant cotton products, thereby further reducing the potential dicamba use in cotton. Taking into consideration the above assessment, the potential acreage of DGT cotton treated with dicamba is estimated to be 50% of the U.S. co tton acres, and would result in approximately 5.2 million pounds a.e. of dicamba applied to DGT cotton annually (including preplant, preemergence, and in

- crop applications)

. Currently, 364,000 pounds of dicamba are applied preplant to commercially availabl e cotton (see Table 4

- 4) ( ER Table A

- 33 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. It is anticipated that dicamba applications will continue for all other currently labeled crops at the current annual level of approximately 3.8 million pounds ( see Table 4

- 4) (ER Table A

- 33 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. Therefore, the addition of the estimated 5.2 million pounds of dicamba that would be applied to DGT cot ton would result in a total U.S. dicamba use of approximately 9 million pounds annually.
Use of Low

- Volatility DGA Salt of Dicamba

– Proposed Changes in Dicamba Registration: Monsanto has requested a registration from U.S. EPA for the expanded use of a low volatility diglycolamine (DGA) salt of dicamba on DGT cotton, limited dicamba application to ground application equipment, as well as proposing additional stewardship measures

. Monsanto plans to further address the use of dicamba on DGT cotton with U.S. E PA to evaluate whether any additional measures may be appropriate to further address potential drift and offsite movement

. Monsanto has also requested an increase in the dicamba residue tolerance for cottonseed, the establishment of a tolerance for cotton gin by

- products, and the inclusion of DCSA in the residue definitions for both cottonseed and gin by

- products

. Monsanto submitted an application to EPA to amend Registration number 524

- 582, a low

volatility DGA salt formulation, to remove all existing pre emergence planting restrictions (application intervals, rainfall, and geographic) and to allow in

- crop postemergence dicamba applications to DGT cotton containing varieties 5

. Before any application of dicamba can be made onto commercially cultivated DGT cotton, the EPA must first approve a label describing the conditions of use of the herbicide on DGT cotton

– including the appropriate application rates and timing, and other measures necessary to address potential impacts of dicamba drift and offsite
move ment

. Dicamba can currently be applied to cotton in the U.S. as a preplant application, at least 21 days prior to planting

. Following EPA approval of the dicamba label amendment, growers would be authorized to apply dicamba alone or in mixtures with glypho sate, glufosinate, or other registered herbicides for preplant or postemergence in

- cr op applications on DGT cotton. If the proposed label is approved by EPA, dicamba would be authorized to be applied up to 1.0 lb a.e.

5 The current dicamba label approved by EPA prohibits dicamba preplant application on cotton west of the Rockies due to the potential for direct crop injury caused by dicamba in conjuction with the environmental conditions in this area

. This restriction will not be included on the amended label for application of dicamba on DGT cotton since DGT cotton is tolerant to dicamba. Page 4

- 20per acre any time prior to cotton emer gence, and postemergence in

- crop up to 0.5 lbs a.e. per acre per application up through seven days prior to harvest

. Maximum application amounts for dicamba would be 1.0 lb a.e. per acre for preplant/preemergence applications and 0.5 lb a.e. per acre per i n

crop application with the combined total not to exceed 2.0 lbs a.e. dicamba per year for all applications

. The proposed application rates on DGT cotton would be less than or equivalent to rates for dicamba established for other uses in the dicamba RED in cluding the 2.0 lbs a.e. dicamba per year for all applications ( U.S. EPA, 2009 )

. Based on Monsanto’s proposed dicamba label, aerial applications of dicamba will not be allowed on DGT cotton, thereby reducing spray drift potential ( BASF, 2008 )

. Monsanto has requested a registration from U.S. EPA for the expanded use of di camba on DGT cotton, an increase in the dicamba residue tolerance from 0.2 ppm to 3 ppm for cottonseed, the establishment of a tolerance of 70 ppm for cotton gin by

- products, and the inclusion of DCSA in the residue definitions for cottonseed and gin by

- pr oducts

. No other revisions to the dicamba residue tolerances are necessary, including animal products such as meat and milk

. Furthermore, the use of dicamba on DGT cotton does not present any new environmental exposure scenarios not previously evaluated in the RED and deemed acceptable by EPA.
Use of Glufosinate

– No Changes in Registration: The PAT ( bar ) protein acetylates the free amino group of glufosinate to produce non

- herbicidal N

- acetyl glufosinate, a known metabolite in glufosinate

- tolerant plants ( OECD, 2002 )

. The use pattern and rate of glufosinate application on DGT cotton will follow the existing glufosinate

- tolerant cotton uses outlined on the existing glufosinate herbicide label ( Bayer Crop Science, 2007 ) and Monsanto has confirmed that glufosinate residues on DGT cotton treated with commercial glufosinate rates are b elow the established pesticide residue tolerances established by U.S. EPA for both cottonseed and gin by

products (40 CFR 180.473)

. Consequently, Monsanto has not and will not pursue any changes in the glufosinate label or the established tolerances for it s use on DGT cotton

. Because there will be no changes in the use pattern and rate of glufosinate on DGT cotton from the current baseline, these aspects related to the associated use of glufosinate on DGT cotton are not discussed in detail in this analysis. Combination with Glyphosate

- Tolerant Cotton . DGT cotton is intended to be combined with glyphosate

- tolerant cotton utilizing traditional breeding techniques

. Cotton containing both DGT cotton and glyphosate tolerance will allow the use of glyphosate, dica mba, and glufosinate herbicides in a diversified weed management program, which includes the use of residual herbicides or other cultural practices, to control a broad spectrum of grasses and broadleaf weed species, and to sustain and complement the benefi ts and value of the glyphosate use in the glyphosate

- tolerant systems

. The combined system will support long term sustainability of weed management in cotton and, in turn, support sustained, economic cotton production. Use of Multiple Herbicide

- Tolerant T raits . In recent years, the development , in certain areas of the U.S., of glyphosate

- resistant weeds, as well as shifts in broadleaf weed populations to species that are inherently more tolerant to glyphosate, have increased the use of non

- glyphosate herbi cides that work through different modes

- of

- action to achieve an acceptable level of weed control

. As a result, multiple herbicide

- tolerant traits are and have been developed to provide cotton growers with additional weed control options that will compete w ith DGT cotton

. These herbicides and traits will be available at the time DGT cotton is introduced to the marketplace; thus, DGT cotton will compete for market share with approved herbicide tolerance traits, including Page 4

- 21LibertyLink ® , GlyTol ® , and TwinLink  c ombined

- trait products, and new herbicide

- tolerance traits that will be available in the foreseeable future

. Growers will ultimately select weed control systems that fit the needs for their individual farming operation, such that some proportion of growers will choose to use DGT cotton

- containing varieties integrated into glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems. Anticipated Weed Management Recommendations for DGT Cotton: The expected use patterns for dicamba and glufosinate on DGT cotton will vary across U.S. c otton growing regions

. This variability is dictated by the environment and weed spectrum variations across these regions

. Monsanto’s recommendations for the Midsouth and Southeast regions are shown in Table 4

- 10 ( ER Table IV.A

- 4 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. In these regions, conventional tillage planted acres are expected to receive a single in

- crop application per season of dicamba at 0.5 lbs a.e. per acre and conservation tillage or no

- tillage acres are expected to receive two applications (one preplant application at 0.375 lbs a.e. per acre and one in

- crop applicat ion at 0.50 lbs a.e. per acre). All acres in this region where glyphosate

- resistant weeds are present, regardless of tillage, are expected to receive a single in

- crop application of glufosinate as 0.53 lbs a.i. per acre

. For the remaining acres where glyphosate

- resistant weeds are not present, glyphosate will likely be used for control of late

emerging weeds

. Dicamba and glufosinate use in eastern Texas and California is expected to be similar to that described for the Midsouth and Southeast regions.

In western T exas, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona, dicamba is expected to be utilized more extensively than glufosinate for management of hard

- to

- control and/or glyphosate

resistant weeds in DGT cotton. Glufosinate is considered less effective on the weed sp ectrum under the high temperature and low humidity environmental conditions in these regions ( Bayer CropScience, 2011 )

. The recommendations for these cotton growing areas are shown in Table 4

- 11 (ER Table IV.A

- 5 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) )

. All acres are expected to receive one preplant application of dicamba (0.375 lbs a.e. per acre)

. Areas with glyphosate

- resistant weeds are also expected to receive two in

- c rop applications of dicamba (0. 50 lbs a.e./acre) per season, whereas areas without glyphosate

- resistant weeds will only receive one in

- crop application of dicamba (0.50 lbs a.e./acre).

 LibertyLink, GlyTol, and TwinLink are registered trademarks of Bayer CropSciences. Page 4

- 22Table 4

- 10
. Anticipated Weed Management Recommendations for DGT Cotton Combined with Glyphosate

- Tolerant Cotton Systems for MO, AR, TN, AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA, LA, MS, eastern TX and CA. 1,2
Application Timing Conventional Tillage Conservation Tillage (No

- till or redu ced till) Preplant burndown and/or Preemergence Residual Dicamba + Glyphosate + Residual
Postemergence 1 Dicamba + Glyphosate + Residual 3 Dicamba + Glyphosate + Residual
Postemergence 2 Glyphosate OR Glufosinate 4,5 Glyphosate OR Glufosinate + Residual 5,6

1 Recommendations modified from those presented in Petition 12

- 185

- 01p_a1. 2 Monsanto and academics recommend the use of soil residuals as part of a comprehensive weed resistance management program to ensure that two effective herbicide modes

- of

- action are used in cotton and to provide protections against additional resistance dev elopment to existing herbicides used in cotton production. 3 Residual recommended if GR weeds present. 4 G lyphosate recommended if no GR weeds present, glufosinate recommended in the presence of GR weeds. 5 Tank mixes of glyphosate and glufosinate will not be recommended, because r educed weed control has been observed with the glyphosate and glufosinate tank mix as compared to each individual herbicide ( Dotray et al. , 2011 ; Reed et al. , 2011 ; Reed et al. , 2012 )

. 6 Glyphosate only if no GR weeds present, glufosinate and residual recommended in the presence of GR weeds. Source: Table IV.A

- 4 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. Table 4

- 11
. Anticipated Weed Management Recommendations for DGT Cotton Combined with Glyphosate

- Tolerant Cotton Systems for W estern TX, NM, KS, OK, and AZ 1,2

Application Timing Conventional Tillage Conservation Tillage (No

- till or reduced till)

Pre

- plant burndown and/or Pre

- emergence Dicamba + Glyphosate + Residual Dicamba + Glyphosate + Residual

Post

- emergence 1 Dicamba + Glyphosate Dicamba + Glyphosate

Post

- emergence 2 Glyphosate ± Dicamba 3 Glyphosate ± Dicamba 3

1 Recommendations modified from those presented in Petition 12

- 185

- 01p_a1. 2 Monsanto and academics recommend the use of soil residuals as part of a comprehensive weed resistance management program to ensure that two effective herbicide modes

- of

- action are used in cotton and to provide protections against additional resistance dev elopment to existing herbicides used in cotton production. 3 Dicamba recommended when GR weeds present. Source: Table IV.A

- 5 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.
Page 4

- 23Inclusion of Potential Impacts from Herbicide Use: As discussed above, it is EPA’s regulatory authority under FIFRA to register pesticide products for their inte nded uses

. EPA has sole authority to regulate the use of any herbicide

. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, this environmental report evaluates potential impacts of dicamba use associated with DGT cotton on the human environment

. Glufosinate will not be discussed in detail because glufosinate use on DGT cotton is equivalent to currently deregulated glufosinate

- tolerant cotton and will be considered baseline

. Potential Additional Dicamba Use: The maximum possible annual application of dicamba on
c otton, with 100% adoption of DGT cotton across all U.S. upland cotton acreage (14.8 million acres) 6 and applications of dicamba at the maximum labeled rates (proposed at 2.0 lbs a.e. per acre per year), would be 29.6 million pounds a.e

. However, as discuss ed below, the actual total anticipated application will be much lower and will not likely be additive with the current application of herbicides currently used on cotton, as dicamba will displace some of the current herbicide usage in cotton.
As discussed above, in the Midsouth, and Southeast regions, conventional tillage

- planted acres are expected to receive a single in

- crop application per season of dicamba at 0.5 lbs a.e. per acre and conservation tillage or no

- tillage acres are expected to receive two a pplications (one preplant application at 0.375 lbs a.e. per acre and one in

- crop application at 0.50 lbs a.e. per acre)

. Dicamba use in East Texas and California is expected to be similar to that described for the Midsouth and Southeast regions

. In West Te xas, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona dicamba is expected to be utilized more extensively than glufosinate for management of troublesome and/or glyphosate

- resistant weeds

. Glufosinate is considered less effective on the weed spectrum under the hig h temperature and low humidity environmental conditions in these regions ( Bayer CropScience, 2011 )

. In West Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona conventional tillage acres are expected to receive two in

- crop applications of dicamba per season at 0.50 lbs a.e. per acre

. No

- till or conservation tillage cotton acres will realistically receive three applications per season (one preplant application at 0.375 lbs a.e. per acre and two in

- crop applications at 0.50 lbs a.e. per acre

. Assuming these anticipated applications and u se rates of dicamba, and using the assumption that DGT cotton has 100% adoption across all U.S. cotton acres and conservation tillage systems are used on approximately 21% of the U.S. cotton acres ( CTIC, 2008 ) , dicamba use on DGT cotton would total approximately 10.5 million pounds

. It is impossible to determine the exact amount of acreage on which DGT cotton may be grown if deregulated

. A 100% adoption rate of DGT cotton among cotton growers is unrealistic

. Monsanto estimates dicamba

- treated acres could eventually reach 50% of the total U.S. cotton acres

. Growers will ultimately select weed control systems that fit the needs for their individual farming operations such that some proportion of growers will choose to use DGT cotton integrated into the glyphosate

- tolerant cotton systems

. As discussed in ER Section II.B.2.d (See ER ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ) , growers produced herbicide

- tolerant cotton on approximately 73% of U.S. cotton acres in 2011, with almost all of this cotton being glyphosate

- tolerant and approximately 3% being glufosinate tolerant

. Growers currently producing herbicide

- tolerant cotton are the growers most likely to adopt DGT cotton

. Some of these growers may continue to grow the currently

- available

6 Based on approximately 14.8 million acres planted to cotton in 2011 , see ER Tab le II .B

- 12 Monsanto (2013)

. Page 4

- 24types of herbicide

- tolerant cotton, and use other herbicides for hard

- to

- control weeds

. For example, approximately 53 to 64% of growers of glyphosate

- tolerant cotton used a non

- glyphosate herbicide in addition to glyphosate in their cotton crops in 2005 ( Givens et al. , 2009b )

. An additional factor influencing the number of dicamba

- treated cotton acres in the future will be the intr oduction of competing herbicide

- tolerant traits in cotton

. Based on the dicamba application and use rate analysis summarized above, use of DGT cotton on 50% of U.S. cotton acres would result in approximately 5.2 million lbs a.e. of dicamba applied to DGT cotton annually (including preplant, preemergence and in

- crop applications)

. Currently 364,000 lbs a.e. of dicamba are applied preplant to commercially available cotton ( Monsanto, 2012b )

. It is anticipated that dicamba applications will continue for all other currently labeled crops at the current annual level of approximately 3.8 million pounds ( Monsanto, 2 012b )

. Therefore, the addition of the estimated 5.2 million pounds of dicamba that would be applied to DGT cotton would result in a total estimated U.S. dicamba use of approximately 9.0 million pounds annually

. This does not include the additional amoun t from DT soybean ( ER Section IV.A.1 ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ).
Th e potential increase in dicamba usage associated with DGT cotton production is expected to displace a number of the current herbicides used in cotton today, particularly applications of fluometuron, fomesafen, MSMA, and paraquat. Dicamba offers a relative reduction of risk potential in comparison to some of the alternative non

- glyphosate herbicides currently available to cotton growers (see Appendices E and F

. Dicamba could be expected to conservatively replace approximately 34% of the projected total acres treated (TAT) 7 for all non

- glyphosate herbicides used in preplant/preemergence application timing and 37% of the projected TAT for all non

glyphosate herbicides used in postemergence application timing at peak dicamba use based on a projection that 50% of total planted cotton acres may be treated with dicamba following the introduction of DGT cotton

. At projected peak penetration of dicamba use in DGT cotton an increase in both total cotton acres treated and total pounds of non

- glyphosate herbicide active ingredient applied to cotton is projected, however estimated increases are 16% or less of the total herbicide use projections (16% for TAT and 12% of total pounds of active ingredient) if DGT cotton is not commercialized

. Projected Dicamba Use (Total Pounds) on DGT Cotton: Based upon anticipated use patterns for dicamba on DGT cotton, projections on the number of dicamba TAT and total pounds of dicamba used on DGT cotton were determined for the combined PRE and POST application timing

. The anticipated use projections represent a high

- end estimate of the incremental dicamba
use

. Projected dicamba use at peak penetration is 10.8 million TAT (see ER Table A

- 40) and 5.2 million pounds active ingredient Table 4

- 12 (Table A

- 41) ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.

7 The use of TAT provides a way to look at herbicide use that is independent of the various use rates of herbicides

. If a herbicide is used more than once on an acre the TAT will reflect this multiple use, and consequently the TAT may exceed the number of crop acres planted

. This provides a more complete view of herbicide use. Page 4

- 25Table 4

- 1 2 . Estimated Dicamba Total lbs a.i. at Peak Dicamba Use on DGT Cotton
Cotton Growing Region Tillage system 2011 planted

acres (000) available for dicamba

use 1 Planted acres at Peak ( i.e.

15% reduction) Planted conventional

till acres (000) at Peak Planted no till

acres (000) at

Peak Conventional Tillage: # dicamba in

crop applications Conservation tillage: # dicamba apps in crop 2 Conservation Tillage: # dicamba application

preplant Conventional Tillage: Dicamba rate in

- crop Conservation tillage: Dicamba

Ra te Preplant Total lbs dicamba ai (000)

SE, Delta, E.TX Conventional 2,310 1 0.5 1,155 Conservation 614 1 1 0.5 0.375 537 Total 3,441 2,924 1,693

CA Conventional 214 1 0.5 107 Conservation 57 1 1 0.5 0.375 50 Total 319 271 157

W.TX, AZ, OK, NM, KS Conventional 2,472 2 0.5 2,472 Conservation 657 2 1 0.5 0.375 904 Total 3,682 3,129 3,376 US Total 5,225
1 Acres from ( USDA

- NASS, 2012a )

. Note: Total planted acres for 2011 varies between USDA

- NASS and the grower survey data used in previous tables

. USDA

- NASS was used to calculate dicamba TAT in the different cotton growing areas because only USDA

- NASS planted acres is broken out by state. 2 Based on 21% o f cotton acres being no till. Source: ER Table A

- 41 ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.

Page 4

- 26References: AgWatch (2011) "Cotton growers look at late

- season burndown options." AgWatch Network. http://www.agwatchnetwork.com/newsView.cfm/uuid/03358CBB

- 9B9F

- 47AC

B8172EF5AA0426F2

.
BASF. "Clarity herbicide label." Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: BASF Corporation, 2008.

Bayer Crop Science. "Liberty ® herbicide label." Bayer CropScience . Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer Crop Science, 2007.

Bayer CropScience. "Liberty Herbicide label." Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer CropScience LP, 2011.

Beckie, HJ (2006) "Herbicide

- resistant weeds: Management tact ics and practices." Weed Technology. 20 p 793

- 814.

Beckie, HJ; Harker, KN; Hall, LM; Holm, FA; and Gulden, RH (2011) "Risk assessment of glyphosate resistance in Western Canada." Weed Technology. 25 p 159

- 64.

Beckie, HJ and Reboud, X (2009) "Selecting for weed resistance: Herbicide rotation and mixture." Weed Technology. 23 (3): p 363

- 70.

Brookes, G and Barfoot, P (2012) "Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects, 1996

– 2010." GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Cha in. 3 (2): p 129

- 37. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/20061/

.
CTIC (2007) "2007 amendment to the national crop residue management survey summary." Cons ervation Technology Information Center. Last Accessed: June, 14, 2010 http://www.conservationinformation.org/pdf/National_Summary_2007_Amendment.pdf

.

CTIC. "2008 amendment to the national crop residue management survey summary." West Lafayette, Indiana: Conservation Technology Information Center, 2008.

Culpepper, AS; Kichler, J; and York, AC (2013) "University of Georgia programs for controlling Palmer
amara nth in 2013 cotton." University of Georgia Cooperative Extension.

Page 4

- 27Diggle, AJ; Neve, PB; and Smith, FP (2003) "Herbicides used in combination can reduce the probability of herbicide resistance in finite weed populations." Weed Research. 43 (5): p 371

- 82.

Dotray, P; Keeling, W; and Johnson, J. "Synergistic/antagonistic effects of glyphosate and glufosinate in tank mixture in GlytolTM plus LibertyLink® cotton." College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, AgriLIFE Research, 2011.

Fast, BJ; Murdock, SW; Fa rris, RL; Willis, JB; and Murray, DS (2009) "Critical timing of Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri ) removal in second

- generation glyphosate

- resistant cotton." Journal of Cotton Science. 13 p 32

- 36.

Frisvold, GB; Hurley, TM; and Mitchell, PD (2009) "Adop tion of best management practices to control weed resistance by corn, cotton, and soybean growers." AgBioForum. 12 p 370

- 81.

Gianessi, LP; Silvers, CS; Sankula, S; and Carpenter, JE (2002) Plant biotechnology: Current and potential impact for improving p est management in U.S. agriculture. An analysis of 40 case studies . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy.

Givens, WA; Shaw, DR; Johnson, WG; Weller, SC; Young, B; Wilson, R; Owen, MDK; and Jordan, DL (2009a) "A grower survey o f herbicide use patterns in glyphosate

- resistant cropping systems." Weed Technology. 23 p 156

- 61.

Givens, WA; Shaw, DR; Johnson, WG; Weller, SC; Young, BG; Wilson, RG; Owen, MDK; and Jordan, D (2009b) "A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphos ate

- resistant cropping systems." Weed Technology. 23 p 156

- 61.

Heap, I "The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds." www.weedscience.com

.
Hurley, TM; Mitchell, PD; and Frisvold, GB (2009) "Weed manag ement costs, weed best management practices, and the Roundup Ready weed management program." AgBioForum. 12 p 281

- 90.

Keeley, PE; Carter, CH; and Thullen, RJ (1987) "Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri )." Weed Scie nce. 35 p 199

- 204.

McClelland, MR; Smith, KL; and Norsworthy, JK. "Managing glyphosate

- resistant horseweed in conservation

- tillage cotton production: Final summary and recommendations." Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Agricultural Experime nt Station, 2006. Vol. AAES Research Series 552.

Page 4

- 28Monsanto (2012a) "Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dicamba and Glufosinate

Tolerant Cotton MON 88701." Submitted by Marianne Malven, Registration Manager. Monsanto Company. St. Loui s, MO. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/12_18501p.pdf

.
Monsanto. "Unpublished grower survey data performed by a contracting agency." St. Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Company, 2012b.

Monsanto (2013) "Petitioner's Environmental Report for Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 and Dicamba and Glufosinate Tolerant Cotton MON 88701."

Nordby, D; Hartzler, B; and Bradley, K. "Biology and management of waterhemp. GWC

- 13." West Lafayette, Ind iana: Purdue Extension, Purdue University, 2007.

Norsworthy, JK, Ward, S. M., Shaw, D. R., Llewellyn, R. S., Nichols, R. L., Webster, T. M., Bradley, K. W., Frisvold, G., Powles, S. B., Burgos, N. R., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. (2012) "Reducing the Risk s of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations." Weed Science. (Special issue): p 31

- 62. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS

- D

- 11

- 00155.1

.

OECD (2002) "Mo dule II: Herbicide biochemistry, herbicide metabolism and the residues in glufosinate

ammonium (Phosphinothricin)

- tolentant transgenic plants

. "

Owen, MD; Young, BG; Shaw, DR; Wilson, RG; Jordan, DL; Dixon, PM; and Weller, SC (2011) "Benchmark study on g lyphosate

- resistant crop systems in the United States. Part 2: Perspectives." Pest Management Science. 67 (7): p 747

- 57. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21452168

.

Powles, SB (2008) "Evolution in action: Glyphosate

- resistant weeds threaten world crops." Outlooks on Pest Management. 12 p 256

- 59.

Powles, SB; Preston, C; Bryan, IB; and Jutsum, AR (1996) "Herbicide resistance: Impact and management." Advances in Agronomy . San Diego, California: Ac ademic Press. p 57

- 93.

Prince, JM; Shaw, DR; Givens, WA; Newman, ME; Owen, MDK; Weller, SC; Young, BG; Wilson, RG; and Jordan, DL. Benchmark study: III. Survey on changing herbicide use patterns in glyphosate

resistant cropping systems . Weed Technology, Champaign, Illinois.

Prince, JM; Shaw, DR; Givens, WA; Owen, MDK; Weller, SC; Young, BG; Wilson, RG; and Jordan, DL. Benchmark study: I. Introduction, weed population and management trends from the benchmark survey 2010 . Weed Technology, Champaign, Illino is.

Page 4

- 29Reed, JD; Dotray, PA; and Keeling, JW (2011) "Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) management in GlytolTM + LibertyLink ® cotton." San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Reed, JD; Keeling, W; and Dotray, PA (2012) "Palmer amaranth and morningglory management in glyphosate/glufosinate

- tolerant cotton." Charleston, South Carolina.

Sprague, C. "Palmer amaranth: A new invasive weed to watch for in Michigan." East Lansing, Mi chigan: Michigan State University, 2012.

U.S. EPA (2009) "Memorandum: Correction to the amendments to the dicamba RED

. "

University of Georgia (2012) "2012 Georgia cotton production guide." University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

USDA

- ERS (2012) "Crop production practices for cotton: National

. "

USDA

- ERS (2013) "Genetically engineered (G E) soybean varieties by state and United States, 2000

- 2013

. "

USDA

- NASS (2012a) "Census of Agricultrue

- Preliminary Report." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service.

USDA

- NASS (2012b) "Soybean herbicide use

. "

USDA

- NASS (2013) "2012 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey Soybeans." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys /Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2012_Soybe ans_Highlights/ChemUseHighlights

- Soybeans

- 2012.pdf

.

USDA

- NASS "Quick Stats." USDA. Last Accessed: 4

- 8

- 2014 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/

.

Wilcut, JW; Hayes, RM; Nichols, RL; Clewis, SB; Summerlin, J; Miller, DK; Kendig, A; Chandler, JM; Bridges, DC; Brecke, B; Snipes, CE; and Brown, SM (2003) Weed management in transgenic cotton . Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University Agricultural Research Service.

Page 4

- 30

### Common Weeds in Co tton a nd Soybean Appendix 5.

Page 5

- 1Common Weeds in C otton and Soybean Weeds are simply plants growing in areas where their presence is undesired by humans ( B aucom and Holt, 2009 ) . Plants that colonize frequently disturbed environments have evolved with characteristics or mechanisms that allow them to survive conditions in agricultural environments

. Weedy plants typically exhibit early germination and rapid growth from seedling to sexual maturity, have the ability to reproduce sexually and asexually, and therefore are well adapted to agricultural fields ( Baucom and Holt, 2009 )

. The presence of weeds in c otton and soybean fields is a primary detriment to productivity. Weeds are the most import ant pest complex in agriculture, impacting yields by competing with crops for light, nutrients, and moisture. In addition to taki ng valuable resources from crops, weeds can introduce weed seed or plant material to a crop, thereby reducing the market grade of the crop. Additionally, w eeds can harbor insects and diseases; weeds also can interfere with harvest, clogging and causing extra wear on harvest equipment ( Loux et al. , 2008 ) . For example, some winter annuals have been found to serve as alternative hosts for the soybean cyst nematode, a pest that affects soybean yields in the U.S. Effective weed management involves an un derstanding of weed biology and of weed management strategies. This section provides an overview of weed types, the weed seed bank, and the timing and occurrence of weeds. Also described are the types of weeds that occur in corn and soybean. Weed managemen t is discussed in Appendix 3.
Weed Classification Weeds are classified according to their life cycle, as annuals, biennials or perennials. Weeds are also classified as broadleaf (dicots) or grass (monocots). Weeds can reproduce by seed, rhizome (undergroun d creeping stems), or other underground part (e.g., buds, bulbs ). An annual is a plant that completes its lifecycle in one year or season and reproduces only by seed. Annuals can be further differentiated into summer or winter annuals. Summer annuals appea r in the spring or early summer and die prior to or by the first frost, producing seeds within the same growing season. These weeds grow rapidly, strongly competing with crops for resources, and can outgrow and shade slower

- growing crops.
Summer annuals ca n be further categorized into three groups: small

- seeded summer annual broadleaf weeds, large

- seeded summer annual broadleaf weeds, and summer annual grass weeds ( Schonbeck, 2010 ) . Some small

- seeded summer annual broadleaf weeds include pigweeds, common lambsquarte rs, common purslane, galinsoga, and smartweeds. Commonly found large

seeded summer annual broadleaf weeds include velvetleaf, common cocklebur, and morningglory. Summer annual grass weeds have small to medium sized seeds and include foxtail, crabgrass, and goosegrass. Winter annuals typically emerge in late summer or early fall, but can also germinate as late as early spring. Usually these weeds over

- winter as small seedlings and set seed in the spring. These weeds have litt le effect on warm season crops. C ommon winter annuals include purple Page 5

- 2deadnettle, henbit, field pennycress, shepherd’s

- purse, and chickweed ( Schonbeck, 2010 ; Mock et al. , 2011 )

. Biennials have a life cycle of two years or seasons. After persisting as low

- growing vegetation during their first season, biennial weeds overwinter, then flower and produce seeds in their second growing season. Examples of biennial weeds are burdock, bull thistle, poison hemlock, and wild carrot. Perennials are plants that live for more than two years and are typically categorized as simple or creeping or invasive perennials. Canada thistle, bermudagrass, common milkweed, common pokeweed, dandelion, J ohnsongrass are examples of perennial weeds ( Penn State University, 2009 ; Mock et al. , 2011 )

. Weed Seed Bank An important concept in weed con trol is the seed bank which is the reservoir of seeds that are on the soil surface and scattered at different depths in the soil. The soil weed seedbank determines the size and species composition of the weed community within a growing season ( Norsworthy, 2012 )

. Under favorable conditions, these seeds have the potential to germinate and emerge, creating weed pressure (i.e., competition) in crops. The weed seed bank contains recently dropped seeds, older seeds mixed into the soil, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, and other vegetative structures. Climate, soil characteristics, shifts in agricultural management practices, such as tillage, crop selection, and weed management practices, affect the densit y and species composition of the seed bank within a given field ( Davis et al. , 2005 ; May and Wilson, 2006 ; Buhler et al. , 2008 )

. The m ajority of seeds in the weed seed bank come from the weeds that have g rown and set seed in the field. Wind, water, animals, and birds can carry seeds, adding to the weed seeds already present. Also, manure or other material (e.g., mulch, feed, soil) transp orted by humans or farm equipment from other locations can be indirect sources of weed seed ( Renner, 2000 )

. Agricultural soils can contain thousands of weed seeds and a dozen or more vegetative weed propagules per square foot ( Menalled and Schonbeck, 2013 )

. Annual weeds produce large numbers of seeds. For example, a pigweed plant can sh ed at least 100,000 mature seeds and one lambsquarters plant can produce more than 50,000 seeds ( Renner, 2000 )

. If left untended and without crop competition, giant ragweed can produce approximately 10,000 seeds, com mon waterhemp 70,000 seeds, and waterhemp 100 ,000 seeds, or more, per plant. L arger

- seeded broadleaf weeds are not as prolific in comparison to small

- seeded summer broadleaf weeds, but seed production is still high, with a few hundred to a few thousand per plant ( Schonbeck, 2010 )

. It has been observed that weeds in agricultural fields produce less seeds as a result of competition from the crop, damage from herbicides, and other factors, although these weed still produce high numbers of seeds that can affect prod uction ( Buhler et al. , 1997 )

. Effective weed control is required to limit the number of weed seeds entering the soil seed bank that will contribute to sustained competition with the crops into subsequent growing seasons. Although s eedbanks are made up of numerous weed species, generally only a few species will comprise 70 to 90 percent of the total seed bank ( Wilson, 1988 ; Buhler et al. , 1997 ; Renner,

Page 5

- 32000 )

. For example, common lambsquarters ( Chenopodium album ) is the dominant weed seed in many field soils in the north central region of the U.S. (Michigan) ( Renner, 2000 ) . A second smaller group of weed species may represent 10 to 20 percent of the seed bank ( Buhler et al. , 1997 )

. Additionally, only a fraction of the seeds in a weed seed bank germinate and grow each year. Birds, rodents, insects, and other animals typic ally will consume available weed s eeds found on the soil surface. Some seeds may decay or become un viable in the soil; other se eds may germinate but will die. Some seeds can remain dormant in the soil for long periods of time. When changes in the cropping system change, creating conditions that are suitable for germination and development of a particular weed species, that species can respond rapidly, becoming non

- dormant and establish itself in the cropping system ( Renner, 2000 ; Durgan and Gunsolus, 2003 ; May and Wilson, 2006 ; Steckel et al. , 2007 )

. It is estimated that less than 10% of the weed seeds in the soil are non

- dormant and abl e to germinate within a season. The remaining dormant s eeds thereby serve to extend the longevity of the seed bank ( Renner, 2000 ; P hysicalWeeding, 2009 )

. For example, s ummer annuals can remain viable for years, even if buried deeper in the soil, while the larger broadleaf seeds can remain viable for decades ( Schonbeck, 2010 )

. The majority of weeds grow from seeds in the top two inches of so il with the most significant numbers emerging from only the top one inch of soil ( PhysicalWeeding, 2009 )

. In general, most small

- seeded weeds (e.g., foxtail, pigweed) germinate and emerge within the upper half inch of the soil surface. The large

- seeded summer annual broadleaf weeds are usually found in soils below the surface layer (about 0.5 to 2 inches below the surface) and can germinate from soi l depths of 1.5 inches or more. Summer annual grass weeds germinate predomina ntly from the top inch of soil. Generally, tillage brings these seeds to the surface, where they rapidly grow in response to light

. The effects of different forms of tillage on the prevalence of weed species are discussed further, below. Weed populations change in resp onse to agricultural management decisions. Collectively, management decisions will impart selection pressures 1 on the present weed community, resulting in weed shifts on a local level (i.e., field level). These weed shifts occur regardless of what the sele ction pressure may be and may result in changes in weed density or weed diversity ( Reddy and Norsworthy, 2010 ; Weller et al. , 2010 )

. Weed shifts are generally most dramatic when a single or small group of weeds incr eases in abundance at the expense of other weed populations, potentially dictating the primary management efforts of the grower.

T he vertical distribution of weed seeds in the soil is primarily influenced by the tillage system used. 2 These resulting change s in the distribution of the weed seeds in the weed seedbank will

1 Selection pressure may be defined as any event or activity that reduces the reproductive likelihood of an individual in proportion to the rest of the population of that one indi vidual. In agriculture, selection pressure may be imparted by any facet of management in the production of a crop, including the type of crop cultivated, strategy of pest management, or when and how a crop is planted or harvested.

2 Tillage represents a mechanical means of weed control and is generally characterized by the amount of remaining in

- field residue and may be classified as conservation ( > 30 percent), reduced (15

- 30 percent), or intensive (0

- 15 percent) CTIC (2008)
Page 5

- 4impact weed emergence and the resulting weed population in farm fields ( Renner, 2000 )

. As shown in Figure 5

- 1 , the practice of no

- till results in a majority of the weed seeds remaining at or near the soil surface where they have been deposited ( Renner, 2000 ; Shrestha et al. , 2006 ; Menalled and Schonbeck, 2013 ) . In no

- till fields with more seeds at the surface, a greater diversity of annual and perennial weeds species may occur ( Baucom and Holt, 2009 )

. Winter annuals thrive in soil that is undisturbed from late summer or fall through early summer the following year which is best provided by no

- till systems. Similarly, biennial weeds are prevalent in fields that have been no

- till for several years, as they need undisturbed soil for two consecutive growing seasons. Under reduced tillage systems (such as chisel plowing), approximately 80 to 90 percent of the weed seeds are distributed in the top four inches, with the majority found at depths ranging from two to four inches. Summer annual grass weeds germinate predominantly from the top inch of soil with prevalence in shallow and reduced tilled fields ( Curran et al. , 2009 )

. With recent increased rates of conservation tillage, there has been an observed decrease in large

- seeded broadleaf weeds and an increase in perennial, biennial, and shallow

- emerging annual grasses, small

- seeded broadleaves, and winter annual weed species in those fields ( Green and Martin, 1996 ; Durgan and Gunsolus, 2003 ; Norsworthy, 2012 )

. The growth and spread of some perennial species that reproduce by spread of underground structures (e.g., rhizomes) may be encouraged by no

- till or conservation tillage system which allows these structures to remain undisturbed ( Buhler et al. , 2008 ; Baucom and Holt, 2009 ; Curran et al. , 2009 )

.

Source: ( Shrestha et al. , 2006 ) Figure 5

- 1
. Vertical Distribution of Weed Seeds in the Soil Profile at Depths of 0 to 2 inches, 2 to 4 inches, and 4 to 6 inches Affected by Different Tillage Regimes 90%

27% 12% 9%

66%

25% 1% 7%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No-till Chisel Plow Moldboard PlowPercent Seeds (%)

Tillage System 4-6
2-4
0-2 Soil Depth

(in)

Page 5

- 5W eed seeds become buried approximately four to six inches below the surface as a result of increasing tillage ( Menalled and Schonbeck, 2013 )

. As fewer weeds can germinate when buried, weed diversity tends to decline and annual large

- seeded broadleaves are more prominent ( Norsworthy, 2012 )

. These shifts in weed species necessitat e changes in weed management strategies. Tillage practices must be regularly changed, in a manner similar to that of other agricultural production practices, to prevent buildup of any particular species or group of w eeds in the soil seedbank. Weed Emergence/Timing In addition to weed density, the timing of weed emergence affects how they compete with the cotton or soybean crop and influences the level of crop yield loss. The critical period of weed control (CPWC) is t he time during which weeds must be controlled to prevent yields losses. The key components defining CPWC are 1) knowing when weeds need to be removed and 2) when the crop becomes dominant ( Boerboom, 2000 )

. Weeds emerging before the CPWC may not impact crop yields if those weeds are controlled by the start of the CPWC

. Weed competition occurring after the end of the CPWC will not affect yield ( Boerboom, 2000 ; Knezevic, 2007 )

. In particular, e arly in the growing season, the critical period of weed competition is most affected by: 1) how competitive the different weed species are, 2) the density of weeds, and 3 ) the relative time of weed emergence ( Boerboom, 2000 )

. In contrast to other crops, including corn and soybean, cotton emergence and above ground growth is relatively slow during the first few weeks after planting. The slow early growth of cotton d oes not permit the crop to aggressively compete against weed species that often grow more rapidly ( Smith and Cothren, 1999 ) . Weeds in cotton are controlled through the diversified use of various cultural, mechanical, and chemical methods ( Hake et al. , 1996 ) . Historically, mechanical tillage and hand

- weeding were the most important tools in cotton weed control due to the limited application window afforded to most chemical applications. Today with the advent of GE cotton, approximately 38% of the total cot ton a cres are post

- plant cultivated. In fields classified as employing conventional tillage systems, over 50% cotton acres are cultivated for weed control ( USDA

- ERS, 2012 )

. Due to the biology and planting practices of cotton, in the U.S., whereby complete crop canopy closure is at times never achieved, herbicides are used at multiple intervals throughout the entire growing season on essentially all (>99%) the cotton acres in the U.S. ( Brookes and Barfoot, 2012 ; Mon santo, 2012 )

. In soybean, t he later that weeds emerge, the less i mpact they will have on yield, although weeds emerging later can have a negative influence on seed quality and harvest efficiency ( Prostko, 2013 )

. S oybean plants withstand early season weed competition longer than c orn because the soybean canopy closes earlier ( Boerboom, 2000 )

. The extent of canopy closure restricts the light available for weeds and other plants growing below the soybean. In addition, canopy closure occurs more quickly when soybean is drilled or planted in narrow rows ( Boerboom, 2000 ; Bradley, 2006 ) ; however, in some studies it has also been observed that, depending on factors such as weed species, environmental conditions (i.e., rainfall amounts) and soybean cultivar, soybeans are able to compete with weeds with no resulting yield reduction ( Krausz et al. , 2001 )

. Page 5

- 6Place et al. have determined that larger soybean seeds produce a larger canopy more quickly and are, therefore, more successful at outcompeting weeds ( Place et al. , 2011 )

. Full

- season soybean planting is preferable during the drier late spring condit ions; however, summer annual weed emergence often occurs at this same time, resulting in a high level of weed interference with soybean emergence and establishment ( DeVore et al. , 2013 )

. Common Weeds in Co tton and Soybean Weed species emerge in a particular order throughout the year with each species having one or more periods of high emergence. The initial emergence date can vary from year to year, but the
o rder stays relatively constant. Figure 5

- 2 shows the relative emergence of common weed species found in summer annual crops such as soybean and cotton

. Weed emergence timing can dictate which weeds will be the most problematic for or be more easily contr olled by a specific crop production or weed management practice ( Buhler et al. , 2008 )

. Weed management is discussed in Appendix 3.

Page 5

- 7Table 5

- 1
. Summary of Problem Weeds Affecting Cotton and Soybean

Source: ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Notes: Green: Weeds managed in both corn and soybean Yellow: Weeds primarily managed in corn Blue: Weeds primarily managed in soybean Broadleaf Weeds Grass Weeds Cotton + Soybean Cotton Soybean Cotton + Soybean Cotton Soybean Browntop millet Bindweed Wild buckwheat Barnyard grass Bermuda grass Fall Panicum
Cutleaf primrose Black nightshade Burcucumber Crabgrass Crowfoot grass Quackgrass
Florida beggerweed Common cocklebur Canada thistle Cupgrass Large crabgrass
Florida pusley Common lambsquarter Chickweed Johnsongrass

Foxtail Common purslane Cockeburr Goose grass

Ground Cherry Common ragweed Copperleaf hophorn Broadleaf signal grass Hemp sesbania Devil’s claw Dandelion

Henbit Hairy Nightshade Honeyvine milkweed
Horseweed Junglerice Eastern black nightshade
Jimson weed Palmer amaranth Hairy nightshade

Kochia Red Sprangletop Wild oats Lambsquarter Russian thistle Common pokeweed Morning Glory Shepardspurse Wild proso millet
Mustard Smellmelon Common ragweed Nutsedge Sprangletop Giant ragweed Palmer pigweed Spurred anoda Field sandbur

Prickly sida Texas blueweed Shattercane
Pigweed Volunteer peanut Venice mallow
Sicklepod Volunteer

corn Volunteer cereal

Smart weed Field bindweed Waterhemp
Spurge Horse purslane Tropic croton

Sunflower Woolyleaf bursage
Texas millet Silverleaf nightshade Velvet leaf
Volunteer Corn

Page 5

- 8References: Baucom, R and Holt, J (2009) "Weeds of agricultural importance: Bridging the gap between evolutionary ecology and crop and weed science." New Phytologist. (184): p 741

- 43.

Boerboom, C (2000) "Timing Postemergence Herbicides in Corn and Soybeans." http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wcmc/proceedings/3B.boerboom.pdf

.
Bradley, KW (2006) "A Review of the Effects of Row Spacing on Weed Management in Corn and Soybean." http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/review/2006/weed/

.
Brookes, G and Barfoot, P (2012) "Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects, 1996

– 2010." GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain. 3 (2): p 129

- 37. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/20061/

.
Buhler, DD; Hartzler, RG; and Forcella , F (1997) "Implications of Weed Seedbank Dynamics to Weed Management." Weed Science. 45 (3): p 329

- 36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4046027

.
Buhler, DD; Hartzler, RG; Forcella, F; and Gunsolus, JL (2008) "Relative emergence sequence for weeds of corn and soybeans." http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/SA11.pdf

.
CTIC (2008) "2008 Amendment to the National Crop Residue Manageme nt Survey Summary." Conservation Technology Information Center. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/media/pdf/National%20Summary%202008%20(Ame ndment).pdf

.
Curran, WS; Lingenfelter, DD; and Garling, L (2009) "An Introduction to Weed Management for Conservation Tillage Systems

- Conservation Tillage Series Number Two." http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uc 126.pdf

.
Davis, AS; Renner, KA; and Gross, KL (2005) "Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long

term cropping systems experiment." Weed Science. 53 (3): p 296

- 306. Last Accessed: 2013/12/04 http://wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS

- 04

- 182

.

Page 5

- 9DeVore, JD; Norsworthy, JK; and Brye, KR (2013) "Influence of Deep Tillage, a Rye Cover Crop, and Various Soybean Production Systems on Palmer Amaranth Emergence in Soybean." Weed Technology. 27 (2): p 263

- 70. Last Accessed: 2013/12/04 http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT

- D

- 12

- 00125.1

.
Durgan, BR and Gunsolus, JL (2003) "Developing Weed Management Strategies that Address Weed Species Shifts and Herbicide Resistant Weeds." http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/pubs/03pub01.pdf

.
Green, JD and Martin, JR (1996) "Dealing with Perennial Broadleaf Weeds in Conservation Tillage Systems." http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/nsdl/scasc/Proceedings/ 1996/Green.pdf

.
Hake, SJ; Kerby, TA; and Hake, KD (1996) "Preparation for the new crop season

- Fall/winter." Cotton Production Manual . Davis, California: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. p 6

- 14.

Knezevic, S (2007) "Timing Weed Control in Corn to Get the Most Effect." http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archive/

- /asset_publisher/VHeSpfv0Agju/content/891332

.
Krausz, RF; Young, BG; Ka pusta, G; and Matthews, JL (2001) "Influence of weed competition and herbicides on glyphosate

- resistant soybean ( Glycine max )." Weed Technology. 15 p 530

- 34. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/0890

- 037X(2001)015%5B0530:IOWCAH%5D2.0.CO%3B2

.
Loux, M; Stachler, J; Johnson, W; Nice, G; and Bauman, T (2008) "Weed Control Guide for Ohio Field Crops " Ohio State University Extension. http://ohioline.osu.edu/b789/index.html

.
May, M and Wilson, R. "Chapter 14: Weeds and Weed Control. Pgs. 359

– 386." Sugar Beet . Ed. Draycott, A.P. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006. 474 pgs. Vol. World Agri cultural Series.

Menalled, F and Schonbeck, M (2013) "Manage the Weed Seed Bank

— Minimize "Deposits" and Maximize "Withdrawals"." http://www.extension.org/pages/18527/manage

- the

weed

- seed

- bankminimize

- deposits

- and

- maximize

- withdrawals

.
Mock, VA; Creech, EJ; Johnson, B; Faghihi, J; Ferris, VR; Westphal, A; and Bradley, K (2011) "Winter Annual Weeds and Soybean Cyst Nematode Managemen t With a Guide for
Page 5

- 10Identifying Known Weed Hosts." http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/WS/WS

36.pdf

.
Monsanto. "Unpublished grower survey data performed by a contracting agency." St . Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Company, 2012.

Monsanto (2013) "Petitioner's Environmental Report for Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 and Dicamba and Glufosinate Tolerant Cotton MON 88701."

Norsworthy, JK, Ward, S. M., Shaw, D. R., Llewellyn, R. S., Nich ols, R. L., Webster, T. M., Bradley, K. W., Frisvold, G., Powles, S. B., Burgos, N. R., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. (2012) "Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations." Weed Science. (Special issue): p 31

- 62. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS

- D

- 11

- 00155.1

.
Penn State University (2009) "An Introduction to Weed Management for Conservation Tillage Systems." http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uc126.pdf

.
PhysicalWeeding (2009) "Information: Integrated Weed Management." http://physicalweeding.com/information/index.html

.
Place, GT; Reberg

- Horton, SC; Carter, TE; and Smith, AN (2011) "Effects of soybean seed size on weed competition." Agronomy Journal. 103 p 175

- 81. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=2581 70&pf

.
Prostko, E (2013) "Soybeans Weed Control " http://www.caes.uga.edu/commodities/fieldcrops/soybeans/documents/2013GeorgiaSoy beanProductionGuide.pdf

.
Reddy, K and Norsworthy, J (2010) "Glyphosate

- Resistant Crop Production Systems: Impact on Weed Species Shifts." G lyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p 213

- 33.

Renner, KA (2000) "Weed Seedbank Dynamics." http://www.msuweeds.com/assets/ExtensionPubs/E2717. pdf

.
Schonbeck, M. "Know the Weeds." eXtension.com, 2010. http://www.extension.org/pages/18540/know

- the

- weeds

. Page 5

- 11Shrestha, A; Lanini, T; Wright, S; Mitchell, J; and Vargas, R "Conservation Tillage and Weed Management."

Smith, CW and Cothren, JT (1999) Cotton: Origin, history, technology, and production . New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Steckel, LE; Sprague, CL; Stoller, EW; Wax, LM; and Simmons, FW (2007) "Tillage, Cropping System, and Soil Depth Effects on Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Seed

- Bank Persistence." Weed Science. 55 (3): p 235

- 39. Last Accessed: 2013/12/04 http://wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.16 14/WS

- 06

- 198

.

USDA

- ERS (2012) "Crop production practices for cotton: National

. "

Weller, S; Owen, M; and Johnson, W (2010) "Managing Glyphosate

- resistant Weeds and Populations Shifts in Midwestern U.S. Cropping Systems." Glyphosate Resistance in Crops a nd Weeds . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p 213

- 33.

Wilson, R. (1988). ed.^eds. Biology of weed seeds in the soil . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Print.

Page 5

- 12

### Herbicide Resistance Appendix 6.

Page 6

- 1Herbicide Resistance Not unlike other agronomic practices, herbicide use may impart selection pressures on weed communities, resulting in shifts in the weed community that favor those weeds that do not respond to the herbicide used ( Owen, 2008 )

. Herbicide resistance is described by the Weed Science Society of America as the “inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild typ e” ( WSSA, 2011b )

. The shift to herbicide resistance in plants is largely a function of the natural selection of herbicide

resistant traits and is strongly related to the repeated use of one or a limited number of herbicides ( Durgan and Gunsolus, 2003 ; Duke, 2 005 )

. Individual plants within a species can exhibit different responses to the same herbicide rate. Initially, herbicide rates are set to work effectively on the majority of the weed population u nder normal growing conditions. Genetic variability, incl uding herbicide resistance, is exhibited naturally in normal weed populations, although at very low frequencies. When only one herbicide is used year after year as the primary means of weed control, the number of weeds resistant to that herbicide compared to those susceptible to the herbicide may change as the surviving resistant weeds reproduce

. With no change in weed control strategies, in time, the weed population may be composed of more and more resistant weeds. Both the increased selection pressure fro m the extensive use of glyphosate associated with glyphosate

- tolerant crops along with the subsequent reduction in the use of other herbicides and changes in weed management practices (i.e., conservation tillage or no

- till) have resulted in weed population shifts and increasing glyphosate resistance among some weed populations ( Owen, 2008 ; Duke and Powles, 2009 )

. Glyp hosate

- resistant crops themselves do not influence weeds any more than non

- transgenic crops

. It is the weed control tactics chosen by growers that create selection pressure that ultimately over time changes these weed communities and may result in the sele ction of herbicide

- resistant weeds ( Owen, 2008 )

. History of W eed R esistance to H erbicides and its D evelopment One of the earliest selective chemical herbicides to be used in agr iculture was 2,4

- D, a synthetic auxin, whose commercial use began in 1945 ( Burnisde, 1996 )

. Use of 2,4

- D in corn was successful in controlling broadleaf weeds such that in the mid

- 1950s 2,4

- D was applie d to nearly
one

- half of all U.S. corn acres ( Knake, 1996 )

. Within 12 years, the first herbicide resistance to 2,4

- D was reported in spreading dayflower in a Hawaiian sugarcane field ( Commelina diffusa ) in 1957 (see report in ( Sellers et al. , 2011 ; Isaac et al. , 2013 ) ). Simazine was the first triazine to be used commercially in 1956

. In 1958, the herbicide atrazine was first registered for weed control in corn in the U.S. Similar to what had occurred with 2,4

- D, triazines were used extensively in the 1960s and common groundsel resistant to triazine herbicides was discovered in Washington in 1970 ( Buhler, unknown )

. Regardless of the occurrence of resistant weeds, atrazine was, and still is, an extremely effective herbicide due to it s broad spectrum, low cost, and flexible timing of applications ( CropLife International, 20 12 )

. ALS inhibitors or Group 2 herbicides were introduced in the mid

- 1980s and became extensively used in soybeans

. With its broad

- spectrum weed control, residual activity, and flexibility in

Page 6

- 2application timing, the Group 2 herbicides became popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s

. For example, by the early

- 1990s, Pursuit TM , containing the ALS herbicide imazethapyr, was used on more than 75 percent of the soybeans in Iowa ( Tranel and Wright, 200 2 )

. The widespread use of Group 2 herbicides resulted in the rapid selection of ALS

- resistant waterhemp. By the mid

1990s , Group 2 resistant waterhemp was so widespread that the industry essentially stopped recommending Group 2 herbicides for this weed ( Hartzler, 2013 )

. Sales of glyphosate began in 1974 and it became one of the most commerciall y successful and dominant herbicides in the U.S. ( Duke and Powles, 2008 )

. There are several reasons for the success of glyphosate in the market and the corresponding market sector penetration of gly phosate

- tolerant crops since their introduction in the mid

- late 1990s

. Glyphosate: 1) works
non

- selectively on a wide range of plant species; 2) is a relatively low

- cost herbicide ; 3) enhances no

- till farming practices ; and 4) has minimal animal toxico logi cal and environmental impact ( Duke and Powles, 2008 ; Owen, 2008 ; Duke and Powles, 2009 )

. The widespread adoption of glyphosate

- tolerant soybean, in c ombination with an increased reliance on glyphosate, has been related to the adoption of no

- till cultivation which depends on controlling weeds without tillage

. Glyphosate tolerant soybean also led to a simplification in weed control compared to past practices, reduced input and labor costs associated with the cultivar and glyphosate use, and increased flexibility in herbicide application timing ( Lorenz et al. , 2006 )

. Most instructive are the events leading to the development of glyphosate resistance in weeds in the U

. S

. The p revious history of glyphosate use for 20 years did not result the selection of herbicide

- resistant weeds

. As a result, industry promoted the view that widespread glyphosa te
use was unlikely to result in the selection of glyphosate resistant weed s ( Bradshaw et al. , 1997 ) , despite the fact that resistance to ot her herbicides , su ch as 2,4

- D were being reported (see history in ( Mithila et al. , 2011 ) ). The first case reported, glyphosate resistant rigid ryegrass, was documented and confirmed in Australia in 1996 ( Powles et al. , 1998 ) , over twenty years af ter glyphosate first began to be used in agriculture.
Herbicide

- resistant crops were introduced in 1996 with glyphosate

- resistant soybean rapidly adopted by growers

. As glyphosate went off patent in 2000, increased usage of glyphosate

resistant crops was facilitated by the low price of the herbicide

. T ank mixes for separate activity against grasses and broad

- leaf weeds were not needed when glyphosate could be used for weed control

. In the mid

- 1990s, 51% of growers were using three, four or more herbicides for soybean weed control (cited in Gianessi et al. ( 2008 ) ) or about three overall in 1995 ( USDA

- ERS, 1997 )

. W ith the availability of glyphosate and glyphosate

- resistant crops , herbicide applicatio ns could be reduced in many situations.
The efficacy of post

- application s of glyphosate became clear, with weed control often not requir ing a pre

- application for good control ( Reddy, 2001 )

. If a grower needed addi tional weed control for effectiveness or flexibility, a pre

- application of glyphosate and a post

- glyphosate application w ere as effective and cost less than a pre

- application with a non

- glyphosate residual herbicide followed by post

- application of glyphosa te ( Reddy, 2001 )

. I ncreasing glyphosate application s resulted in a decline of the sale s and use of most other herbicides

. The earliest U

. S

. glyphosate resistance in a GE crop was found in horseweed, Conyza c anadensis , in Delaware
Page 6

- 3soybean in 2000 ( Heap, 2013 )

. Increasing exposure of weeds to glyphosate in other herbicide resistant crops such as corn and cotton soon began to exp and the numbers and populations of resistant weeds in the U

. S

. The intense use of glyphosate compared to sparing use of other herbicides on field crops is apparent in overall herbicide use trends over the last decade, and surveys of grower usage , such
as that of Prince et al. ( 2012 ) , provide specific details

. These surveys give evidence of the prevalent practices employed by growers in which glyphosate was nearly the only herbicide used with the subsequent overexposure of crops and weeds to glyphosate

. It was reported by Young ( Young, 2006 ) that there was a dramati c increase in the use of glyphosate in soybean and cotton production

. In 2005, surveyed growers in multiple states rotating soybean and cotton indicated they chose glyphosate 51 % of the time for spring burndown, versus 21 % for other herbicides ( Table 6

- 1 )

. For continuous soybean, growers chose glyphosate 46% of the time and 22% another herbicide ( Table 6

- 1 ) ( Prince et al. , 2012 )

. Overall, 74% of the continuous soybean growers used glyphosate two or more times during a growing season ( Table 6

- 2 ). When growers used non

- glyphosate herbicides, continuous soybean growers used these herbicides in post

- emergence applic ations 67% of the time, and cotton /soybean growers applied the herbicid es on soybean post

- emergence 76 % of the time ( Table 6

- 2 ). Growers of GR cotton more frequently resorted applying glyphosate three or more times unless the GR cotton was rotated with GR corn ( Prince et al. , 2012 )

. Table 6

- 1
. Frequency of Spring Pre

- plant Application of Glyphosat e A mong Surveyed Growers (2005) Herbicide Application Crop Glyphosate Non

- glyphosate Continuous soybean 46% 22% Soybean in soybean/c otton rotation 51 % 21 %
Source: ( Prince et al. , 2012 )

Table 6

- 2
. Frequency of Glyphosate Application to Crop by Surveyed Growers (2005). Herbicide Application Glyphosate Non

- glyphosate Frequency 1X 2X 3X 1X 2X 3X Crop Continuous soybean 23 62 12 27 7 67 Soybean in soybean/cotton rotation 26 53 13 24

--- 76 Source: ( Prince et al. , 2012 )
I t is clear that when herbicides are applied, selection for those weeds with adaptive mechanisms to escape elimination will survive

. If the herbicide is repetitively used in crop production, the surviving weeds will be further selected, and dominant genes as well as multi

- component resistance mechanisms will be selected. While many practices can be used to manage weeds, the Page 6

- 4recent histo ry of glyphosate use shows that when the collective knowledge of resistance development is either neglected or practices not sufficiently integrated with mechanical and cultural controls, or with more robust herbicidal strategies, resistant weeds will aris e

. As noted earlier, it is not so much herbicide resistant crops that are a cause of herbicide resistant weeds, but from the failure to apply best management practices in the production of herbicide resistant crops.
Mechanisms of H erbicide R esistance in W e eds and R elationship to S elective P ressure Two types of weed resistance may arise following inadvertent weed selection and both confer complex management concerns for growers

. The first is target site

- specific resistance (TSR), and the second, non

- target s ite

- specific resistance (NTSR). The first results in an alteration of the target site of the herbicide so the target is no longer inhibited

. The second type of resistance is more general and may confer resistance to a wide range of chemistries. For example , NTSR resistance may provide protection by reduced penetration of the herbicide, altered translocation, overproduction of targets, target mutation, or neutralization of cy toplasmic toxins ( Délye et al. , 2013 )

. TSR confers resistance usually to a single herbicide, and NTSR may confer resistance to as many as nine different modes of action (e.g., Lolium rigidum ) and 16 herbicides ( Beckie, 2011 )

. In the case of NTSR, the use of herbicides on weeds with unknown NTSR s may provide a substantial risk for development of weed resistance ( Délye et al. , 2013 )

. The target site alterations leading to TSR are often produced by dominant or semidominant nuclear mutations and can be found in herbicide G roups 1 , 2 , 3 , 23 , 14 , and 9, while triazine herbicides ( G roup 5 ) result from dominant cytoplasmic mutations ( Délye et al. , 2013 ) . This resistance arises following a single mutation, which because of its beneficial nature promotes immediate survival and is positively and rapidly selected within the agricultural environment

. Glyphosate resistance that is TSR is a consequence of one amino acid change at position 106 of the chloroplast EPSPS protein

. Worldwide, 14 of these populations have been identified ( Beckie, 2011 )

. Natural T olerance Natural tolerance to certain herbicides may be apparent when weeds are first exposed to a herbicide, or with selection, existing genes may be selected and then accumulated to produce varying levels of tolerance (likely by NTSR)

. Field morning glory ( Convolvulus arvensis L .) has such tolerance to glyphosate and has been assessed in detail ( Westwood and Weller, 1997 )

. Glyphosate tolerance in Convolvulus was also found in historical popul ations which predated glyphosate resistant crop introductions ( Baucon and Mauricio, 2010 )

. The pre exposure NTSR to glyphosate was at ab out the same level as that which is currently observed

. Morning glory can also be shown to have pre

- existing resistance (that is, by TSR) but which is not as high as that expressed by plants now collected ( Baucon and Mauricio, 2010 )

. Both types of resistance can exist in the species, but independently, with resource allocation costs apparent for the plant’s tolerance mechanisms for the he rbicide ( Baucon and Ma uricio, 2008 )

. At least some populations of 16 species have been alleged as not controllable by recommended field rates of glyphosate, presumably by natural tolerance mechanisms ( Duke and Powles, 20 08 )

.

Page 6

- 5Weeds R esistant to Multiple Herbicides Direct resistance of a weed species to an herbicide is an unwelcome consequence of weed selection, but cross resistance to other herbicides in the same class or to other classes of herbicides provides an even greater consequence to those who manage weeds, since a grower’s choice of herbicide site of action (SOA) will be restricted in the present season’s crop and potentially also in the rotation crop

. When resistance is based on non

- target site mechanisms, whic h may include increased metabolism and reduced translocation to target sites, the weed may be capable of resistance to multiple herbicide modes of action ( Beckie and Tardif, 2012 )

. NTSR appears to arise from a weed’s accretion of v ariants of several genes which may originally have been subsets of stress

- tolerance genes (see review in Délye ( 2013 ) )

. Délye ( 2013 ) attributes much of the recently discovered weed resistance to this mechanism, and it is particularly important in Groups 9 (glyphosate) and 1 (acetyl

- CoA carboxylase inhibitors), as well as grasses and probably broadleaf weeds (Group 2: acetohydro xyacid synthase inhibitors)

. In the case of glyphosate, Beckie ( 2011 ) lists 15 instances worldwide of glyphosate NTSR.
Weed S election for R esistance to H erbicides by Overuse The intense use of glyphosate on field crops compared to decreased use of other herbicides is a trend within the last decade, but how growers use glyphosate in field situations makes the situation clearer in grower surveys such as that of Prince ( 2012 )

. These surveys give evidence of the prevalent practices employed by growers in which glyphosate is sometimes the only herbicide used, allowing the overexposure of crops and weeds to glyphosate

. Growers were choosing glyphosate frequen tly for pre

- plant burndown, but also post

- planting with high frequency, so that repeated exposure of weeds to glyphosate during crop production was common within the same season. Because the most common rotation crop for corn is soybean, exposure of weeds to selecting doses of glyphosate occurs in consecutive seasons as well. Because conservation tillage systems are inherently more dependent upon weed management using herbicides, selective pressure on weeds is greater than that on fields using conventional tillage with its greater options for pre

- plant primary tillage and post plant secondary tillage ( Vencill et al. , 2012 )

. In a survey conducted in 2007, growers that planted 87% of their crops to glyphosate resistant corn, soy or cotton varied the SOA used on their crops ‘always’ o r ‘mostly’ just 39% of the time, with the remaining 61% affirming they did so ‘seldom’ or ‘never’ ( Frisvold et al. , 2009 )

. Thus, when conservation tillage and HR crops define the production system, growers are likely to use the same herbicide (i.e., glyphosate) frequently

. Some other options also may be foreclosed by conservation till (especial ly no

- till), such as soil incorporation of residual herbicides, although some residuals can also be soil applied ( Penn State Extention, 2013 )

. Considering the recommendations for success in reducing resistant weed development ( Vencill et al. , 2012 ) , unsuccessful herbicide strategies that hav e encouraged resistant weeds can include:
1. H erbicide use of mostly one or a few modes of action ( Norsworthy, 2012 ) and infrequent use of herbicide tank mixes, sequences and diversity across seasons ( WSSA, 2011a ) ;
2. I nco rrect timing of herbicide application ( Norsworthy, 2012 ) ;
Page 6

- 63. F ailure to consider the likelihood that a weed already has non

- target site resistance mechanisms ( Délye et al. , 2013 ) against specific herbicides (including metabolic pot ential, ability to prevent translocation, or ability to sequester the herbicide) ;
4. Applying low doses of herbicide thereby a llowing weeds to be exposed to low rates herbicide which encourage s sequential escapes and accumulating resistance genes ( WSSA, 2011b ) ;
5. N ot establishing fields devoid of active weeds at planting or good weed control at canopy closure (for soybean) because not all available tools and herbicides were used ( Monsanto, 2013 ) ; resulting in poorer crop establishment and more weed initiation

. Weed R esistance from U ndervaluing a B alance of Residual and Contact Herbicides The decrease in use of soil applied residual herbicides and a focus instead on mainly foliar

applied contact herbicides may be another basic and strategic misapplication of tech nology by field crop producers and these resulted in resistant weed development

. In the era before int roduction of HR soybean and cotton , and afterwards, production changes by growers were noted in the use of herbicides in the transition to greater HR crop acreage

. For soybeans, in 1996, 70% of growers used pre

- emergent herbicides, but by 2002 they did so less than 20% of the time ( Livingston and Osteen, 2012 )

. Likewise, Prince ( 2012 ) concluded that soybean growers were less likely than corn or cotton growers to use a residual herbicide (often pre

- emerge nt) in their multistate survey of herbicide use in 2005 and 2010. Growers thus lost value from an herbicide by not deploying a residual (soil applied residual in no

- till production) herbicide that has a different SOA than glyphosate, and relying on post

- em ergence control using glyphosate or another foliar active herbicide. Perhaps as a consequence of awareness of weed herbicide resistance or in an effort to combat glyphosate resistant crops, use of residual herbicides has increased modestly between 2005 and 2009 from 15% to 27% of soybean acreage ( Owen et al. , 2011 )

. Related to the iss ue of reductions in residual pesticide use is that of reductions in total numbers of herbicides used in soybean and c otton

. An USDA Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI) survey showed that soybean growers reached a high point of rotati ng pesticides to slow resistance evolution in1998, but this declined steadily to low single digits in 2010 ( USDA

- ERS, 201 0 )

. Herbicide

- Resistant Weeds in Soybean and Cotton It is important to distinguish herbicide resistance from herbicide tolerance. A herbicide

- resistant weed is one in which there is an inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exp osure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type ( WSSA, 2012 ) . A herbicide

tolerant weed species is one that is naturally tolerant to a herbicide; for example, a grass species is not killed by th e application of a broadleaf herbicide ( WSSA, 2012 ) . Furthermore, certain weed species, while neither resistant nor tolerant, are inherently difficult to control with a particular herbicide, requiring more ca reful herbicide use and weed management practices ( Monsanto, 2013 )

.

Page 6

- 7As of April 2014 , 429 herbicide

- resistant weed biotypes have been reported to be resistant to 22 different herbicide modes

- of

- action worldwide ( Heap, 2014b )

. Glyphosate

- resistant weeds, which occur in certain areas of the U nited S tates , account for appro ximately 7 % of the herbicide

resistant biotypes while weeds resistant to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase (ALS) account for 34 % of the herbicide

- resistant biotypes

. Synthetic auxin

- resistant and glufosinate

resistant weeds account for 7 % and 0 .5% of resistant biotypes , respectively ( Heap, 2014b ; Heap, 2014a )

. There are currently 429 unique cases of herbicide

- resistant w eeds globally, with 234 species (138 dicots and 96 monocots). Weeds have evolved resistance to 22 of the 25 known herbicide sites of action ( Heap, 2014b )

. The first herbicide

- resistant biotypes were described in the 1950s, but the number of weeds resistant to herbicides increased dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s, and resistance to 2 2 of the 25 known herbicide sites of action has been identified throughout the world ( Heap, 2014b ) and to 154 different herbicides
. Herbicide

- resistant weeds have been reported in 81 crops in 65 countries ( Heap, 2014b )

. While there are hundreds of cases of herbicide

- resistant weeds, most of these weeds are not actively managed in cotton and soybean.
Herbicide

- resistant Weeds in Soybean Production Glyphosate

- resistant weed biotypes that can be found in soybean fields include Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri ), spiny amaranth ( Amaranthus spinosus ), tall waterhemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus ), common ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia ), giant ragweed ( Am brosia trifida ), horseweed ( Conyza canadensis ), kochia ( Kochia scoparia ), goosegrass ( Eleusine indica ), Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multifloru ), and Johnsongrass ( Sorghum halepe ) ( Heap, 2014c )

. In certain areas of the U nited S tates , resistance to the ALS group of herbicides is present in most of the major broadleaf weed species commonly found in soybeans

. For common ragweed and waterhemp, there is known resistance to at least one member for several of the major soybean herbicide chemistry classes

. While there are effective options for managing common ragwee d, waterhemp, Palmer amaranth and other key broadleaf weeds, the availability of additional herbicide modes

- of

- action will help combat future resistance in soybeans and manage existing herbicide

- resistant weed populations in areas of the U nited S tates wher e such populations exist

. Similarly, there has been an increase in the detection of weed populations with multiple resistance (i.e., resistance to multiple herbicide modes

- of

- action) in some weed species, for example, Amaranthus spp. ( Tranel et al. , 2010 )

. The emergence of these resistant biotypes in certain areas of the U.S. and continued need to utilize diversified weed management practices supports the need for additional herbicide modes

- of

- action in major crops such as soybean

. The relative occurrence of herbicide

- resistant weeds varies between the different sub

- groups of auxinic herbicides

. Considering that auxin herbicides have been widely used in agriculture for more than 60 years, weed resista nce to this class is relatively low ( 31 species, to date, worldwide) and its development has been slow, especially when compared to the speed of appearance of resistance to ALS inhibitors ( 144 species) or triazine

- resistant populations ( 72 species) ( Heap, 2014a )

. The relatively low incidence of auxinic herbici de resistance is believed

Page 6

- 8to be attributable to the fact that there are multiple target sites for these herbicides ( Gressel and Segel, 1982 ; Morrison and Devine, 1993 ; Monsanto, 2012 )

. Herbicide

- resistant Weeds in Cotton Production Glyphosate

- resistant weed biotypes found in cotton fields in certain areas of the U nited S tates may include P almer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri ), spiny amaranth ( Amaranthus spinosus ), tall waterhemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus ), common ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia ), giant ragweed ( Ambrosia trifida ), horseweed ( Conyza canadensis ), junglerice ( Echinochloa colona ), kochia ( Kochia scoparia ), goosegrass ( Eleusine indica ), and Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multifloru ) ( Heap, 2014c )

. The emergence and growth of herbicide

- resistant weeds (including glyphosate

resistant weed biotypes) in cer tain areas of the U nited S tates over the past decade, has required growers to adapt and implement improved weed management strategies.
The occurrence of weed

- resistant biotypes varies across the cotton

- growing regions, with more resistance issues observed in certain areas of the Southeast and Midsouth cotton

- growing regions. Amaranthus spp., in particular Palmer amaranth, are problematic weeds in the mid

- south and southeastern U.S

. Palmer amaranth is considered to be one of the most competitive and aggressive of the Amaranthus spp. because of its rapid growth and prolific seed productio n

. In addition, it has developed resistance to multiple herbicide classes (glycines, ALS, and dinitroanilines) ( Culpepper et al. , 2011 ; Heap, 2014b )

. Managing herbicide

- resistant Palmer amaranth has proven to be challenging due to the biology of this particular weed, including its dioecious nature (the male and female flowers occur on separate p lants), which leads to greater genetic diversity in the plant population and increases the potential for spreading herbicide resistance ( Sosnoskie et al. , 2011 )

. Resistance to the ALS group of herbicides is present in most of the major broadleaf weed species commonly found in cotton

. For Amaranthus spp. and Ambrosia spp., there is known resistance to at least one member for several of the major herbicide chemistry classes

. In an effort to manage glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth in certain areas of the U.S., certain non

- glyphosate cotton herbicides ar e being used in conditions and practices that can result in increased selection of resistant biotypes to those herbicides, and as a result some key agricultural herbicides in some major herbicide classes, such as glufosinate and PPO inhibitors, are at furt her risk ( Nichols et al. , 2 010 ; Prostko, 2011b ; Prostko, 2011a )

. While there are effective options for managing Ambrosia spp., and Amaranthus spp., including Palmer amaranth and ot her key broadleaf weeds, the availability of additional herbicide modes

- of

- action will help combat potential future resistance of the key herbicides needed for weed management in cotton

. In addition, there has been an increase in the detection of weed popu lations with multiple resistances ( i.e. , resistance to multiple herbicide modes

- of

- action) in some weed species, for example, Amaranthus spp. ( Tranel et al. , 2010 )

. The emergence of these resistant biotypes in certain areas of the U.S. highlights the continuing need to utilize diversified weed management practices and the ongoing need for additional herbicide modes

- of

- action that are effective in major crops

.

Page 6

- 9References:
Baucon, Re gina S., and Rodeny Mauricio. 2008. "Constraints on the Evolution of Tolerance to Herbicide in the Common Morning Glory: Resistance and Tolerance are Mutually Exclusive." Baucon, Regina S., and Rodney Mauricio. 2010. "Defence against the herbicide RoundUp® predates its widespread use." Evolutionary Ecology Research 2010.12: 131

- 41. Beckie, Hugh. 2011. "Herbicide

- resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate." SCI

. Beckie, Hugh, and Francois Tardif. 2012. "Herbicide cross resistance in weeds." Crop Protectio n 35 (2012) 15e28

. Bradshaw, Laura, Stephen Padgette, Steven Kimball, and Barbara Wells. 1997. "Perspectives on Glyphosate Reisitance." Weed Technology Review. Buhler, Wayne. unknown. "Incidence and History of Herbicide Resistance." Resistance Pesticide Environmental Stewardship unknown. Web. December 5 2013 http://pesticidestewardship.org/resistance/Herbicide/Pages/Incid ence

- and

- History

of

- Herbicide

- Resistance.aspx

. Burnisde, Orvin. 1996. "The History of 2,4

- D and Its Impact on Development of the Discipline of Weed Science in the United States." Phenoxy Herbicides Chapter 2

. CropLife International.2012. "Implementing Inte grated Weed Management for Herbicide Tolerant Crops." Belgium: CropLife International. 62. http://www.croplife.org/IntegratedWeedManagement

. Culpepper, A. S., A. C. York, and L. E. Steckel Gl yphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth management in cotton. . 2011. http://www.swss.ws/wp

content/uploads/docs/2011%20Proceedings

- SWSS.pdf

. Délye, Christophe, Marie Jasien iuk, and Valérlie Le

- Corre. 2013. "Deciphering the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds." Duke, S. 2005. "Taking stock of herbicide

- resistant crops ten years after introduction." Pest Management Science 61: 211

- 18. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.1024/pdf

. Duke, S.O., and S.B. Powles. 2009. "Glyphosate

- resistant crops and weeds: Now and in the future." AgBioForum 12.3&4: 346

- 57. Duke, S.O., and S.B. Powles. 2008. "Gly phosate: A once

- in

- a

- century herbicide." Pest Management Science 64.4: 319

- 25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18273882

.

Page 6

- 10Durgan, B.R. , and J.L. Gunsolus. 2003."Developing Weed Management Stra tegies that Address Weed Species Shifts and Herbicide Resistant Weeds." 2011.August 14. Web. http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/pubs/03pub01.pdf

. Frisvold, George B., Terrance M. Hurley, an d Paul D. Mitchell. 2009. "Adoption of best management practices to control weed resistance by corn, cotton, and soybean growers." AgBioForum 12: 370

- 81. Gianessi, L.P. 2008. "Economic impacts of glyphosate

- resistant crops." Pest Management Science 64.4: 3 46

- 52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181242

. Gressel, J., and L. A. Segel.1982. "Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: The outlook for the future." Herbici de Resistance in Plants . Eds. LeBaron, H. M. and J. Gressel. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 325

- 47. Hartzler, Bob. 2013."A History Lesson in Herbicide Resistance." Integrated Crop Management News . Web. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2013/0114hartzler.htm

. Heap, I. 2014a. "Herbicide

- Resistant Weeds by Site of Action " WSSA 2014a. Web http://www.weed science.com/summary/SOASummary.aspx

. Heap, I. 2013. "Herbicide Resistant Weeds in Soybean Globally: United States

- State Specific." February 6, 2013 2013. Web. February 25 2013 http://www.weeds cience.com/summary/Crop.aspx

. Heap, I. 2014b. "The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds." (2014b). Web. August, 2013 www.weedscience.com

. Heap, I. 2014c. "Weeds Resistant to EPSP synthase inhibitors ( G/9)." WSSA 2014c. Web http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12

. Isaac, Wendy

- Ann, Zongjun Gao, and Mei Li.2013 "Managing Commelina Species: Prospects and Limitations, Herbic ides

- Current Research and Case Studies in Use." Herbicides

- Current Research and Case Studies in Use. Ed. Price, Dr. Andrew. Vol.: InTech, 2013. Web http://www.intechopen.com/books/herbicides

- current

- research

- and

- case

- studies

- in

use/managing

- commelina

- species

- prospects

- and

- limitations

. Knake, Ellery. 1996. "Phenoxy Herbicide Use in Field Corn, Soybean, Sorghum, and Peanut Production in the United States." Phenoxy Herbicides Chapter 6

. Livingston, M., and C. Osteen. 2012. "Agricultural Production Management. Pest Management ": p.21

- 24. Lorenz, Gus, Donald R. Johnson, Glenn Studebaker, Charles Allen, and Seth Young III. 2006. "Soybean Insect Management." University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service 2006. Web. September 9 2011 http://www.aragriculture.org/insects/soybean/default.htm

.

Page 6

- 11Mithila, J., J. Christopher Hall, William G. Johnson, Kevin B. Kelley, and Dean E. Riechers. 2011. "Evolution of Resistance to Auxinic Herbicides: Historic al Perspectives, Mechanisms of Resistance, and Implications for Broadleaf Weed Management in Agronomic Crops." BioOne

. Monsanto.2012. "Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean MON 87708." Ed. Mannion, Rhonda M.: Mo nsanto Company. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/10_18801p.pdf

. Monsanto. 2013."Weed Resistance Risk Assessment: U.S.". Web. http://weedtool .com/

. Morrison, I. N., and M. D. Devine. 1993. "Herbicide resistance in the Canadian prairie provinces: Five years after the fact." Phytoprotection 75.4: 5

- 16. http://nels on.cen.umontreal.ca/revue/phyto/1994/v75/n4/706067ar.pdf

. Nichols, R., K. Balkcom, S. Culpepper, M. Marshall, D. Monks, M. Patterson, A. Price, and L. Steckel.2010. "Meeting the challenge of glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth in conservation tillage." C ary, NC: Cotton, Inc. http://www.caes.uga.edu/topics/sustainag/contillage/conferences/2010/2010%20Bob %20Nichols%20Con%20Till.pdf

. Nor sworthy, J.K., Ward, S. M., Shaw, D. R., Llewellyn, R. S., Nichols, R. L., Webster, T. M., Bradley, K. W., Frisvold, G., Powles, S. B., Burgos, N. R., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 2012. "Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations." Weed Science .Special issue: 31

- 62. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS

- D

- 11

- 00155.1

. Owen, M. D., B. G. Young, D. R. Shaw, R. G. Wilson, D. L. Jordan, P. M. D ixon, and S. C. Weller. 2011. "Benchmark study on glyphosate

- resistant crop systems in the United States. Part 2: Perspectives." Pest Management Science 67.7: 747

- 57. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p ubmed/21452168

. Owen, M.D.K. 2008. "Weed species shifts in glyphosate

- resistant crops." Pest Management Science 64.4: 377

- 87. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232055

. Penn State Extention. 201 3. "Herbicides " 2013. Web http://extension.psu.edu/pests/weeds/control/introduction

- to

- weeds

- and

herbicides/herbicides

. Powles, Stephen, Debrah L orraine

- Colwill, James Dellow, and Christopher Preston. 1998. "Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia." Prince, Joby M., G. Shan, Wade Givens, M. D. Owen, S. C. Weller, B. Young, R. Wilson, and D. L. Jordan. 2012. "Benchmark Study: Survey of Grower Practices for Managing Glyphosate

- Resistant Weed Populations." A Journal of the Weed Science Society of America

.

Page 6

- 12Prostko, E. P.2011a. "Developing An Herbicide

- Resistant Weed Management Plan." University of Georgia.
Prostk o, E. P. Developing an Herbicide Resistant Weed Management Plan . 2011b. Reddy, K.N. Weed Control and Yield Comparisons of Glyphosate

- Resistant and Glufosinate

Resistant Corn Grown Continuously and in Rotation [Poster Abstract] . Southern Weed Science Society. 2001. Sellers, B.A., J.A. Ferrell, and G.E. MacDonald. 2011."Herbicide Resistant Weeds." 2011.August 14. Web. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag239

. Sosnoskie, L.M., T.M. Webster, A.S. Culpepper, and J. Kichler. 2011. The biology and ecology of Palmer amaranth: Implications for control. : The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. http://www.caes.uga.edu/applications/pu blications/files/pdf/C%201000_2.PD F

. Tranel, P. J., C. W. Riggins, M. S. Bell, and A. G. Hager. 2010. "Herbicide resistances in Amaranthus tuberculatus: A call for new options." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59.11: 5808

- 12. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf103797n

. Tranel, Patrick J., and Terry R. Wright. 2002. "Resistance of Weeds to ALS

- Inhibiting Herbicides: What Have We Learned?" Weed Science 50.6: 700

- 12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4046642

. USDA

- ERS. 1997 "Crop Residue Management." Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators 1996

- 1997 . Eds. Anderson, M. and R Magleby. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture

– Economic Research Service. 356. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah712/AH7124

- 2.PDF

. USDA

- ER S. 2010. "Top 25 Agricultural Export Commodities, With Level of Processing, by Fiscal Year, Current Dollars." (2010). Web. August 13 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/#monthly

. Vencill, Will iam K., Robert L. Nichols, Theodore M. Webster, John K. Soteres, Carol Mallory

Smith, Nilda R. Burgos, William G. Johnson, and Marilyn R. McClelland. 2012. "Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide

- Resistant Crops." Weed Science 60.sp1: 2

- 30. Westwood, J. H., and S. C. Weller. 1997. "Cellular Mechanisms Influence Differential Glyphosate Sensitivity in Field Bindweed(Convolvulus arvensis) Biotypes." Weed Science 45.1: 2

- 11.
WSSA.2011a "Lesson 5

- Pri nciples of Managing Herbicide Resistance

- " WSSA Lesson Modules: Herbicide Resistant Weeds . Vol.: Weed Science Society of America, 2011a. 24. Web http://wssa.net/wp

- content/uploads/L esson_5_HR

- Turf.pptx

.

Page 6

- 13WSSA. 2011b. "Weed Science Society of America." Weed Science Society of America April 18, 2011 2011b. Web. May 25 2011 http://wssa.net/wp

- content/uploads/ WSSA

- Mechanism

of

- Action.pdf

. WSSA. 2012. "WSSA lesson module: Herbicide resistant weeds." Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, Illinois 2012. Web http://wssa.net/ 2011/12/wssa

- lesson

- module

herbicide

- resistant

- weeds/

. Young, B. G. 2006. "Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate

- resistant crops." Weed Technology 20: 301

- 07. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/WT

- 04

- 189.1

.

Page 6

- 14

### Off

- Target Pesticide Movement Appendix 7.

Page 7

- 1Off

- T arget P esticide M ovement Once applied, pesticides (which include herbicides) remaining on the application site that are not taken up by targeted plants that have been harvested will persist, degrade, or move in the environment. The potential environmental fate of an he rbicide is shown in Figure 7

- 1. Degradation occurs by hydrolysis, photolysis, or microbial dissipation resulting in the herbicide being broken down and eventually losing its herbicidal activity

. Herbici des can be transported from their original application site by spray drift, runoff, leaching, volatility, wind erosion, or crop removal. Off

- site movement of herbicides have the potential to impact non

- target plant and animal communities living in proximit y to fiel ds in which herbicides are used, as well as human populations.

Figure 7

- 1
. Environmental fate of herbicides in the environment. Source: ( Wright et al. , 1996 )

. The length of persistence of herbicides in the environment depends on the concentration and rate of degradation by biotic and abiotic processes ( Carpenter et al. , 2002 )

. Persistence is measured by the half

- life or dissipation time (DT 50 ), which equates to the length of time needed for the herbicide to degrade to half of its original concentration

. Use of herbicides for field crop production may introduce these chemicals to water through spray drift, cleaning of pesticide application equipment, soil erosion, or filtration through soil to groundwater

. Irrigation and rain fall occurring the first few days after herbicide application can influence herbicide loss through leaching and runoff

. However, it has been estimated that even after heavy rains, herbicide losses to runoff generally do not exceed 5 to 10 percent of the to tal applied ( USDA

- NRCS, 2000 ; Tu et al. , 2001 )

. Planted vegetation, such as grass buffer strips, or crop residues can effectively reduce runoff ( Fishel, 1997 ; USDA

- NRCS, 2000 )

. Pesticides applied to crops may volatilize, thereby introducing chemicals to the air

. Volatilization typically occurs during application, but herbicide deposited on plants or soil can also volatilize

. Page 7

- 2Volatilization occurs when pesticide surface residues c hange from a solid or liquid to a gas or vapor after application

. Volatilization refers to the transformation of a liquid or solid pesticide into a gas. The extent of volatilization is dependent on properties of the chemical and herbicide formulation, and environmental factors such as air temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity

. Volatilized pesticid e s ca n be c a rr i e d b y a i r c u rre nts pot e nti a l l y l ea ding to o f f

- t ar g e t
e x posu re . Once airborne, volatilized pesticides may be carried long distances from the treatment location by air currents

. The higher the vapor pressure of a chemical, the more volatility it exhibits

. In addition, other physical and chemical pesticide properties, agricultural practices, meteorological conditions, persistence of a pesticide on plant surfaces, and soil properties influence the extent of volatilization ( University of Missouri, 1997 ; US

- EPA, 2012 )

. It is also important to note that once volatilized, pesticides may underg o transformation in the atmosphere or physical removal in precipitation. Most of the herbicides considered highly volatile are no longer used ( Tu et al. , 2001 )

. Dr i f t is the p h y si ca l mov e m e nt of s p r a y d r opl e ts mo ving o ff

- s ite a s a c h e mi c a l a ppli ca t ion is
m a d e

. U nd er cer t a in c onditions, the p o t e nti a l f or p h y s i ca l d r i f t f r om a n a ppli ca tion site to
a dj ace nt non

- t a r g et e nvi r onm e nts is possible f or a ll t y p e s of p e sti c ide sp r a y a ppli ca tions. T his is
a n a ppli ca tion

- re l a t e d ph e no m e non ind e p e nd e nt of the c h e mi ca l p e sti c id e , w hi c h m a y be i n f lu e n ce d b y the f o r mul a tion in g r e di e nts a nd sp r a y mix a dditiv e s. Spray drift is a concern for
non

- target susceptible plants growing adjacent to fields when herbicides are used in the production of any crop

. This potential impact relates to exposure of non

- target susceptible plants to the off

- target herbicide drift ( Jordan et al. , 2009 )

. Damage from spray drift typically occurs at field edges or at shelterbelts (i.e., windbreaks), but highly volatile herbicides may drift further into a field

. The r isk of off

- target herbicide drift is recognized by EPA, which has incorporated both equipment and management restrictions to address drift o n EPA

- approved herbicide labels

. These EPA label restrictions include requirements that the grower manage droplet si ze, control spray boom height above the crop canopy, restrict applications under certain wind speeds and environmental conditions, and use drift control agents ( Jordan et al. , 2009 )

. The amount of drift varies widely and is influenced by a range of factors, including weather conditions, topography, the crop or area being sprayed, application equipment and methods, and practices followed by the applicator ( US

- EPA, 2000 )

. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which regulates the use of pesticides and herbicides in the U.S., encourages pesticide applicators to use all feasible means available to minimize off

- target drift

. EPA

- OPP has introduced several initiatives to help address and prevent the problems associated with drift

. EPA

- OPP is evaluating new guidance for pesticide drift labeling and the identification of BMPs to control such drift ( US

- EPA, 2009a ) as well as identifying scientific issues surrounding field volatility of conventional pesticides ( US

- EPA, 2010 )

. Additionally, EPA

- OPP and its Office of Research and Development are developing a new voluntary program, the Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) Program, which encourages the development, marketing , and use of application technologies verified to significantly reduce spray drift ( US

- EPA, 2009a )

. EPA’s core pesticide risk assessment and regulatory processe s ensure that protections are in place for all populations of non

- target species potentially exposed to pesticides, including humans

. These assessments provide EPA with information needed to develop label use restrictions for the pesticide

. G rowers are req uired to use pesticides, such as dicamba and glyphosate, consistent with the application instructions provided on the EPA

- approved pesticide Page 7

- 3label

. Labels can include restrictions related to minimizing drift or exclusion distances from bodies of water when necessary

. These label restrictions carry the weight of law and are enforced by EPA and the states ( FIFRA 7 USC 136j (a)(2)(G) Unlawful Acts). Pesticide Regulation & Registration ( Monsanto, 2013 ) APHIS does not have any statutory authority to regulate herbicide uses in agriculture

. Instea d the use of a pesticide is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 1
EPA considers possible effects from offsite movement as part of the pesticide registration process under FIFRA

. Additionally, pesticide registr ants must report drift incidents to EPA as an adverse effect in order to ensure the pesticide continues to meet FIFRA requirements for registration

. 40 C.F.R. § 159.195(a)(2)

. Before any registered herbicide can be applied to any new use site (including an y deregulated GE

- derived crop), EPA must approve a label amendment setting out the use pattern and specific application requirements for that new use site

. Specifically, in order to approve a new use of a pesticide, EPA must conclude that no unreasonable a dverse effects on the environment will result from the new use when applied according to label directions, which includes potential offsite movement

. Offsite impacts are diminished when herbicides are applied in accordance with label instructions

. Register ed herbicides, including dicamba and glufosinate, are assessed by EPA for potential risks to non

target plants

. A detailed discussion of the use of dicamba and glufosinate in the U.S. can be found in Appendix 4

. Use of Dicamba on DT soybean and DG T Cotton ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Dicamba (3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- methoxybenzoic acid) is a broad

- spectrum, selective, post

- emergence systemic herbicide with activity on a wide range of annual and perennial broadleaf plants

. It was first registered in the United States in 1967 and is widely used in agricultural, industrial and residential setting s

. Dicamba controls annual, biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds in monocotyledonous crops and grasslands, and it is used to control brush and bracken in pastures

. Because of the sensitivity of broadleaf plants to dicamba, the uses of dicamba in broadlea f crops until now have been limited to early pre

- emergence and pre

- harvest applications

. DT soybean and DGT cotton have been developed to exhibit tolerance to dicamba herbicide applications by the insertion of a demethylase gene from Stenotrophomonas malto philia

. As a result DT soybean and DGT cotton express the dicamba mono

- oxygenase (DMO) protein that rapidly demethylates dicamba to form the herbicidally inactive metabolite DCSA

. The use of dicamba is projected to increase if DT soybean and DGT cotton ar e deregulated

. Please see Appendix A to this Environmental Report for a detailed discussion of the projections for increased use of dicamba in this scenario

. Offsite movement of herbicide to sensitive crops and plants during application is a concern durin g the growing season ( Jordan et al. , 2009 )

. The potential for effects to off

- tar get crops from offsite movement due to spray drift is generally greatest with a postemergence application

1 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.
Page 7

- 4because the treatment is made directly to the crop and requires the spray equipment to be higher above the ground, which results in more spray drift p otential

. In addition, postemergence herbicides typically have foliar activity, thereby increasing the potential of foliar effects or visual symptoms on desirable plants

. The presence of dicamba can cause visible morphological effects to trees and certain sensitive crops, particularly beans (e.g., dry and snap beans), cotton, flowers, fruit trees, grapes, ornamentals, peas, potatoes, soybean, sunflower, tobacco, tomatoes, and other broadleaf plants when contacting their roots, stems or foliage ( BASF, 2008 ; Jordan et al. , 2009 )

. These plants are most sensitive to dicamba during their development or growing stage ( BASF, 2008 )

. Spray Drift ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Spray drift of herbicides is a familiar and well

- studied phenomenon, notably by the Spray Drift Task Force, of which Monsanto is a member. EPA defines drift as “the movement of pesticide through air at the time of application or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application” ( US

- EPA, 2000 )

. Factors affecting the occurrence of spray drift include application equipment and method, weather conditions, topography, and the type of crop being sprayed ( US

EPA, 2000 ) . Aeri al application is associated with an increased drift potential compared to ground spray application because the herbicide is released at a greater distance above the crop canopy

. In addition to the method of application, spray drift potential is also impac ted by equipment type (e.g., nozzle types and ratings), settings (e.g., spray pressure, application speed, and application volume), equipment maintenance, environmental conditions (wind speed, temperature inversion), applicator behavior and distance from t he edge of the application area ( SDTF, 1997 ; Felsot et al. , 2010 )

. Prevention of Spray Drift ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Growers and commercial herbicide applicators have been applying dicamba to agricultural row crops for over 40 years

. This experience has provided valuable knowledge and learning on the proper application of dicamba for effective weed control and also for minimizing offsite movement to sensitive crops

. Spray drift can be reduced during application by using industry standard procedures for minimizing spray drift

. Depending upon the herbici de being used, factors for managing the potential for spray drift include the selectivity and sensitivity of the herbicide, local weather conditions at the time of application (wind, temperature, humidity, inversion potential), droplet size distribution, a pplication volume, boom height (height of the application equipment above the crop canopy), sprayer speed, and distance from the edge of the application area ( SDTF, 1997 ; Felsot et al. , 2010 )

. The minimization of droplets less than 150 microns is important in r educing any potential for spray drift

. Droplet size can be increased by requiring the use of certain nozzle types, reducing spray pressure, increasing volume per minute spray rates, and by specifying an application volume per acre rate of at least 10 gallo ns ( SDTF, 1997 ; TeeJet Technologies, 2011 )

. Arvidsson et al. ( Arvidsson et al. , 2011 ) investigated meteorological and technical factors affecting total spray drift and determined that boom height and wind speed were the primary factors affecting the potential for spray drift among those tested, followed by air temperature, driving speed an d vapor pressure deficit. Arvidsson et al. ( Arvidsson et al. , 2011 ) demonstrated that drift increased with driving speed

. This increase was attributed to either air flows associated with the forward movement of th e sprayer or to increased vertical boom movement

. Page 7

- 5EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which regulates the use of pesticides in the U.S., encourages pesticide applicators to use all feasible means available to them to minimize off

target drift. The A gency has introduced several initiatives to help address and prevent issues associated with drift

. EPA is evaluating new regulations for pesticide drift labeling and the identification of best management practices to control such drift ( US

- EPA, 2009a ) , as well as iden tifying scientific issues surrounding field volatility of conventional pesticides ( US

- EPA, 2010 )

. Additionally, OPP and EPA’s Office of Research and Development are developing a new voluntary program, the Drift Reduction Technology ( DRT) Program, which encourages the development, marketing and use of application technologies verified to significantly reduce spray drift ( US

- EPA, 2009a )

. When herbicides are applied according to the FIFRA label application instructions, offsite impacts can be avoide d

. EPA concluded in the dicamba Registration Eligibility Decision ( RED ) ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009b ) that existing label language to mitigate offsite movement was sufficient to reduce the potential risk of damage to adjacent vegetation

. Because the proposed application rates for dicamba on DT soybean and DGT cotton are less than or equivalent to rates for dicamba established for other uses in the dicamba RED, and because these uses were evaluated by EPA as part of the RED and the propose d label contains the offsite movement mitigation language, it is reasonable to conclude that the use of dicamba on DT soybean and DGT cotton also meets the FIFRA no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment standard for drift and offsite movement ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009b )

. Growers and commercial applicators follow label directions and restrictions, and are educated by university specialists and industry representatives on the proper application equipment, equipment setup, and climatic conditions to maximize herbicide performance and minimize offsite movement of herbicides

. Equipment manufacturers have developed spray nozzles that provide uniform coverage for effective weed control while applying larger spray droplet s to reduce the potential for particle drift

. Monsanto’s Proposed Label Instructions ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Monsanto is proposing a multi

- faceted approach to address potential for off

- site movement of dicamba used on DT soybean and DGT cotton

. Monsanto has proposed a range of application restrictions on its dicamba label

. Collectively, thes e restrictions (which are currently pending before EPA) would go far beyond any other currently applicable limitations on dicamba application

— indeed go beyond any label restrictions ever imposed on dicamba in the nearly half century that dicamba has been o n the market. 2 Monsanto proposes to EPA that the supplemental labels for M1691 Herbicide use on DT soybean and DGT cotton contain application requirements that would minimize dicamba offsite movement, summarized as follows:

• No aerial application of M1691 H erbicide.

2 For example, Monsanto’s proposed limits are far more restrictive than those for Dicamba Max 4, which allows aerial applications and does not require the use of drift

- reducing additives

. See Dicamba Max 4 Label, http://www.kellysolutions.com/erenewals/documentsubmit/KellyData/ND/pesticide/Product %20Label/83222/83222

- 14/83222

- 14_DICAMBA_MAX_4_3_10_2009_6_06_42_PM.pdf

. Page 7

- 6• Use only spray nozzles that produce extremely coarse to ultra

- coarse spray droplets and minimal amounts of fine spray droplets as defined by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE S

- 572.1) and follow nozzle manufact urer’s recommendations to deliver desired droplet size.

• Apply using a minimum of 10 gallons of spray solution per acre.

• Select a ground speed under 15 mph that will deliver the desired spray volume while maintaining the desired spray pressure.

• Spray at the appropriate boom height based on nozzle selection and nozzle spacing (not more than 24 inches above target pest or crop canopy)

. Set boom to lowest effective height over the target pest or crop canopy based on equipment manufacturer’s directions.

• When mak ing applications in low relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for evaporation.

• Do not apply during a temperature inversion

.

• Survey the application site for neighboring sensitive areas prior to application

. A potential way of locating sensitive areas is through the use of sensitive crop registries. 3

• Do not apply when the wind is blowing in the direction of a sensitive area at a wind speed greater than 10 mph

. Sensitive areas include known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non

- target sensitive crops, residential areas, and greenhouses.

• Implement a spray buffer (to be determined by EPA) between the last treated row and the closest downwind edge of any sensitive area when the wind is blowing in the directio n of a sensitive area at a speed of 10 mph or less.

• Do not apply if wind speed is greater than 15 mph

.

• Do not use crop oil concentrate or methylated seed oil as adjuvants when applied with glyphosate

- based agricultural products. Do not add acidifying buffe ring agents.

• Clean equipment immediately after using this product using the procedures outlined in the label. These proposed label instructions and/ or any measures imposed by EPA will limit the offsite movement of dicamba via spray drift and inadvertent s pray application for the reasons described in more deta il in the following paragraphs.

3 For example, www. driftwatch .org
Page 7

- 7Reduction of Small Droplets ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Monsanto has taken a variety of measures to reduce offsite spray drift, including proposing label requirements to minimize the factors that result in small droplet generation, suspension, and movement into non

- target areas

. The factors that affect spray drift and associated impacts to adjacent areas can be divi ded into three main categories: a) droplet size and number, b) droplet transport, and c) the physical location of the spray

. Droplet size and number is controlled by the nozzle type, application volume, spray pressure, and additives in the tank

. Droplet transport is affected by wind speed, boom height, air temperature, vapor pressure deficit 4 , and application speed

. The third factor includes the proxim ity to sensitive non

- target species which can be controlled through a mandate that applicators be aware of sensitive areas

- including areas where threatened or endangered species may be present

- that could be impacted from a dicamba application and imple ment a no

- spray buffer as specified on the label

. Droplet Size and Number ( Monsanto, 2013 ) The minimization of droplets less than 150 microns is important in reducing any potential for spray drift

. Nozzles used for application of agricultural products do not produce droplets of one uniform size, but rather produce a spectrum of droplet sizes ( TeeJet Tech nologies, 2011 )

. Nozzles are generally classified as very fine, fine, medium, coarse, very coarse, extremely coarse, or ultra

- coarse by comparison of a nozzle’s droplet size distribution when spraying water to that of a set of standard nozzles

. ASABE ha s established a nozzle classification system in its published standard, ASABE S

- 572.1 ( ASABE, 2009 ; Wilson, 2011b ) , which is the U.S. industry standard for agricultural spray drop size classification

. Nozzles classified as Extremely Coarse to Ultra Coarse have a small percentage of the spray volume in droplets with diameters less than 150 microns. Nozzle orifice size and operating pressure also affect the droplet size spectrum for a given nozzle type ( SDTF, 1997 )

. The relationship between orifice size, operating pressure, spray volume delivered, and droplet size classification can be found in the nozzle manufacturers’ catalogs

. The use of a larger orifice size allows the application to be made at a higher volume per minute rate without increasing the operating pressure, and consequently reducing the droplet size classification ( TeeJet Technologies, 2011 )

. A dditionally, a higher volume per minute rate allows the spray volume per acre to be higher at a given operating speed

. Specifying an application volume per acre of at least 10 gallons may result in the use of larger orifice nozzles for some equipment to re duce the percentage of small droplets with the higher potential to drift

. The proposed label instructions direct the applicator to employ all of the relevant practices

– including nozzle type, operating pressure, and application volume

– to ensure that the droplet size distribution can be classified as extremely coarse to ultra

- coarse

– which limits the percentage of spray droplets in the size category that has the potential to move offsite.

4 Vapor pressure deficit is the difference between the amount of water vapor in the air and the amount of water vapor in the air at saturation. Evaporation reduces droplet size, and the greater the vapor pressure deficit the more rapid the evaporation and the greater the potential for drift.
Page 7

- 8Reduction of the Transport of Small Droplets ( Monsanto, 2013 )
Arvidsson et al. ( Arvidsson et al. , 2011 ) investigated meteorological and technical factors affecting total spray drift and determined that boom height and wind speed were the primary factors affecting the potential for spray drift among those tested, followed by air temperature, driving speed and vapor pressure deficit

. Establishing a maximum wind speed (15 mph, or 10 mph if sensitive areas are downwind) limits the distance that fine droplets will travel before settling

. A temperature inversion 5 can result when wind speeds are less than 3 mph, and can cause the suspension of the small spray droplets for extended periods of time

. Prohibiting application during inversion conditions avoids the potential for suspension and farther transport of fine spray droplets ( Wilson, 2011a )

. Boom height is also restricted in the proposed application use instructions for dicamba to the minimum height required to get a uniform spray pattern in order to minimize the amount of time that spray droplets are suspended before settling to the ground ( Wilson, 2011b )

. As shown in the Spray Drift Task Force information booklet on Ground Applications ( SDTF, 1997 ) , a difference in boom height between 20 and 50 inches can impact the extent to which spray volume may move offsite by allowing additional time for the droplets to be blown offsite before settling

. Prohibiting aerial a pplication and limiting the boom height for ground applications to 24 inches above the target pest or crop canopy will minimize the amount of time that spray droplets are suspended and available to move offsite.
Arvidsson et al. ( Arvidsson et al. , 2011 ) demonstrated that drift increased with driving speed

. This increase was attributed to either air flows associated with the forward movement of the sprayer or to increased vertical boom movement

. Limiting driving spe ed to 15 mph or less will minimize this p otential contributing factor

. Physical Location of the Spray and Use of Wind Buffers ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Awareness of the presence of sensitive areas and whether the wind direction at the time of application may move any suspended spray droplets toward a sensitive area are important considerations at the time of application

. Since the implementation of the DriftWatchTM 6 program in Indiana, drift incidents onto sensitive crops have been significantly reduced ( Hahn et al. , 2011 )

. This program has now been expanded to several states across the major Midwest soybean growing area and to some Great Plains states as we ll (IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, WI, CO, MT, and NE)

. Under some circumstances, a buffer may be needed to provide further protection to a sensitive area

. This method is highly effective when used

.

5 A temperature inversion occurs when the air at the soil surface is cooler than the air above

. Since cool air sinks, the surface air layer does not mix with upper layers of air

. Under this condition, spray droplets are trapped near the surface and may stay suspended for increased periods of time.

6 Driftwatch is a voluntar y program that allows growers to reports locations of fields in which sensitive crops are being grown (and also identified other types of sensitive areas such as organic fields). The sensitive crop information is presented on a website in a map format whic h can then be utilized by pesticide applicators prior to application.
Page 7

- 9For these reasons, the proposed FIFRA product labels state that app licators should consult with available sensitive crop registries prior to making dicamba applications to DT soybean or DGT cotton

. Many state lead agriculture agencies (IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, OK, WI) have developed tools and resources to assist th e applicator in the location of sensitive areas, such as vegetable or organic production fields, in an effort to minimize commercial impacts associated with pesticide offsite movement

. Furthermore, prior to commercialization of DT soybeans and DGT cotton, Monsanto will implement an endangered species mitigation system for dicamba

. The implemented system will either be an EPA

- specific system and/or a web

- based system, similar to that currently available for glyphosate at PreServe.org

. This will facilitate ap plicator and grower implementation of use restrictions for protection of threatened and endangered non

monocotyledo nous terrestrial plant species. Determination of Proper Buffer Distances ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Monsanto has submitted information to the EPA that summarizes studies conducted at eight field locations to assess the buffer distan ce required to be protective of survival, growth, and reproduction of plant species that are very sensitive to dicamba ( Orr et al. , 2012 )

. These studies utilized nozzles that fit the droplet size classification requirements, the minimum application volume and the maximum boom height requirements specified above

. Justification for use of soybean plant height as the endpoint for risk assessment Soybean was selected as the test species since it has been shown to be a highly sensitiv e indicator species for post

- emergence dicamba effects

. In the vegetative vigor study conducted in a greenhouse with the DGA salt of dicamba, soybean had the lowest endpoint of the ten species tested ( Porch et a l. , 2009 ) . Comparable sensitivity for soybean to that observed in the greenhouse has also been displayed in field studies ( Wax et al. , 1969 ; Auch and Arnold, 1978 ; Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ; Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ; Kelley et al. , 2005 )

. See Table 7

- 1 for a summary of endpoints from these studies. Higher Dicamba rates are needed to cause effects on soybean yield than are needed to cause effects on soybean plant height at early growth stage s Effects of dicamba on plant growth have been evaluated by considering effects on plant height at very sensitive early growth stages

. Effects of dicamba on plant reproduction can be evaluated by assessing the effect of dicamba on plant species seed or fru it yields

. A number of the field studies ( Wax et al. , 1969 ; Auch and Arnold, 1978 ; Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ; Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ; Kelley et al. , 2005 ; Wright, 2012 ) indicate that soybean yield is no more sensitive, and is generally less sensitive, to dicamba tre atment than is soybean plant height at the early growth stages at which studies to estimate buffer distances have been conducted

. Additionally, results of these studies demonstrate that significant morphological effects in soybeans such as plant height red uction do not always result in yield reduction, but yield reduction in soybeans occurs at rates greater than that affecting soybean plant height at the early vegetative stages which were used in studies for buffer distance estimation. See Table 7

- 2 for a summary of the results of these studies.

Page 7

- 10Dicamba effects on yields of other crops occur at rates greater than or equal to rates affecting soybean plant height
The eff ects of dicamba on crop yield have been reported by a number of investigators in at least eleven other crops besides soybean. Monsanto has submitted field data on soybean to EPA and conducted an extensive review of relevant literature for use by EPA in est ablishing an appropriate buffer distance from potentially sensitive plant communities. The field data was generated across multiple growing seasons with diverse geographic and climatic conditions

. The literature review included results from studies testing 12 possible sensitive crops, with many crops tested across multiple growing seasons and/or geographies and/or growth stages

. The potential sensitive crops included in these studies were soybean, tomato, cantaloupe, cotton, pea, peanut, pepper, potato, sug arbeet, sunflower, tobacco, and watermelon. These studies also indicate that the dicamba no effect rate for soybean plant height at vegetative growth stages is a lower value (approximately 0.3 g a.e./ha) than the dicamba no effect rates for plant yield in these other species that have been tested

. See Table 7

- 3 for a summary of endpoints from these studies. Because soybean plant height measured at vegetative growth sta ges is a more sensitive endpoint for dicamba effects than soybean yield or yield of eleven other plant species in five additional plant families, the use of the soybean plant height endpoint is appropriate to assess potential dicamba effects on survival, g rowth, and reproduction of sensitive species. Monsanto’s application management practices, including buffer distances that have been determined to not result in soybean plant height reduction after dicamba applications, can therefore be considered effecti ve measures for mitigation of potential effects of dicamba on non

target plants.

Page 7

- 11Table 7

- 1 . Soybean Field Studies with Dicamba Growth Stage & Other Treatment Information Dicamba Salt a Time of Measurement Plant Height No Effect Rate (g a.e./ha) b Reference

2

- 3 trifoliate 1997 Not Specified 60 DAT <5.6 ( Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ) 2

- 3 trifoliate 1998 Not Specified 60 DAT 5.6 ( Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ) 1

- 2 trifoliate

- 1974 DMA At maturity 56 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) 3

- 4 trifoliate

- 1974 DMA At maturity 1 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 )
6

- 7 trifoliate

- 1974 DMA At maturity 1 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) V3 DMA At maturity < 1.1 ( Wax et al. , 1969 ) Williams

- prebloom 1980 (41 DAP) DMA At maturity 0.32 c ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ) Elf

- prebloom 1980 (41 DAP) DMA At maturity 1.3 c ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 )

V3 DGA Full height before leaf
senescence < 0.56 ( Kelley et al. , 2005 )

V7 DGA Full height before leaf
senescence < 0.56 ( Kelley et al. , 2005 )

a DMA

– dimethylamine; DGA

– diglycolamine b For conversion of g a.e./ha to lb a.e./A divide the g a.e./ha value by 1120. Application rates expressed as oz/A were

assumed to be of a 4 lb a.e./gal formulation and were converted to g a.e./ha

c Highest rate at which less than 10% effect on hei ght was o bserved based on Table 2 of the publication

Page 7

- 12Table 7

- 2 . Comparison of No Effect Rates for Plant Height and Yield from Dicamba Application to Soybeans Growth Stage & Other Treatment Information No Effect Rate (g a.e./ha) a Reference Plant Height Yield Williams

- prebloom 1980 0.32 b,c 20 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 )
Elf

- prebloom 1980 1.3 b,c 10 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ) 8

- 12 inches, 3 WAE d

, RM1 2009 -- 11 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 ) 8

- 12 inches, 3 WAE, RM2 2009 -- 41 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 ) 8

- 12 inches, 3 WAE, RM1 2010 -- 3 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 ) 8

- 12 inches, 3 WAE, RM2 2010 -- 3 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 )
2

- 3 trifoliate 1997 5.6 e 17 ( Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ) 2

- 3 trifoliate 1998 <5.6 e 17 ( Al

- Khatib and Peterson, 1999 ) V3 f

- SE Farm

-- < 5.6 ( Andersen et al. , 2004 ) V3

- Brookings Farm

-- < 5.6 ( Andersen et al. , 2004 ) V3 < 1 c 1 ( Wax et al. , 1969 ) V3 < 0.56 c < 0.56 g ( Kelley et al. , 2005 ) 1

- 2 trifoliate

- 1974 56 c 56 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) 3

- 4 trifoliate

- 1974 1 c 56 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) 6

- 7 trifoliate

- 1974 1 c 56 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) V7 h < 0.56 c 0.56 ( Kelley et al. , 2005 ) Early bloom

- 1974 1 c 11 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) Early bloom

- 1975 1 c,i 1 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) Early bloom

- 1976 < 11 c < 11 ( Auch and Arnol d, 1978 ) R2 j NA k < 1 ( Wax et al. , 1969 ) R2 NA 0.56 ( Kelley et al. , 2005 ) Elf

- midb loom 1980 NA 40 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ) Mid

- bloom

- 1976 NA 28 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) W illiams

- midbloom 1980 NA 10 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 )
Williams

- midbloom 1981 NA 7.4 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ) Early

- pod

- 1975 NA 11 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) Early pod

- 1976 NA 11 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 ) Late pod

- 1976 NA 28 ( Auch and Arnold, 1978 )

a For conversion of g a.e./ha to lb a.e./A divide the g a.e ./ha value by 1120. Application rates expressed as oz/A were

assumed to be of a 4 lb a.e./gal formulation and were converted to g a.e./ha b Highest rate at which less than 10% and 20% effect on height and yield, respectively, were observed based on

Table 2 & Table 3 of the publication

c Height at maturity
Page 7

- 13d WAE

– weeks after emergence

e Assessed at 60 days after treatment f At V3 growth stage the third trifoliate leaf is unfolded

( http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/production_growthstages.html )
g Yield reduction was statistically significant but not considered biologically significant at rates of 0.56 and 5.6 g

a.e./ha because a ten

- fold increase in rate did not cause an increase in the yield reduction, and the percent reduction is small compared to the untreated control (i.e., less than 10% yield reduction)

. h At V7 growth stage the seventh trifoliate leaf is unfolded. i A height reduction of 18% was observed at rates above 1 g a.e./ha, but this reduction was not statistically

significant j R2 growth stage is when there is an open flower at one of the two uppermost nodes

( http ://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/production_growthstages.html ) k Rates at which no effect on plant height are provided in the literature references, but are not provided here since

yield values are being compared to rates causing plant height effects at earlier time points.

Page 7

- 14Table 7

- 3
. Effect of Dicamba on Yield i n Plant Species Other t han Soybean

Crop Growth Stage & Other Treatment Information Effect No Effect Rate (g a.e./ha) a Reference

Soybean pre

- bloom Plant Height 0.32 b ( Weidenhamer et al. , 1989 ) Cantaloupe 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Harvest 560 ( Hynes and Weller, 2010 ) Cantaloupe 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Harvest 11.2 ( Hynes et al. , 2011 )
Cotton Cot

– 2 Leaf Lint Yield 140 ( Everitt and Keeling, 2009 )

Cotton 4

- 5 Leaf Pinhead Square

First Bloom Lint Yield 14 ( Everitt and Keeling, 2009 )

Cotton 20

- 30 cm tall RM 2009 LW 2009 LW 2010 Yield 140 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 )

Cotton 20

- 30 cm tall RM 2010 Yield 11 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 )
Cotton 6

- 8 Leaf Lint Yield 2.8 ( Marple et al. , 2007 )

Cotton 3

- 4 Leaf 8

- node 14

- node 18

- node Lint Yield 2.8 ( Ma rple et al. , 2007 )

Pea Flower buds formed Yield 6.25 c ( Al

- Khatib and Tamhane, 1999 )
Pea Vegetative & Flowering Seed dry weight 5.63 ( Olszyk et al. , 2009 )

Peanut 15

- 20 cm width RM 2010 Yield 140 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 )

Peanut 15

- 20 cm width RM 2009 LW 2010 Yield 41 ( Johnson et al. , 2012 )

Peanut 15

- 2 0 cm width LW 2009 Yield 11 ( Johnson et al. , 201 2 )
Pepper 3 Weeks after transplanting Total harvest 11.2 ( Hynes and Weller, 2010 )
Pepper 3 Weeks after transplanting Total harv est 560 ( Hynes and Weller, 2010 )
Pepper 3 Weeks after transplanting Total harvest 560 ( Hynes et al. , 2011 )

Potato 11

- 15 Days after emergence Tuber fresh weight 5.58 ( Olszyk et al. , 2010 )

Page 7

- 15Crop Growth Stage & Other Treatment Information Effect No Effect Rate (g a.e./ha) a Reference

Potato 15% flowering Tuber Yield 11.2 ( Leino and Haderlie, 1985 ) Sugarbeet 10

- 15 leaf Extractable
sucrose 70 ( Schroede r et al. , 1983 ) Sugarbeet 10

- 15 leaf Root yield >140 ( Schroeder et al. , 1983 ) Sunflower 2

- 4 leaf Yield 1.6 ( Derksen, 1989 )
Tomato Full bloom

- 1972 Total Yield 1 ( Jordan and Romanowski, 1974 )
Tomato Green fruit stage 1971 Total Yield 20 ( Jordan and Romanowski, 1974 )
Tomato Green fruit stage 1972 Total Yield 100 ( Jordan and Romanowski, 1974 )
Tomato 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Yield Fruit weight 11.2 5.6 ( Hynes and Weller, 2010 )

Tomato 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Yield 560 ( Hynes et al. , 2011 )
Tomato 15 cm tall Early vegetative Marketable Fruit 0.9 d ( Kruger et al. , 2012 )
Tomato 25 cm tall Early bloom Marketable Fruit 0.5 d ( Kruger et al. , 2012 ) Watermelon 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Harvest 11.2 ( Hynes and Weller , 2010 )

Watermelon 3 Weeks after transplanting Total Harvest 560 ( Hynes et al. , 2011 )

a For conversion of g a.e./ha to lb a.e./A divide the g a.e./ha value by 1120. Application rates expressed as oz/A were assumed to be of a 4 lb

a.e./gal formulation and were converted to g a.e./ha b Lowest rate from

c Next rate below rate with greater than a 25% effect on yield (lowest such rate of 5 sites)

. 25% effect on yield was chosen due to high

variability. d Value from dose response curve estimated to result in 1% fruit loss

Applicator Educ ation and Awareness ( Monsanto, 2013 ) As mentioned above, growers and commercial a pplicators are aware of the sensitivity of certain crops to dicamba and the extra precautions that should be taken in making dicamba applications when these crops are nearby

. In addition, growers and commercial applicators follow label directions and restr ictions, and growers are educated by university specialists and industry representatives on the proper application equipment, equipment setup, and climatic conditions to maximize herbicide performance and minimize offsite movement of herbicides

. To provide growers with specific information for dicamba applications to dicamba

- tolerant crops, Monsanto is implementing a robust stewardship program that will include a strong emphasis on grower and Page 7

- 16applicator training

. In addition, U.S. EPA and state ag encies have enforcement authority over the use of any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Equipment manufacturers developed spray nozzles that provide uniform coverage for effective weed control while applying larger spray dro plets to reduce the potential for particle drift

. Similarly, offsite movement of dicamba has been managed with the knowledge of the proper spray equipment and equipment setup, climatic conditions for accurate, on

- target applications, and based on the requi rements for applying dicamba at an appropriate distance from sensitive crops an d plants ( Jordan et al. , 2009 )

. Volatilization ( Monsanto, 2013 )
Volatilization of fertilizers and pesticides from soil and plant surfaces also introduces certain chemicals to the air and can cause offsite movement

. A substance is volatile if it is likely to vaporize at atmospheric pressure

. The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is conducting a long

- term study to identify factors that affect pesticide levels in the Chesapeake Bay region airshed ( USDA

- ARS, 2011 )

. This study has determined that volatilization is h ighly dependent upon exposure of disturbed unconsolidated soils, and that variability in measured compound levels is correlated with temperature and wind conditions

. Another ARS study of volatilization of certain herbicides after application to fields has found moisture in dew and soils in higher temperature regimes significantly increases volatilization rates ( USDA

- ARS, 2011 )

. Physicochemical characteristics of the individual chemic al have been shown to have little impact on spray drift

. However, unlike spray drift, the potential for post

- application volatilization is primarily a function of the physicochemical properties of the chemical, (e.g., vapor pressure, Henry’s Law constant, etc.), method of application (e.g., soil

- incorporated or not), and the local environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, wind speed). Due to this complexity, the potential for post

- application vapor loss is often measured experimentally.

In EFED ’s Chapter in the Dicamba RED, laboratory volatility data have been summarized for potassium and dimethylamine (DMA) salts of dicamba from a moist soil

. Monsanto has also submitted information to the EPA that summarizes a field study that was conducted to measure the volatilization rate of a dicamba DGA salt formulation from foliage.
DGA Salts Reduce Volatilization ( Monsanto, 2013 ) Monsanto seeks to minimize volatile loss from treated soybean and cotton fields by labeling optimal formulations and salt forms of dicamba. The DGA salt formulation of dicamba, which is proposed for use on DT soybean and DGT cotton, has low volatility

. Side

- by

- side field experiments have indicated that a formulation of the diglycolamine (DGA) salt of dicamba dramatically reduced volatilization of dicamba compared to a similar formulation of the DMA salt form a nd that volatility is not a significant component of offsite movement for the DGA salt of dicamba ( Egan and Mortensen, 2012 )

. The use of formulations of, or similar to, the DGA salt of dicamba will help to limit non

- target plant risk due to post

- application vapor loss. In the publication, the authors state, “Our da ta demonstrate that the diglycolamine formulation has a dramatic effect on reducing dicamba vapor drift

. Estimates of total gram acid equivalent vapor drift outside of the treated area were reduced 94% relative to the dimethylamine formulation, and the dos e

- distance curves indicate that predicted mean exposures drop close to zero only short Page 7

- 17distance s away from the treated area.” Additionally, measured air concentrations when using the DGA salt were at least 70

- fold lower than those in the potassium and DMA salt laboratory studies EFED evaluated, even though the application rate was twice that of DMA ( Mueller et al. , 2013 )

. Monsanto has requested the use of dicamba on DT soybean and DGT cotton only for low

volatility salts, including the DGA salt formulation (U.S. EPA Reg. No. 524

- 582)

. Specific application requirements on the proposed FI FRA product label (currently pending before EPA), and/or any other measures imposed, by EPA will minimize dicamba offsite movement

. Monsanto plans to continue to invest in research and development of new dicamba formulations for use with DT soybean and DGT cotton

. Monsanto and BASF have submitted separate applications to EPA seeking the approval of novel dicamba formulations (EPA File Symbols 7969

- GUL, 524

- ANO and 524

- ARN)

. EPA will review relevant data and information as a part of its registration process and confirm that the product when used according to the approved label directions meets the FIFRA standard before granting a registration including the use on DT soybean or DGT cotton

. Furthermore, Monsanto has indicated that it does not plan to allow grow ers to use dimethylamine salt (DMA) of dicamba and/or dicamba acid on DT soybean or DGT cotton.

Page 7

- 18References:
Al

- Khatib, K and Peterson, D (1999) "Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate." Weed Technology. 13 p 264

- 70. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1614/WT02

- 025

. Al

- Khatib, K and Tamhane, A (1999) "Dry Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Response to Low Rates of Selected Foliar

- and Soil

- Applied Sulfonylurea and Growth Regulator Herbicides." Weed Technology. 13 (4): p 753

- 58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3989007

. Andersen, SM; Clay, SA; Wrage, LJ; and Matthees, D (2004) "Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4

- D and correlation to application rates and yield." Agronomy Journal. 96 p 750

- 60. https:// www.agronomy.org/publications/aj/pdfs/96/3/0750

. Arvidsson, T; Bergstrom, L; and Kreuger, J (2011) "Spray drift as influenced by meteorological
an d technical factors." Pest Management Science. 67 p 586

- 98. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.2114/abstract;jsessioni d=2427D371D5 1395EFCD21AAB01085130D.f02t02

. ASABE (2009) "Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra." American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. http://www.sherwoodpumps.com/FileAttachments/Spray/en

us/Spray%20Tip%20Classification%20by%20Droplet%20Size.pdf

. Auch, DE and Arnold, WE (1978) "Dicamba Use and Injury on Soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota." Weed Sc ience. 26 (5): p 471

- 75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4042904.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

. BASF. "Clarity® herbicide label." Esearch Triangle Park, N C2008. 22. http://agproducts.basf.us/products/label

- and

- msds/clarity

- herbicide

- label.pdf

. Carpenter, J; Felsot, A; Goode, T; Hammig, M; Onstad, D; and Sankula, S (2002) "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology

- derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops." www.cast

- science.org

. Derksen, DA (1989) "Dicamba, chlorsulfuron, and clopyralid as sprayer con taminants on sunflower (Helianthus

- annuus), mustard (Brassica juncea), and lentil (Lens culinaris), respectively." Weed Science. 37 p 616

- 21. Egan, JF and Mortensen, DA (2012) "Quantifying Vapor Drift of Dicamba Herbicides Applied to Soybean." Environment al Toxicology and Chemistry. 31 (5): p 1023

- 31. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.1778/pdf

. Everitt, JD and Keeling, JW (2009) "Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulat ed 2,4

- D and Dicamba Drift." Weed Technology. 23 (4): p 503

- 06. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/WT

- 08

- 061.1

. Felsot, AS; Unsworth, JB; Linders, JBHJ; Roberts, G; Rautman, D; Harris, C; and Carazo, E (2010) "Agrochemical spray drift; Assessment and mitigation." Journal of Environmental Science and Health. B (46): p 889

- 911. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1080/03601234.2010.515161

. Fishel, F (1997) "Pesticides and the Environment." Hahn, L; Theller, L; Reimer, A; and Engel, B. "Pesticides sensitive crops and habitats: Registry implementation results." Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2011. http://www.agrodiv.org/documents/denver11/Endangered%20Species%20Act%20 and%20Regulation/AGRO223_Hahn_Leighanne.pdf

.

Page 7

- 19Hynes, DP and Weller, SC (2010) "Low dose effects of 2,4

- D and dicamba on solanaceae and curcurbitaceae vegetables." 2010 North Central Weed Science Society 65th Annual Meeting: Lexington, KY. Hynes, HDP; Johnson, WG; and Weller, SC (2011) "Injury and yie ld response of transplanted Solanaceae and Cucurbitaceae vegetables to low

- dose applications of 2,4

- D or dicamba." North Central Weed Science Society 66th Annual Meeting: Milwaukee, WI. Johnson, VA; Fisher, LR; Jordan, DL; Edmisten, KE; Stewart, AM; and Y ork, AC (2012) "Cotton, peanut, soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4

- D." Weed Technology. 26 p 195

- 206. Jordan, T; Glenn, N; Johnson, B; and Bauman, T (2009) "Reducing Spray Drift from Glyphosate and Growth Regulator Herbic ide Drift Caution." Purdue University Weed Science. http://www.ag.purdue.edu/btny/weedscience/Documents/ReducingDrift09.pdf

. Jordan, TN and Romanowski, RR (1974) "Compa rison of dicamba and 2,4

- D injury to field

grown tomatoes." Hortscience. 9 p 74

- 75. Kelley, KB; Wax, LM; Hager, AG; and Riechers, DE (2005) "Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides." Weed Science

. 53 p 101

- 12. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/WS

- 04

- 078R

. Kruger, GR; Johnson, WG; Doohan, DJ; and Weller, SC (2012) " Dose Response of Glyphosate and Dicamba on Tomato (Lycopersicon e sculentum) Injury." Weed Technology. 26 p 256

- 60. Leino, P and Haderlie, L (1985) "Simulated herbicide drift injury in potatoes." p 93

- 99. Marple, ME; Al

- Khatib, K; Shoup, D; Peterson, D; and Claassen, M (2007) "Cotton response to simulated drift of seve n hormonal

- type herbicides." Weed Technology. 21 p 987

- 92. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/WT

- 07

- 010.1

. Monsanto (2013) "Petitioner's Environmental Report for Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 and Dicamba and Glufosinate Tolerant Cotton MON 88701." Mueller, TC; Wright, DR; and Remund, KM (2013) "Effect of formulation and application time of day on detecting dicamba in the air under field conditions." Weed Science. 61 p 586

- 93. Olszyk, D; Pfleeger, T; Lee, EH; and Plocher, M (2009) "Pea (Pisum sativum) seed production as an assay for reproductive effects due to herbicides." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 28 p 1920

- 29. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1897/08

- 244.1/full

. Olszyk, D; Pfleeger, T; Lee, EH; and Plocher, M (2010) "Potato (Slanum tuberosum) greenhouse tuber production as an assay for asexual reproduction effects from herbicides." Envir onmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 29 p 111

- 21. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.12/full

. Orr, TB; Wright, JP; and Honegger, JL (2012) "Summary of Investigations of the Po tential for Off

- Site Movement through the Air of the Herbicide MON 54140 Following Ground Applications." Monsanto. Porch, JR; Krueger, HO; Kendall, TZ; and Holmes, C (2009) "BAS 183 09 H (Clarity): A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Subs tance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants." BASF. Schroeder, GL; Cole, DF; and Dexter, AG (1983) "Sugarbeet (Beta valgaris L.) response to simulated spray drift." Weed Science. 31 p 831

- 36. SDTF (1997) " A summary of ground application studies." Spray Drift Task Force. http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Ground.pdf

.
Page 7

- 20TeeJet Technologies (2011) "Catalog 51." Last Accessed: November 27, 2011 http://www.teejet.com/media/408987/cat51

- us_lores_all.pdf

. Tu, M; Hurd, C; and Randall, J (2001) Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas . Ed. Conse rvancy, The Nature: UC Davis, CA. University of Missouri (1997) "Pesticides and the Environment." http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G7520

. US

- EPA (2000) "Profile of the Agricultural Crop Production Indus try." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Profile. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assis tance/sectors/notebo oks/agcrop.pdf

. US

- EPA (2006) "Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dicamba and Associated Salts." Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/dic amba_red.pdf

. US

- EPA (2009a) "Pesticides; Draft guidance for pesticide registrants on pesticide drift labeling

. " http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2009

- 11

- 04/pdf/E9

- 26594.pdf

. US

- EP A (2009b) "Sodium and Potassium Dimethyldithiocarbamate Salts Amendment to the Ferbam (PC Code 034801) and Ziram (PC Code 034805) Reregistration Eligibility Decisions." Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/reregistration/REDs/ddcsalts

- red

- amended.pdf

. US

- EPA (2010) "Pesticide Registration Manual: Chapter 11

- Tolerance Petitions." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/bluebook/chapter11.html

. US

- EPA (2012) "Pesticide issues in the works: pesticide volatilization." http:/ /www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/volatilization.htm

. USDA

- ARS (2011) "At ARS, the Atmosphere Is Right for Air Emissions Studies." USDA

Agricultural Research Service. Last Accessed: November 19, 2013 http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul11/emissions0711.htm?pf=1

. USDA

- NRCS (2000) "Conservation Buffers to Reduce Pesticide Losses." USDA. http ://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/agronomy/newconbuf.pdf

. Wax, LM; Knuth, LA; and Slife, FW (1969) "Response of soybeans to 2,4

- D, dicamba, and picloram." Weed Science. 31 p 831

- 36. http://pioneer

chem.blogspot.com/2012/02/response

- of

- soybeans

- to

- 24

- d

- dicamba.html

. Weidenhamer, JD; Triplett, GB; and Sobotka, FE (1989) "Dicamba injury to soybean." Agronomy Journal. 81 p 388

- 93. https:// www.agronomy.org/publications/aj/pdfs/81/4/AJ0810040637

. Wilson, J (2011a) "Evaluating the weather." South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service. Last Accessed: November 28, 2011 http://pesticidestewardship.org/drift/Pages/EvaluatetheWeatherConditions.aspx

. Wilson, J (2011b) "Managing Drift with Nozzles and Boom Height." South Dakota Cooper ative Extension Service. http://pesticidestewardship.org/drift/Pages/ManagingDriftwithNoozles.aspx

. Wright, JP (2012) "Potential Effects of MON 54140 on Soybean Plant s when Applied at Low Application Rates in the Field." Monsanto. Wright, RJ; Witkowski, JF; and Schulze, LD. "Best Management Practices for Agricultural Pesticides to Protect Water Resources." Neb Guide G93

- 1182

- A : University of Nebraska Cooperative Exten sion: University of Nebraska

- Lincoln, 1996. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/20/19700.htm

.
Page 7

- 21Page 7

- 22

### EPA Assessment of Herbicides U sed on MON Appendix 8. 87708 Soybean and MON 88701 Cotton

Page 8

- 1EPA Regulation of Pesticides The use of pesticides is regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

. The purpose of the Agency’s review is to ensure that the pesticide, “when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice,” will not cause “unreasonable adver se effects on the environment” FIFRA 3(c)(5)(D)

. If the pesticide may be used on food or feed crops, EPA ensures the safety of the food supply by establishing the amount of each pesticide that may safely remain in or on foods

. These maximum pesticide residue levels (called “tolerances”) limit the amount of the pesticide residue that can legally remain in or on foods

. EPA undertakes this analysis under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), and must conclude that such tolerances will be safe, meaning that there is a reasonable ce rtainty that no harm will result from aggregate (food, water and non

- occupational residential/recreational) exposure to the pesticide residues ( US

- EPA, 2013b )

. In addition, when multiple pesticides affec t the same target organs through the same toxicological mode

- of

- action, EPA considers the cumulative effect of those pesticides

. In addition, the FDA and the USDA monitor foods for pesticide residues and work with the EPA to enforce these tolerances ( USDA

AMS, 2013 )

. The use of registered pesticides is further governed by labels, which are legally enforceable and define maximum application rates, total annual application limits, methods of application, and other use restrictions

. To register a new pesticide product, EPA evaluates potential risks to humans and the environment, and typically requires applicants to submit more than 100 different scientific studies conducted according to EPA ’s harmonized test guidelines

. The data required by EPA are used to evaluate whether a pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects on humans (including acute, chronic, reproductive, and carcinogenic risk), wildlif e, fish, and plants (including endangered species and other non

- target organisms, i.e. , organisms against which the pesticide is not intended to act)

. FIFRA was amended in 1988 to require the reregistration of products with active ingredients registered pr ior to November 1, 1984

. In 1996, FIFRA was amended by the FQPA to require reevaluation of all pesticide active ingredient at fifteen year (or shorter) intervals thereafter (a process called Registration Review)

. The amendments called for the development a nd submission of data to support the continued registration of the active ingredient, as well as a review of all data submitted to the EPA

. During the reregistration and registration re view processes, EPA thoroughly reviews the scientific database since a pesticide’s original registration. EPA has responsibility to regulate the use of pesticides ( including herbicides) that may be used on feed crops, and must establish pesticide tolerances (maximum pesticide residue levels) for the amount of pesticide residu e that can legally remain in or on the feed crop

. EPA undertakes this analysis under the authority of the FFDCA, and must conclude that such tolerances will be safe, meaning that there is a “reasonable certainty that no harm” to human health will result fr om the use of the pesticide

. This finding of reasonable certainty of no harm is obligated under the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA of 1996

. Similar to the establishment of pesticide tolerances for food, the EPA will consider the toxicity of the pesticide an d its break

- down products , pesticide use rate and frequency of application ; and how much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue)
Page 8

- 2remains in or on food by the time is it marketed and prepared in its establishment of tolerance for animal feed ( US

- EPA, 2013b )

. MON 87708 Soybean and MON 88701 Cotton T wo petitions were submitted by Monsanto to APHIS seek ing determinations of nonregulated status for GE soybean and cotton cultivars engineered for resistance to herb icides.
APHIS Petition 10

- 188

- 01p is for GE soybean ( Glycine max ), designated as event MON 87708 soybean. It contains a demethylase gene from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia that expresses a dicamba mono

- oxygenase (DMO) protein to confer resistance to the broadleaf herbicide dicamba. DMO protein rapidly demethylates dicamba to the inactive metabolite 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA), a known metabolite of dicamba in non

- GE cotton, soybean, livestock and soil

. APHI S Petition 12

- 185

- 01p is for GE cotton ( Gossypium spp

. ), designated as event MON 88701 cotton, that is also resistant to dicamba as a result of the expression of the DMO protein

. MON 88701 cotton also contains a bialaphos resistance ( bar ) gene from Strept omyces hygroscopicus that expresses the phosphinothricin N

- acetyltransferase [PAT ( bar )] protein to confer tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate

. The PAT ( bar ) protein acetylates the free amino group of glufosinate to produce non

- herbicidal N

- acetyl glufo sinate, a known metabolite in glufosinate

tolerant plants ( OECD, 2002 )

. As wit h any other GE crop deregulated by APHIS, deregulated status of these two events would include dicamba

- resistant soybean, dicamba

- and glufosinate

- resistant cotton, any progeny derived from crosses between MON 87708 soybean and conventional or other previously deregulated GE soybean variet i es, and any progeny derived from crosses between MON 88701 cotton and conventional or other previously deregulated GE cotton variet i es. Monsanto has indicated that both MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotto n will be combined with glyphosate

- resistance traits utilizing traditional breeding techniques.
Monsanto has submitted pesticide registration petitions to EPA requesting Section 3 registration for the use of dicamba on dicamba

- resistant soybean and cotton. For these petitions, Monsanto is requesting to establish new tolerances for dicamba

- resistant soybean forage at 45 ppm and for dicamba tolerant soybean hay at 70 ppm. Monsanto is also requesting to amend the cotton un

delinted seed tolerance from 0.2 pp m to 3.0 ppm and establish a new tolerance for cotton gin byproducts at 70.0 ppm.
A brief overview of the three herbicides (dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate) that are intended to be used on the two Monsanto events are presented in the following secti ons. Additionally, the proposed uses of these herbicides on MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton and any EPA assessments performed assessing the potential effects from the new uses are summarized.
Di camba Background and Current Uses Dicamba ( b enzoic aci d, 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- methoxy

- , aka 3,6

- dichloro

- o
- anisic acid ) is a selective systemic herbicide belonging to the benzoic acid chemical family. Dicamba is a broadleaf selective herbicide that was approved by the EPA for agricultural application uses in 1967 ( US

Page 8

- 3EPA, 2006 ; 2009c )

. Dicamba is registered for use on agricultural crops and for use as spot and broadcast treatments on turf, in addition to residential uses. Dicamba is currently labeled for weed control in corn, soybean, cotton, sorghum, wh eat, barley, oats, millet, pasture, rangeland, asparagus, sugarcane, turf, grass grown for seed, conservation reserve programs, and fallow croplands . The herbicide is currently registered for use on both soybeans and cotton as pre

- plant applications and no t as post emergence applications because crop injury could occur if dicamba were to come in contact with roots, stems, or foliage. Dicamba belongs to the auxin class of herbicides, which is the oldest class of known synthetic herbicides. This class inclu des 2,4

- D, 2,4

- DB, mecoprop, MCPA, clopyralid, and several other active ingredients, and is WSSA Herbicide Group Number 4 ( HRAC, 2009 )

. 1 On the bas is of their structural and chemical properties, auxinic herbicides have been classified into several sub

groups, viz., phenoxyalkanoic acids (e.g., 2,4

- D, MCPA), benzoic acids (e.g., dicamba, chloramben), pyridines (e.g., picloram, clopyralid), and quinoli necarboxylic acids (e.g., quinclorac, quinmerac). Generally, auxinic herbicides are effective against broadleaf (dicotyledonous) plant species, allowing them to often be used in production of narrow leaf (monocotyledonous) crops

. V arious salt formulations of d icamba are formulated as standalone herbicide product s and marketed by several companies under various trade names such as Banvel®, Clarity®, Diablo®, Rifle®, Sterling®, and Vision®

. These dicamba products can also be tank

- mixed with one or more active ingredients depending on the crop to be treated

. For example, Clarity® can be tank mixed with over 75 herbicide products in labeled crops

. Additionally, dicamba is currently formulated as a premix product with one or more other herbicide active ingredients, including glyphosate, 2,4

- D, diflufenzopyr, atrazine, nicosulfuron, metsulfuron, primsulfuron, triazulfuron, rimsulfuron, and halosulfuron

. Dicamba

- treated acreage has ranged from 17.4 to 36.3 million acres between 1990 and 2011

. Usage of dica mba peaked during the period of 1994 through 1997, where 1994 was the peak year when 36 million crop acres were treated with 9.4 million pounds of dicamba

. T he use of dicamba steadily declined to 17.4 million treated acres with 2.7 million pounds applied i n 2006

. The reduction in dicamba use has been attributed to the competitive market introductions of sulfonylurea herbicides (chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron

- methyl, and thifensulfuron

- methyl) in wheat, new broadleaf herbicide active ingredients in corn, and int roduction of glyphosate

- tolerant corn

. More recently, however, dicamba

- treated acres have been on the rise and have increased by as much as 7.9 million acres between 2006 to 2011

. Most of this increase has occurred in fallow, pastureland, sorghum, and cott on (pre

- plant) ( Monsanto, 2012 )

. Dicamba

- treated acres have increased in cotton, in particular, because it is a common pre

- plant herbicide recommendation for glyphosate

- resistant marestail (horseweed) and Palmer amaranth in the Midsouth region ( McClelland et al. , 2006 )

. Figure 8

- 1 shows the changes in dicamba use by year and crop from 1992 through 2011.

1 There are several systems of herbicide mode

- of action classification. Among the most widely used are those of the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) and the Weed Science Society of America

.

Page 8

- 4Approximately 25.3 million acres of crops were treated with dic amba in 2011 (see Table 8

- 1 for a summary of the dicamba

- treated acres by crop in 2011). Figure 8

- 2 shows a map reflecting the
e stimated a gricultural u se for d icamba in 2011. Heavy dicamba usage occurred in the Mid

- West and states along the Mississippi River. Dicamba is currently labeled for use in conventional or glyphosate

- resistant soybean, although dicamba use is extremely limited because applications are restricted to ver y early preplant and/or preharvest applications due to soybean (crop) injury concerns. The dicamba

- treated acreage in 2011 soybean production was approximately 872,000 acres, representing 1.2 % of the total soybean acreage (Table 8

- 1) ( Monsanto, 2012 )

. Dicamba can currently be applied to cotton in the U.S. as a pre

- plant application, at least 21 days prior to planting

.

Figure 8

- 1 . Dicamba Use by Year and Crop, 1992

- 2011. Source: ( USGS, 2013a )

Page 8

- 5Figure 8

- 2 . Estimated Agricultural Use for Dicamba, 2011. Source: ( USGS, 2013a )

. Table 8

- 1
. Dicamba

- Treated Acres and Amounts Applied for Labeled Crops, 201 1

Crop Total Crop Acres ( x 1, 000) Dicamba

Treated

Acres (000) % U.S. Dicamba

Treated Acres 2 % Crop Acres Treated

with Dicamba 3 Dicamba (a.e.) ( x1, 000 lb) Asparagus 29 2 0.01 NA <1 Barley 2,460 80 0.3 3.2 6 Corn 92,146 10,880 43.0 10.3 1,531 Cotton 14,533 1,416 5.6 9.6 364 Fallow 14,899 3,966 15.7 18.7 597 Pastureland 95,532 2,009 7.9 2.0 438 Sorghum 5,315 1,316 5.2 18.1 206 Soybean 74,835 872 3.4 1.2 233 Sugarcane 825 163 0.6 15.6 36 Wheat, all 53,223 4,532 17.9 7.4 418 All other uses NA 65 0.3 NA 9 Total 25,301 100.0 3,837

Page 8

- 6Definitions: a.e. = acid equivalent; lbs = pounds; NA = not applicable. 1 Source : ( Monsanto, 2012 ; 2013 )

. 2 The percentage of the total dicamba

- treated acres for all labeled crops and uses. 3 Percentages calculated from crop acres treated with dicamba (data not show n).
Based on USDA

- NASS ( ( USDA

- NASS, 2005 ; 2007 ; 2010 ; 2011 ; 2012 ) ) statistics, dicamba application rates ranged from 0.07 to 0.24 pounds per acre with the average number of applications rangin g from 1 to 1.9 applications per cropping season. Dicamba rates are lowest in barley, wheat and oats, where typically more than one application is made in these crops per cropping season (see Table 8

- 2) ( Monsanto, 2012 )

. Table 8

- 2 . Dicamba Applications

– Average Number and Rates to Labeled Crops 1

Crop # of D icamba Applications Rate of Dicamba per Application Rate of Dicamba per Crop Year Corn 1.2 0.209 0.249 Cotton 1.0 0.244 0.244 Sorghum 1.9 0.159 0.298 Soybean 1.0 0.223 0.223 Barley 1.0 0.112 0.112 Wheat, spring

- 0.110 0.113 Wheat, winter 1.7 0.149 0.247 Oats 1.00 0.066 0.066
1 Source: ( USDA

- NASS, 2005 ) (oats), ( USDA

- NASS, 2007 ) (cotton), ( USDA

- NASS, 2010 ) (corn), ( USD A

- NASS, 2011 ) (barley & sorghum), ( USDA

- NASS, 2012 ) (soybean & wheat) ; ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. EPA has evaluated dicamba and has concluded that it has a complete and comprehensive regulatory database (toxicity, environmental fate, and ecological toxicity). EPA completed the reregistration process for dicamba and a Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) was issued in 2006 and subsequently amended in 2008 and 2009 ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009c ) . EPA concluded there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, as a result of aggregate (co mbined) exposure to dicamba residues; and that the available data submitted for dicamba are complete and adequate to support the continued registration of dicamba products and uses including current uses on commercial cotton and soybean. Part of EPA’s risk assessment included exposure to drinking water using a conservative modeled scenario that assumed that essentially all (87%) crop acres within the watershed were treated with dicamba ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009c ; 2011 )

. EPA reassessed all di camba pesticide food and feed tolerances as part of the dicamba RED, including the 10 ppm soybean seed tolerance supporting the existing use in conventional soybean ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009c )

. A complete listing of dicamba feed tolerances can be found at 40 CFR § 180.227

. Permanent t olerances are e stablished under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(1) for dicamba and its 3,6

- dichloro

- 5

- hydroxybenzoic acid (5

- hydroxydicamba) metabolite. Additional tolerances
are established under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(2) for dicamba and its 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid (aka 3,6

- diclorosalicyclic acid or DCSA) metabolite, as well as under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(3) for dicamba, 5

- hydroxydicamba, and the DCSA metabolite. Table 8

- 3 l ists the current tolerances established for commodities of cotton and soybean.

Page 8

- 7Table 8

- 3 . Tolerances for Residues of Dicamba Commodity Tolerance (parts per million) Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Soybean, hulls 1 30.0 Soybean, seed 1 10.0 Source: 40 CFR §180.227 Dicamba; tolerances for residues.

1 Tolerance established for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determin ed by measuring only the residues of dicamba, 3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid, and its metabolites, 3,6

- dichloro

- 5

- hydroxy

- o
- anisic acid, and 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba

.
EPA Assessments of Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Dicamba

- resistant Soybean and Cotton Before any application of dicamba can be made onto commercially cultivated dicamba

- resistant soybean or cotton , the EPA must first approve a label describing the conditions of use of the herbicide in connection with dicamba

- resistant soybean and cotton

– including the appropriate application rates and timing, and other measures necessary to address potential impacts of dicamba offsite movement. The dicamba product used for treating dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton proposed for registration is the M1691 Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 524

- 582) which is a soluble (flowable) concentrate formulation. This end

– use product contains 56.8% active ingredient in the form of the d iglycolamine salt (DGA) of dicamba (equivalent to 4.0 lb ae/gal). A summary of the proposed directions for use taken directly from the supplemental M1691 herbicide label provided by the registrant are presented below in Table 8

- 4. Monsanto has submitted an application to U .S. EPA to amend Registration Number 524

- 582, a low volatility DGA salt formulation, to remove all preemergence planting restrictions (intervals and rainfall) and to allow in

- crop postemergence dicamba applications to MON 87708 soybean through the R1/R2 gr owth stage. Once approved, growers would be authorized to apply dicamba alone or in mixtures with glyphosate or other herbicides for preplant or in

- crop postemergence applications on MON 87708 soybean. Dicamba would be authorized to be applied preemergen ce up to crop emergence as a single application or split applications up to a total of 1.0 lb a.e. per acre, and up to two postemergence applications up to 0.5 lb a.e. per acre each through the R1/R2 growth stage of soybean. The maximum annual application rate of dicamba on MON 87708 soybean is 2.0 lb dicamba a.e. per acre. The proposed dicamba use on soybean is summarized in Table 8

- 4

. If the proposed label is approved by EPA, dicamba would be authorized to be applied up to 1.0 lb a.e. per acre any time prior to cotton emergence, and postemergence in

- crop up to 0.5 lbs a.e. per acre per application up through seven days prior to harvest

. Maximum application amounts for dicamba would be 1.0 lb a.e. per acre for preplant/preemergence applications and 0.5 lb a.e. per acre per in

- crop application with the combined total not to exceed 2.0 lbs a.e. dicamba per Page 8

- 8year for all applications

. The proposed application rates on MON 88701 cotton would be less than or equivalent to rates for dicamba established for other uses in the dicamba RED including the 2.0 lbs a.e. dicamba per year for all applications ( US

- EPA, 2006 ; 2009c )

. The proposed dicamba use on soybean is summarized in Table 8

- 4

. Following EPA approval of the dicamba label amendment, growers would be authorized to apply dicamba alone or in mixtures with glyphosate, glufosinate, or other registered herbicides for pre

plant or post

- emergence in

- crop applications on MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton

. Dicamba residue levels in soybean seed harvest ed from dicamba tolerant ( DT ) soybean treated with dicamba at more than twice the anticipated commercial in

- crop application rate were less than 0 .1 ppm, which is well below the established 10 ppm pesticide residue tolerance supporting dicamba use on commercial soybean . Soybean forage and hay, which can be feed to livestock, have no established tolerance, for that reason Monsanto is also petitioning (Pesticide Petition # 0F7725) the agency for the establishment of new tolerances on forage (45 ppm) and hay (70 ppm)

. Monsanto has requested a registration of an expanded use of a low

- volatility DGA dicamba formulation on DT soybean, and petitioned (Pesticide Petition # 0F7725) the EPA to establish new feed tolerances on soybean forage (45 ppm) and soybean hay (70 ppm)

. Tolerances for soybean forage and hay for current dicamba uses in conventional soybean were not previously established because the current preharvest application is made past the sta ge where the crop would be useful as forage or hay

. No other revisions to dicamba pesticide residue tolerances are needed including animal products such as meat or milk

. Monsanto has petitioned (Pesticide Petition # 0F7725) EPA to establish new feed toler ances on soybean forage (45 ppm) and soybean hay (70 ppm)

. Tolerances for soybean forage and hay for current dicamba uses in conventional soybean were not previously established because the current preharvest application is made past the stage where the cr op would be useful as forage or hay

. No other revisions to dicamba pesticide residue tolerances are needed including animal products such as meat or milk

. Dicamba residue levels in cotton seed harvested from dicamba

- glufosinate tolerant ( D GT ) cotton treate d with dicamba at the anticipated commercial in

- crop application rate , and were 0.54 ppm , which is greater than th e established 0.2 ppm pesticide residue tolerance supporting dicamba use on commercial cotton (40 CFR § 180.227) which is for the combined res idues of parent dicamba and its metabolite 5

- hydroxy dicamba

. Cotton gin by

- products, which serve as a ruminant feed supplement, have no established dicamba tolerance PP 2F8067 for the expanded use of dicamba on MON 88701, an increase in the dicamba resid ue tolerance from 0.2 ppm to 3 ppm for cottonseed, the establishment of a tolerance of 70 ppm for cotton gin by

- products, and the inclusion of DCSA in the residue definitions for cottonseed and gin by

- products.
Based on the studies submitted on the DGA sal t formulation of dicamba by Monsanto , EPA has conducted draft assessments on the potential environmental fate , ecological effects , and human health effects of the proposed new uses of dicamba DGA salt. The conclusions from those assessments are summarized in this section. EPA will be publishing these complete draft analyses in the Federal Register for public comment.
Page 8

- 9Table 8

- 4
. Summary o f Directions for Proposed Use s of Dicamba on MON 87708 S oybean and MON 88701 C otton
Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.] Applic. Timing, Type, and

Equip. Max. Applic.

Rate (lb ae/A) Max. No. Applic ation per Season Max. Seasonal Applic ation Rate (lb ae/A) Combined Max. Seasonal Applic ation Rate (lb ae/A) RTI 1
(days) PHI 2
(days) Use Directions and Limitations 3

MON 87708 Soybean

M1691 4.0 lb ae/gal SL [524

- 582] Pre

emergence
Broadcast (20 gal/A) 1.0 NS 4 1.0 2.0 7 7 The maximum rate for any single, in

- crop (post

- emergence) application must not exceed 0.5 lb dicamba a.e. per

acre. A second post

emergence application may follow up to the R1 reproductive stage Post

emergence, Broadcast (20 gal/A) 0.5 NS 2.0

MON 88701 Cotton

M1691 4.0 lb ae/gal SL [524

- 582] Pre

emergence
Broadcast (20 gal/A) 1.0 NS 4 1.0 2.0 7 7 Use of a COC or MSO is not recommended with Roundup branded herbicides. These adjuvants are only used when other products require them. For best results apply at min spray rate of 10 GPA. Post

emergence, Broadcast (20 gal/A) 0.5 NS 2.0

1 RTI = Re

- Treatment Interval 2 PHI = Pre

- Harvest Interval 3 COC = Crop Oil Concentrate; MSO = Methylated Seed Oil. 4 NS = Not Specified

Page 8

- 10Human Health Risk Assessment The EPA Health Effects Division (HED) of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is charged with estimating the risk to human health from exposure to pesticides. HED evaluated hazard and exposure data and conducted dietary, residential (non

- occupational), aggregate, and occupational exposure assessments to estimate the risk to human health that will result from the proposed new use of the DGA salt form ulation of dicamba on dicamba

- resistant soybean and cotton . Based on information contained in Monsanto’s pesticide petition and the label conditions HED has concluded that the request for a registration for the use of the DGA salt formulation of dicamba
o n dicamba

- resistant soybean and cotton would pose a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans

. A summary of the results of the assessment are provided, below. The draft assessment will be published by EPA in the Federal Register for public review and comm ent.

“ Monsanto has submitted new metabolism studies for dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton, which show that dicamba generally follows the same metabolic pathway to other plants. Dicamba applied to dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton is converted to the non

herbicide metabolite 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) and its glycosidic conjugates, which are the main metabolites formed. In a minor metabolic pathway , DCSA is hydroxylated at the 5

- position, to form 2,5

- dichloro

- 3, 6

- dihydroxybenzoic acid (DCGA)
a nd its glycosidic conjugates, which are found in amounts less than 10% of the total radioactive residue (TRR). The dicamba metabolite 5

- hydroxydicamba was not identified in the TRR of dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton.
The nature of residues for dicamb a

- tolerant soybean and cotton is understood. The residues of concern (ROC) for monitoring the tolerance under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(3) for soybean includes parent dicamba, and the metabolites 5

- hydroxydicamba, and DCSA remains appropriate. Data from the ne wly submitted metabolism and field trial studies support including residues of DCSA to the tolerance expression for cotton to fall under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(3). These data also necessitate including DCGA to the ROCs for the risk assessment of soybean whi ch include the residues established for tolerance expression (parent, 5

- hydroxydicamba, and DCSA).
The nature of dicamba residues in animals and in rotational crops were previously determined based on acceptable studies. The establishment of a tolerance on soybean forage and hay , as well as on cotton gin byproducts will not increase livestock dietary burden; therefore, no new revised tolerances on livestock commodities are required to support this petition. The residue values obtained from the field trial studies were evaluated using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculation procedures for estimating tolerances/Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). Using the OECD calculation proce dures, and inputting the total residue, which includes the sum of the parent compound, and its metabolites 5

- OH dicamba, and DCSA, expressed as parent equivalents, tolerances of 60 ppm for soybean forage and 100 ppm for soybean hay are recommended. The cur rent tolerances of 10 ppm in soybean seed and 30 ppm in soybean hull are adequate. For cotton, the OECD calculation procedures determined that the recommended tolerances of 3.0 ppm for cotton undelinted seed and 70.0 ppm for cotton

Page 8

- 11gin byproducts are appr opriate. The US EPA and PMRA (Canada) established a harmonized tolerance (MRL) for soybean on seed at 10 ppm. There are currently no Mexican, Canadian or Codex MRLs established for soybean forage and hay as well as in cotton gin byproducts

. There are MR Ls of 0.2 ppm in Mexico and 0.04 ppm established by Codex on cotton seed currently established. Since the registrant has requested a late season use of dicamba on dicamba

- tolerant cotton, the currently established international tolerances are in adequate t o cover residues likely from the newly proposed use in the U.S. In addition, the dicamba residues of concern for dicamba

- tolerant cotton also include the DCSA metabolite which is not found nor regulated in the other common varieties of cotton. Therefore, harmonization is not possible at this time for cotton seed. Since there are no international tolerances on cotton gin byproducts, there is no issue of international harmonization relevant to that tolerance. There are no proposed residential uses at thi s time; however, there are existing residential uses that have been reassessed in this document to reflect updates to HED’s 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The residential handler and post

application risk estimates are not of concer n for dicamba for all scenarios and all routes of exposure.
The label

- required personal protective equipment (PPE) include that mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers wear a long

- sleeved shirt and long pants, socks, shoes, and chemical

- resistant gloves (except for applicators using ground boom equipment, pilots or flaggers). The restricted entry interval (REI) on the proposed label is 24 hours. The occupational handler and post

- application risk estimates are not of concern for dicamba for all sce narios and all routes of exposure for the use on herbicid e

- tolerant cotton and soybean.”
Environmental Fate and Ecological Risks The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed a review of the new use request for the herbicide dicamba [M16 91 Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 524

- 582 diglycolamine salt of dicamba (DGA); PC code 128931)] for use on dicamba

- tolerant soybeans (MON 87708). Dicamba is currently registered for use on soybeans at applications rates similar to those proposed for the new use. The use of dicamba on soybeans was assessed by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) in 2005 (USEPA, 2005, D317696). The primary difference between the proposed new use on soybeans and the previous soybean use assessed is the timing of the app lications. The current registration for dicamba use on soybeans is limited to pre

emergence applications; however, for the proposed new use on dicamba

- tolerant soybeans, dicamba could be applied pre

- emergence and/or post

- emergence. Therefore, an abbreviate d ecological risk assessment is provided. The draft assessment will be published by EPA in the Federal Register for public review and comment. The results are summarized as follows:

“ Based on the proposed maximum application rates, there is a potential for direct adverse effects to listed and non

- listed birds (acute exposure), listed and non

- listed mammals

Page 8

- 12(chronic exposure), listed vascular aquatic plants, and listed and non

- listed terrestrial dicots from the proposed new use. This assessment uses new subm itted information on the toxicity of diglycolamine salt of dicamba (DGA) to terrestrial plants. Although for monocots toxicity of the DGA salt formuation is decreased compared to TGAI dicamba acid, the vegetative vigor data indicate that toxicity in the DG A salt formulation is enhanced for dicots. It is unclear if the enhanced toxicity to dicots is due to synergistic effects with surfactants and adjuvants in the formulation used (Clarity Herbicide, EPA Reg No. 7969

- 137, 56.8% DGA salt) or due to the DGA salt itself. The study with TGAI dicamba acid did not use surfactants or adjuvants. Although levels of concern were not exceeded for listed and non

- listed species of monocots, exceedances for monocots would occur if toxicity data for dicamba acid was used in place of the data for the DGA salt. Risks to aquatic animals from chronic exposure to dicamba could not be assessed at this time because of a lack of data; therefore, since risk to these taxa cannot be precluded, it is assumed.
At this time, no federall y
- listed taxa can be excluded from the potential for direct and/or indirect effects from the proposed new use of dicamba, since there is a potential for indirect effects to taxa that might rely on plants, birds, aquatic animals, and/or mammals for some sta ge of their life

- cycle. A complete co

- occurrence analysis could not be completed for listed species at this time, since the specific use site associated with the proposed new use of dicamba ( dicambatolerant soybeans) is not available for analysis in LOCAT ES. Therefore, without further refinement, no species currently listed as federally threatened or endangered can be excluded from the potential for adverse effects from the proposed new use of dicamba. Although the risks, based on standard risk assessment methods used by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), are not expected to differ from the previous assessment done for dicamba use on soybeans (because the rates are similar to those already assessed), there is potential for other ecological concerns that would not normally be captured using our standard risk assessment methods. These concerns are related to a potential increase in usage of dicamba products and the proposed changes in the timing of applications. In general, there is also a pot ential for increased susceptibility of late season plants to direct impact from off

site transport. Thus, unlike previous assessments of dicamba the risk conclusions in this assessment have increased uncertainty. ”
Glufosinate Ammonium G lu f osin a te is a nons e l ec tive h er bi c ide th a t is registered for preplant and post

- emergent applications to c ont r ol broadleaf weeds in a variety of crop and non

- crop areas

. Additionally, it is also used as a defoliant and as a means of conducting chemical burndown.
Sin c e it is a nons e l ec tive h e r bi c ide it inju r e s or kill s cr op pl a nts th a t it c ont ac t s. G lufosinate is a contact herbicide which is taken up by the plant primarily through the leaves. There is no uptake from the soil through the roots, presumably because of the rapid degradation of glufosinate by soil microorganisms. There is limited translocation of glufosinate within the plant. Glufosinate herbicides contain the active ingredient phosphinothricin and are in the phosphinic acid family of herbicides. The herbicide acts by blocking the plant enzyme glutamine synthetase, which is responsible for nitrogen metabolism and for detoxifying ammonia, a by

product of plant metabolism. The exposed plant dies by the over

- accumulation of ammonia ( US

- EPA, 2008 )

.
Page 8

- 13First registered with EPA in 1993, initial glufosinate end

- use products were designed for home owners; light industrial, non

- food users; and farmstead , weed

- control users ( OSTP, 2001 )

. Glufosinate is registered for use on apples, berries, canola, citrus, corn, cotton, currants, grapes, grass grown for seed, olives, po me fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit, sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for noncrop areas include golf course turf, residential lawns, ornamentals, and a variety of industrial and public areas. Application rates of glufosinate range sig nificantly by use pattern, with the highest rate allowed for broadcast (ground) spray applications, at 1.5 lb a.i./A, on orchard nuts and fruits, grapes, grasses grown for seed, and golf course turf. On the low end of application rates, labeled uses of gl ufosinate on turf and patio are at 0.03 lb a.i./A. Multiple applications are allowed by most labels, although the interval is not generally specified ( US

- EPA, 2008 )

. Based on its proprietary data for the period from 2007

– 2011, EPA esti mated that the highest annual agricultural uses of glufosinate are in corn (1.3 million lb), almonds (200,000 lb), cotton (200,000 lb), grapes (200,000 lb), canola (100,000 lb) and soybeans (100,000 lb) (Table 8

- 5 ) ( US

- EPA, 2012a ) . Almonds, cotton, and grapes are also appreciable uses reported in the BEAD analysis. Uses which have not been calculated do not imply zero use, though they are likely low in comparison to those uses that are quantified in Table 8

- 5 . Stone fruits, such as peaches, cherries, and plums/prunes, are new uses which were approved in 2012. Registered non

agricultural uses, such as fallow fields, lawns and gardens, conifer tree areas, and non

- crop areas ( e.g. , farmstead building foundations, shelter belts, along fences, etc. ) are not captured in the above data. These data do not include non

- agricultural uses ( US

- EPA, 2013a )

. The map in Figure 8

- 3 shows the use of glufosinate from 2011, with most use of glufosinat e concentrated in the Midwest ( USGS, 2013b )

. Figure 8

- 4 shows the increasing use of glufosinate in crops ( USGS, 2013b )

.

Page 8

- 14Table 8

- 5
. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Glufosinate , 2007

- 2011
.

Source: ( US

- EPA, 2012a ; 2013a )

.

Page 8

- 15Figure 8

- 3
. Estimated Annual Agricultural Use of Glufosinate in the U.S

. Source: ( USGS, 2013b )

.

Figure 8

- 4
. Glufosinate Use by Year and Crop, 1992 to 2011 Source: ( USGS, 2013b )

. Both aer ial and ground spray is allowed for most uses, although some applications are limited to methods using hand wands and backpack sprayers. As glufosinate is designed primarily to control broadleaf weeds, applications are normally ground applications, to prev ent damage to crops. Aerial application is considered a viable option for genetically modified crops ( e.g. ,

Page 8

- 16canola, corn, cotton, rice, sugarbeets, and soybeans) that are resistant to glufosinate’s herbicidal properties, and for burndown applications.
S e v era l cr o p pl a nts h a ve b ee n modi f i e d b y ins e r ting a g e ne th a t p r odu ce s a n e n z y me w h i c h d e to x i f i e s g lu f osin a te b y c on v er ti n g the h e r bi c ide into a non

- ac tive f o r m. The PAT ( bar ) protein acetylates the free amino group of glufosinate to produce non

- herbicidal N

- acetyl glufosinate, a known metabolite in glufosinate

- tolerant plants ( OECD, 2002 )

. B a y e r C r op S c i e n c e h a s r e g ist e re d g lu f osin a te f or use on g lu f osi n a te

- resistant cr ops, in c luding corn, s o y b e a n, and cotton. I gnite 280 S L Her bi c ide (E PA R e g

. N o

. 264

- 829) is a c omm e r c i a l l y a v a il a ble g lu f osin a te
c ont a ini n g h e r bi c ide w ith di rec tions f o r use on g lu f osin a te

- resistant cr ops. Glufosinate is currently labeled for in

- crop application with glufosinate

- tolerant cotton from emergence through early bloom growth stage ( Bayer CropScience, 2011 ) (Table 8

- 6)

. Table 8

- 6 . Current Labeled Application Rates for Glufosinate

- resistant Cotton. Use Pattern 1 st Application (Burndown) 2 nd Application 3 rd Application Season Maximum
Cotton Use Pattern 1 22

- 29 fl oz/A 22

- 29 fl oz/A 22

- 29 fl oz/A 87 fl oz/A

Cotton Use Pattern 2 30

- 43 fl oz/A 22

- 29 fl oz/A None 72 fl oz/A

Source: ( Bayer CropScience, 2011 )

. Due to its nons e l ec tive a c tivi t y , g lu f osin a te h a s a wee d m a n a g e m e nt sp e c t r um simil a r to g l y phos a te a nd its use h a s g r o w n, p ar ti c ul a r l y in a rea s w ith g l y phos a t e

- re s i st a nt wee ds ( Southeast Farm Press, 2012 ) . In the southeast in 2011, glufosinate was the ninth most frequently used herbicide on soybean

. Glufosinate use is likely to continue to follow the recent trend of increased use associated with the adoption of glufosinate

- resistant crops. Although glufosinate provides an additional means of weed control, it is not as versatile as glyphosate. For e xample, g lu f osin a te n ee ds to be a ppli e d to sm a ll e r wee ds w ith f in e r d r opl e t si z e s a nd l a r g e r c a rr i e r volum e s to ac hi e ve a d e qu a te c o n t r ol. This is in part because, unlike glyphosate which translocates readily throughout the plant, glufosinate h a s limit e d mobili t y and t hus re qui r es b e tt e r c ov er a ge f or c ont r ol ( h e n c e the l a r g e r ca rr i e r vol u m e s a nd sm a ll e r d r opl e t s i z e s ) ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. Products include Derringer ® (Reg. No.432

- 1228), Derringer ® F Herbicide (Reg. No. 432

- 960), Finale ® Su per Concentrate (Reg. No.432

- 954), Finale ® Ready

- to

- Use (Reg. No. 432

- 955), Finale ® Concentrate (Reg. No. 432

- 956), Finale ® Herbicide (Reg. No. 432

- 1229), Glufosinate 280 (Reg. No. 88685

- 2), Liberty ® (Reg. No. 264

- 660), Liberty ® ATZ (Reg. No. 264

- 668), Lib erty 280 ® (Reg. No. 264

- 829), Rely ® (Reg. No. 264

- 652), and Remove ® (Reg. No. 264

- 663). The EPA

- established glufosinate residue tolerances are 4.0 ppm and 15.0 ppm for cottonseed and gin by

- products, respectively (40 CFR 180.473). Both of these tolerances include the combined residues of parent glufosinate and its metabolites N

- acetyl glufosinate and 3

- methylphosphinico

propionic acid.
Page 8

- 17Currently glufosinate is undergoing Registration Review at EPA with a decision expected by the end of 2013 ( US

- EPA, 2008 )

. It is expected that EPA will affirm the safety and efficacy of glufosinate and approve its continued use in the marketplace upon completion of the registration process.
Glufosinate Use on MON 88701 Cotton
Glufosinate use on MON 88701 co tton will be equivalent to currently deregulated glufosinate

resistant cotton. The use pattern and rate of glufosinate application on MON 88701 cotton will follow the existing glufosinate

- resistant cotton uses outlined on the existing glufosinate herbicide label ( Bayer Crop Science, 2007 ) . L ike commercially available glufosinate

- resistant cotton, MON 88701 cotton enables application of up to 0.53 lb a.i. per acre per application of glufosinate from emergence through early bloom growth stage. Monsanto has confirmed that glufosinate residues on MON 88701 cotton treated with commercial glufosinate rates are below the established pesticide residue tolerances established by EPA for both cottonseed and gin by

products (40 CFR 180.473). Consequently, Monsanto is not pursu ing any changes in the glufosinate labe l or the established tolerances for its use on MON 88701 cotton ( Monsanto, 2013 )

. Glyph osate Glyphosate acid is a broad spectrum, nonselective s ystemic herbicide widely used to control most annual and perennial grass and broadleaf weeds in agricultural crops and non

- agricultural sites. The herbicide is registered for pre

- and post

- emergence application on a variety of fruit, vegetable, and field crops, as well as for aquatic and terrestrial uses. Labeled uses of glyphosate include over 100 terrestrial food crops as well as other non

- food sites including forestry, greenhouse, non

- crop, and residential. Glyphosate can also be used as a plant growth regulator and accelerate fruit ripening. Additionally, glyphosate is registered for use on GE glyphosate

- resistant crops, including canola, corn, cotton, soybeans, alfalfa, and sugar beets. G lyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on U.S. corn , soybean , and cotton

. Glyphosate was first introduced under the trade name of Roundup TM by Monsanto in 1974. Glyphosate salts serve as the source of the active ingredient (a

. i

. ) N

- (phosphonomethyl) glycine and improve handling, performance, and concentration of the glyphosate acid. Glyphosate is distributed in several forms, including technical grade glyphosate, isoproplyamine salt, monoammonium salt, diammonium salt, N

- methylmethanamine salt , trimethylsulfonium salt, or potassium salt ( US

- EPA, 2009b ) . I sopropylamine salt is the most typically used form in formulated products ( Henderson, 2010 )

. Glyphosate acid is a nonselective Group 9 herbicide and kills plants by inhibiting the 5

- enolpyruvylshikimate

- 3

- phosphate synthase (ESPS) enzyme. This enzyme is essential for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (e.g., tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine) and other aromatic compounds in algae, higher plants, bacteria and fungi. By cr eating a deficiency in EPSP enzyme and aromatic amino acids production, glyphosate affects protein synthesis and plant growth ( US

- EPA, 2009b )

. Glyphosate is absorbed across the leaves and stems of plants and moves throughout the plant, concentrating in the meristem tissue ( Henderson, 2010 )

. Glyphosate use is concentrated heavily in the Midwest, along the Mississippi River, the Southeast seaboard, and the Central Valley of California , as depicted in Fig ure 8

- 5

. Page 8

- 18Figure 8

- 5
. Estimated Agricultu ral Use for Glyphosate , 2011 Source: ( USGS, 2013c )

. Based on pesticide usage data from USDA

- NASS, private pesticide market research, and California Depar tment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), EPA estimated glyphosate usage from 2004 through 2011. The crops with the highest glyphosate uses (based on average treated fraction of acreage) were: almond (85%), apples (55%), apricots (55%), asparagus (55%), avocad os (45%), barley (20%), blueberries (20%), canola (65%), cherries (65%), corn (60%), cotton (85%), cucumbers (20%), dates (20%), dry beans/peas (25%), fallow (55%), figs (40%), grapefruit (80%), grapes (70%), hazelnuts (70%), kiwifruit (30%), lemons (70%), nectarines (45%), olives (45%), onions (30%), oranges (90%), peaches (55%), peanuts (20%), pears (65%), pecans (35%), peppers (20%), plums (65%), pumpkins (20%), rice (25%), sorghum (40%), soybeans (95%), squash (20%), sugar beets (50%), sugarcane (45%), sunflowers (55%), tangelos (55%), tangerines (65%), tomatoes (35%), walnuts (75%), and wheat (25%). All other treated crops averaged 15% or less of the total acreage grown ( US

- EPA, 2012b )

. Figure 8

- 6 shows the glyphosate use on crops from 1992 to 2011. The current approved maximum pre

- emergence application of glyphosate on glyphosate

- resistant corn or soybeans is 3.7 lb a

. e

. /acre. A glyphosate post

- emergence application from 0.75 to 1.5 lb
a

. e

. /acre (total 2.25 lb/acre/season post

- emergence) and an additional pre

- harvest application of 0.77 lb a

. e

. /acre are permitted. The current maximum total seasonal use rate for glyphosate on gl yphosate

- resistant corn and soybean is 6 lb a

. e

. /acre

. Page 8

- 19Figure 8

- 6
. Glyphosate Use by Year and Crop, 1992 to 2011. Source: ( USGS, 2013c )

. Pesticide residue tolerances for glyphosate are listed in 40 CFR Part 180.364 , representing combined r esidues of glyphosate, N

- (phosphonomethyl)glycine and its metabolite N

- acetyl

glyphosate (expressed as glyphosate) ( US

- EPA, 2010 )

. Table 8

- 7 shows the current tolerances for residues of glyphosate established for corn and soybean commodities.
Table 8

- 7
. Glyphosate Tolerances for Corn and Soybean Commodities Commodity Residue (parts per million) Cotton, gin byproducts 210 Soybean, forage 100 Soybean, hay 200 Soybean, hulls 120 Soybean, seed 20 Source: 40 CFR 180.364 EPA is currently conducting a registration review of glyphosate which was begun in 20 09 and is currently scheduled to be completed in 201 5 ( US

- EPA, 2009a ) . According to EPA, as part of their review, “ the Agency plans to require a number of ecological fate and effects studies, an acute and subchronic neurotoxicity study, and an immunotoxicity study through a data call

- in, which is expected to be issued in 2010. The new information will be used to conduct a comprehensive ecological risk assessment, including an endangered species assessment, as well as a revised occupational human health risk assessment, for all glyphosate pesticidal uses ( US

- EPA, 2009a ) .”
All documents related to the glyphosate registration review can be viewed at the registra tion review docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0361
Page 8

- 20MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton are intended to be combined with glyphosate

resistant varieties utilizing traditional breeding techniques

. The combined system will support long term sustainability of weed management in soybean and cotton and, in turn, support sustained, economic cotton production.

References : Bayer Crop Science. "Liberty ® herbicide label." Bayer CropScience . Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer Crop Science, 2007. Bayer CropScience (2011) "Ingite 280 SL Herbicide Label 5a " Bayer CropScience. http://fs1.agrian.com/pdfs/Ignite_280_SL_Herbicide_Label5a.pdf

. Henderson, AMG, J. A.; Luukinen, B.; Buhl, K.; Stone, D. "Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet." Ed. National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extensio n Services.2010. 14. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf

. HRAC (2009) "Classification of herbicides according to mode of action." Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ClassificationofHerbicideModeofA ction/tabid/222/Default.aspx

. McClelland, MR; Smith, KL; and Norsworthy, JK (2006) "Managing Glyphosate

- Resistant Horseweed in Conservation

- Tillage Cotton Production: Final Summary and Recommendations." AAES Research Series. p 108

- 11. Monsanto. "Unpublished grower survey data performed by a contracting agency." St. Louis, Missouri: Mon santo Company, 2012. Monsanto. "Petitioner’s environmental report for dicamba

- tolerant soybean MON 87708 and dicamba

- and glufosinate

- tolerant cotton MON 88701." St. Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Company, 2013. Vol. November 22, 2013. OECD (2002) "Module II: H erbicide biochemistry, herbicide metabolism and the residues in glufosinate

- ammonium (Phosphinothricin)

- tolentant transgenic plants

. " OSTP (2001) "Case Studies of Environmental Regulation for Biotechnology: Herbicide

- Tolerant Soybean." The White House Of fice of Science and Technology Policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/Issues/ceq_ostp_study4.pdf

. Southeast Farm Press (2012) "Glufosinate herbicide s hortage sparks controversy." http://southeastfarmpress.com/cotton/glufosinate

- herbicide

- shortage

sparks

- controversy

. US

- EPA (2006) "Reregistration Eligib ility Decision for Dicamba and Associated Salts." Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/dicamba_red.pdf

. US

- EPA (2008) "Glufosinate final work plan registration review: August 2008

. " US

- EPA (2009a) "Glyphosate Final Work Plan (FWP)

- Registration Review Case Number 0178

. " Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0361

- 0042

. US

- EPA (2009b) "Registration Review

- Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments for Glyphosate and Its Salts (PC Code 4173 00, 103601, 103604, 103607, 103608, 103613, 103603, 103605,

Page 8

- 21128501)." http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0361

- 0007

. US

- EPA (2009c) "Sodi um and Potassium Dimethyldithiocarbamate Salts Amendment to the Ferbam (PC Code 034801) and Ziram (PC Code 034805) Reregistration Eligibility Decisions." Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/reregistration/REDs/ddcsalts

- red

- amended.pdf

. US

- EPA (2010) "40 CFR §180.364

- Glyphosate; tolerances for residues. ." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/180

- 364

- glyphosate

- tolerances

- residues

19814904

. US

- EPA (2011) "2011 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories

. " US

- EPA (2012a) "Glufosinate (128850) Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

. " Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0190

- 0029

. US

- EPA (2012b) "Upda ted Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) Report in Support of Registration Review of Glyphosate

. " Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. http://www.r egulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0361

- 0045

. US

- EPA (2013a) "Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of the Herbicide, Glufosinate

- ammonium." US

- EPA (2013b) "Setting tolerances for pesticide residues in foods

. " Last Accessed: November 5, 2013 http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/stprf.htm

. USDA

- AMS (2013) "Pesticide data program annual summary, calendar year 2011

. " http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5102692

. USDA

- NASS (2005) "Agricultural Statistics 2005." USDA

- National agricultural Statistics Service. USDA

- NASS (2007) "Census of Agriculture: Summary and State Data Volume 1 • Geographic Area Series • Part 51." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA

- NASS (2010) "Agricultural Statistics 2010." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. U SDA

- NASS (2011) "Agricultural Statistics 2011." UDSA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA

- NASS (2012) "Census of Agricultrue

- Preliminary Report." USDA

- National Agricultural Statistics Service. USGS. "Pesticide Use Maps

- Dicamba." Pesticide Nat ional Synthesis Project 2013a. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2011&map= DICAMBA&hilo=L&disp=Dicamba

. USGS. "Pes ticide Use Maps

- Glufosinate." Pesticide National Synthesis Project 2013b. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php? year=2011&map= GLUFOSINATE&hilo=H&disp=Glufosinate

. USGS. "Pesticide Use Maps

- Glyphosate." Pesticide National Synthesis Project 2013c. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2011&map= GLYPHOSATE&hilo=H&disp=Glyphosate

.

Page 8

- 22

### Appendix 9

. Monsanto Tillage Report

Page 9

- 1[ This document has been submitted by Monsanto Company for use by USDA APHIS in support of a request for nonregulated status for Xtend soybean and cotton crops
. USDA APHIS has chosen to include this secti on in its entirety because it is the most recent and comprehensive regional analysis of agricultural tillage

. ]

Introduction Recently there have been speculation and in some cases, reports , that the growth of conservation tillage acres and , in particular , no

- till acres has slowed or is reversing in some parts of the country. Accordingly , Monsanto undertook an analysis of grower market research information from an independent market research company and follow up consultation with leading conservation tillage experts to understand more precisely current tillage trends and reasons for these trends in key soybean , corn and cotton growing areas.

M ultiple factors could influenc e conservation tillage practices. G rowth in the spread of glyphosate

- resistant weed populations has been speculated or reported to be one such factor, because of the need for some farmers to incorporate more tillage into their farming operations in order to control some difficult to control weed species, such as Palmer amaranth . F or example, where populations of glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth have grown large in areas such as Georgia, western Tennessee, and Arkansas , weed control experts recommend deep pre

- plant tillage as one way to reduce the population before other weed control measures are applied ( Culpepper, et al. 20 13 ; Culpepper, et al. 2011 ; Price, et al. 2011 )

. However, growers and leading conservation experts themselves report a range of factors other than weed management that can and do influence farmer practices relative to conservation tillage practices

. Materials and Methods This analysis used market research data from a n unpublished national grower survey conducted by a third party market research company . The data retrieved from this database included the number of crop acres planted conventionally, in a no

- till system , or in a reduced tillage system

. No

- till acres are defined as those in which the farmer d oes not till the ground after the harvest of the last crop and before planting a new crop. Reduced tillage (r educed

- till) is defined as situations where the farmer practices various types of reduced tillage after harvest of the last crop and before planting the new crop where significant crop residues (~ 15%

- 30%) are left on the soil surface. Examples of reduced tillage practices include ridge

- till (planting row crops on permanent ridges), strip

- till (planting crops directly in narrow strips that had been til led), and mulch

- till (any reduced tillage system that leaves at least 1/3 of soil surface covered with crop residue)

. Conventional tillage (conventional) is defined as situations where the farmer conducts several tillage operations such that the new crop is planted into soil with little to no surface residue.

The farmer market research d ata w as sorted by crop (soybeans, cotton , and corn ) and state. Select ed states were combined into growing region s ( East, Midwest , Southeast , Mid

- South , and W est , as indicated in Table 1 )

. Data was retrieved for the period from 1998 through 2013 for soybeans and corn , and through 2012 for cotton (Note: 2013 cotton data from the market
Page 9

- 2research company is not current ly available )

. The estimated acreage of each tillage type for each crop and growing region was converted to percent of total crop planted acreage and submitted for statistical regression analysis over the designated time period. The data was analyzed to fit a linear o r quadratic regression model at the 5% level of significance. D etails o f the statistical analysis are provided in the statistical report found in Appendix A [of the Environmental Report (ER)]

. To understand possible reasons for some of the changes observ ed in this data set, Monsanto worked with CTIC (Conservation Tillage Information Center, www.ctic.org ) to conduct a survey of leading conservation tillage experts in select Midwest , Southeast ern and Mid

- South

. ( Note: experts from these areas were surveyed because they represent the major regions for the production of soybean, corn and cotton, and because they represent the areas with the highest levels of herbicide resistant weeds). In this survey , the experts were asked to indicate the level of importance of 11 different factors to farmers as they make decisions as to which tillage system and in general how much tillage they will use on their farm(s). Examples of factors included “manage excess cr op residue,” “manage existing weeds,” “manage disease,” “economics,” and “prevent weed resistance.” To rank the factors, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to “ not important or not mentioned ” and 4 assigned to

“ ex tremely important ”

. The experts were not limited in the number of factors to which they could assign an individual ranking. ( i.e. , the experts could rank all

– or none

– of the 11 factors as “extremely important”)

. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the experts and then added together for each factor . The factors with the 5 highest numerical sums are listed in Table 3 for each crop and region. The detailed results of this survey for corn, soybeans and cotton can be found in Appendix B [of the ER]

. Table 1
. States in each Geographic Region Region Crop Focus States East Corn, soybean Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia
Southeast Corn, cotton, soybean Alabama, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Virginia, Florida Mid

- South Corn, cotton, soybean Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee

Midwest Corn, cotton, soybean Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota West Corn, cotton, soybean Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

Page 9

- 3Results and Discussion
A summary of the results of the grower market research data analysis on tillage trends can be found in Table 2. Key points are as follows:

• From 1998 to 2007, the conventional tillage acreage decreased and no

- till acres increased across all crops and geographic areas. Likewise, reduced tillage acres generally increased during this time period , although for some areas and crops, no significant relationship between the tillage practice and time could be detected

. T he growth in no

- til l and reduced tillage acres coincides with, and was facilitated by , the growth in glyphosate

tolerant corn, soybean and cotton acres ( Givens, et al. 2009a ; Givens, et al. 2009b ; McClelland, et al. 2000 ; Osteen and Fernandez

- Cornejo 2013 ; Sankula 2006 ; Towery and Werblow 2010 )

.

• Since 2007, however, some crops in some geographic areas have continued to see growth in no

- till acreage, while other crops in other geographic areas have seen decreases in no

till acreage, accompanied by an increase in conventional and/or reduced tillage acreage. A more detailed, crop

- by

- crop discussion is presented below.

• Corn: From 1998 to 2007, the conventional tillage acreage decreased and no

- till acres increased across all geographic areas. From 2007 through 2013, the trends varied across region s :

o In the West and East, conventional tilled corn acr es continued to decrease, and
no

- till acreage continued to increase. Reduced tillage acres also increased in the West, but there was no clear trend in the East.

o In the Midwest, conventional tilled corn acres contin ued to decrease but there appeared to be a shift from strict no

- til l practices to reduced tillage acres where some tillage is practiced but significant (15%

- 30%) crop residues remain on the surface at planting

.
o In the Southeast , conventional tillage acres planted to corn tended to level off or increase while no

- till acres tended to decrease.

o In the Mid

- South , there were no significant trends in conventional or no

- till acreage, but reduced till acres increased throughout the time period.

• Soybean: From 1998 to 2007, the conventional tillage acreage decreased and no

- till acres increased across all geographic areas. From 2007

- 2013, the trends varied across region:

o In the West, conventional tilled soybean acres continued to decrease, and no

- till
acrea ge continued to increase. There was no significant trend for reduced tillage
acres.

o In the East, Midwest, Southeast and Mid

- South regions, conventional tilled soybean acres were flat or increas ing, while no

- till acres were flat or decreas ing

. R educed tillage acres in the Midwest increased during the same time period, but there was no clear relationship between time and reduced tillage plantings in the
Page 9

- 4East, Southeast or Mid

- South regions (not significant at the 95% confidence interval). Thus, i n the M idwest , the reduction in no

- till acres appears in large part to be offset by an increase in reduced tillage acres , but similar offsetting does not appear to be occurring in other regions.

• Cotton: From 1998 to 2007, the conventional tillage acreage decre ased and no

- till acres increased across all geographic areas. From 2007

- 2012, the trends varied across regions:

o In the West, conventional tilled soybean acres continued to decrease, and no

- till acreage continued to increase. Reduced tillage acres also continued to increase.

o I n the Midwest, Southeast and Mid

- South, conventionally

- tilled cotton acres tended to be flat or increase , while a clear increase was found in the Mid

- South region. Reduced tillage acres increased in the Midwest and Southeast d uring this period , but both no

- till and reduced tillage acreages decreased in the Mid

- South region

. Thus, in the Midwest and Southeast, the reduction in no

- till acres appears in large part to be offset by an increase in reduced tillage acres, but similar offset ting does not appear to be occurring in the Mid

- South.

Overall , changes in tillage practices from 2007 to 2012 (cotton) / 20 13 (soybean and corn) varied by crop and region relative to changes seen in the earlier period from 1998 to 2006 where consistent trends were observed across all the regions (i.e. , increase in no

- till and reduced tillage with a decrease in conventional tillage systems). In order to understand the reasons growers adopt specific tillage practices , a survey was conducted of top conservation tillage experts across the Midwest (for corn and soybeans) , Southeast and Mid

- South regions (combined, for corn, soybeans , and cotton)

. In Table 3 , the top 5 factors , according to conservation tillage experts, governing farmer decisions relative to which tillage practice they adopt for their farm are provided by crop and region of the country. Key findings included:

• Economics (i.e. , the importance of cost of production and/or commodity prices), and managing soi l moisture (i.e. , less tillage conserves soil moisture) were top

- 5 factors across all the crops and regions.

• Seed bed preparation was a top

- 5 factor in 4 out of 5 crop x region segments

.

• M anaging excessive crop residue (i.e. , excessive prior crop residue may require more tillage) and managing weeds (existing weeds or preventing weed resistance) were important factors in 3 out of 5 crop x region segments.

• Managing weeds was an important factor across all soybean and cotton regional segments , but w as not a top 5 factor for corn in either regional segment

. Th e difference between corn and the other crops is likely because growers have a broad range of herbicide options (including atrazine, dicamba and 2,4

- D) that are effective against species that ar e difficult to control in soybeans and cotton , i.e., glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth and waterhemp. This survey of conservation tillage experts highlights that farmers consider multiple factors when making decisions as to wha t type tillage system to employ. Page 9

- 5Conclusions
From 1998

- 2007, no

- till acreage increased steadily across all crops and all regions, with an accompanying decrease in conventional tillage. A more complicated picture emerged after 2007, with some crops and regions continuing to exper ience increases in no

- till and decreases in conventional tillage , while other crops and regions experienced decreases in no

- till acreage, either accompanied by increases in reduced tillage acreage and/ or in conventional tillage. Based upon information pr ovided by conservation tillage experts regarding the most important factors governing farmer’s decisions with respect to tillage practices , no one factor is dr iving these changes. Managing existing h erbicide resistance and/or mitigating the potential for resistance to develop is a factor is some regions

. For example , academics have been recommending more pre

- plant tillage in parts of the Southeast and Mid

- South (AR, western TN, and MS) in order to better manage glyp hosat e

- resistant Palmer amaranth

. But weed resistance management/mitigation does not appear to be a driver for other crops and regions. Indeed, the survey results indicate that higher corn and soybean grain prices , along with more focus on seed bed preparation , is likely to be a reason for some of switch to conventional tillage since a better stand (and thus higher potential yields) can usually be achieved in conventional tillage systems. Moreover, newer corn varie ties can produce excessive crop residue , which may also be causing a move to more tillage and may be needed to optimize crop stands in this period of high grain prices. Based upon the tillage trends seen over the last 5

- 6 years and with the information o n the factors most influencing farmers’ decision on tillage practices, more study, appropriately directed research, education, and new technology from a weed management and crop production standpoint are needed to maintain and further grow conservation til lage practices. In some areas and for some crops, managing existing herbicide resistance and/or mitigating the potential for resistance to develop has been reported as an important factor in influencing farmer tillage decisions. DT soybean and DGT cotton are two new herbicide technologies that have the characteristics that can significantly assist in reversing stagnated and downward trends and promote new growth in conservation tillage acres. Weed management has always been a limiting factor for many far mers in determining whether to adopt no

- till production practices because farmers had to rely primarily on soil residual herbicides. Glyphosate, in glyphosate

- tolerant crops, with its broad spectrum post

- emergence control provided a way to achieve consist ent weed control in these situations and facilitated an increase in adoption of no

till and, in general, conservation tillage practices ( Fawcett and Towry, 2002 )

. The effectiveness of dicamba to provide post

- emergent control of broadleaf weeds, suggests that it too will promote adoption of no

- till and conservation tillage practices. Additionally, dicamba’s ability to control glyphosate resistant broadleaf weeds and its compatibility with glyphosate are characteristics that will facilitate the promotion of conservation tillage practices.

Page 9

- 6Table 2. Trends in Tillage Practices in Soybean, Corn and Cotton Crop Geography Tillage system Trend
1998

- 2007 2007

- 2012/13 Corn West Conventional Dec Dec No

- till Inc Inc Reduced

- till Inc Inc Midwest Conventional Dec Dec No

- till Inc Flat/Dec 1 Reduced

- till Dec Inc Southeast Conventional Dec Flat/Inc 1 No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till NS NS Mid

- South Conventional NS NS No

- till NS NS Reduced

- till Inc Inc East Conventional Dec Dec No

- till Inc Inc Reduced

- till NS NS Soybeans West Conventional Dec Dec No

- till Inc Inc Reduced

- till NS NS Midwest Conventional Dec Flat/Inc 1 No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till Dec Inc Southeast Conventional Dec Flat No

- till Inc Flat Reduced

- till NS NS Mid

- South Conventional Dec Inc No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till NS NS East Conventional Dec Flat/Inc 1 No

- till Inc Flat/Dec 1 Reduced

- till NS NS

Page 9

- 7Table 2 (continued). Trends in Tillage Practices in Soybean, Corn and Cotton Crop Geography Tillage system Trend
1998

- 2007 2007

- 2012/13 Cotton West Conventional Dec Dec No

- till Inc Inc Reduced

- till Inc Inc Southeast Conventional Dec Flat/Inc 1 No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till Inc Inc Midwest Conventional Dec Flat/Inc 1 No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till Inc Inc Mid

- South Conventional Dec Inc No

- till Inc Dec Reduced

- till Inc Dec NS=no significant trend at 5% C onfidence I nterval Inc= Increase Dec=decrease Flat=no change Source of data is propriety grower market research data (Monsanto, 2013).
1 Where the trend is indicated as two phases (i.e. Flat/Dec), this means that statistically t he trend is for no change over the designated time period but the slope over the last two years of the time period tended to be either reflective of an increase or a decrease.

Table 3. Top 5 Factors G overning Farmer’s Tillage Practice Decisions

Factor Midwest Corn (14 Experts) Midwest Soybeans (13 Experts) South Corn (6 Experts) South Soybeans (6 Experts) South Cotton (6 Experts)

1 Managing soil moisture Excessive crop residue Economics Economics Economics

2 Seed bed preparation Seed bed preparation Seed bed preparation Managing existing weeds Managing existing weeds 3 Economics Economics Excessive crop residue Seed bed preparation Availability of Labor

4 Excessive crop residue Managing existing weeds Improving water penetration Managing soil moistu re Managing soil moisture

5 Managing soil temperature Managing soil moisture Managing soil moisture Preventing weed resistance Use of strip till / vertical tillage tools

Page 9

- 8References:

Culpepper, A.S., J. Kichler and A.C. York. 2013. University of Georgia programs for controlling Palmer amaranth in 2013 cotton. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, Athens, Georgia. Culpepper, A.S., A.C. York and L.E. Steckel. 2011. Glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth management in cotton. 2011 Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Fawcett, R. and D. Towery. 2002. Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow. Conservation Technology Infor mation Center, Purdue, Indiana. Givens, W.A., D.R. Shaw, W.G. Johnson, S.C. Weller, B.G. Young, R.G. Wilson, M.D.K. Owen and D. Jordan. 2009a. A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate

- resistant cropping systems. Weed Technology 23:156

- 161. Givens, W.A., D.R. Shaw, G.R. Kruger, W.G. Johnson, S.C. Weller, B.G. Young, R.G. Wilson, M.D.K. Owen and D. Jordan. 2009b. Survey of tillage trends following the adoption of glyphosate

- resistant crops. Weed Technology 23:150

- 155.
McClelland, M.R., J.L. Barrentine, K.J. Bryant and E.P. Webster. 2000. Roundup Ready cotton programs in conservation tillage. Pages 197

- 201 in Proceedings of the 2000 Cotton Research Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Osteen, C.D. and J. Fernandez

- Cornejo. 2013. Economic and poli cy issues of U.S. agricultural pesticide use trends. Pest Management Science 69:1001

- 1025. Price, A.J., K.S. Balkcom, S.A. Culpepper, J.A. Kelton, R.L. Nichols and H. Schomberg. 2011. Glyphosate

- resistant Palmer amaranth: A threat to conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66:265

- 275. Sankula, S. 2006. Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology

- derived crops planted in 2005. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C. Towery, D. and S. Wer blow. 2010. Facilitating conservation farming practices and enhancing environmental sustainability with agricultural biotechnology: Exective summary. Conservation Technology Information Center, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Page 9

- 9A ppendix A: Statistical Analysis of Tillage Market Research Data Summary of Statistical Analysis of Tillage Data Purpose Assess if tillage practices have significantly changed between 1998 and 2007, and between 2007 and 2013 (or 2012, for cotton)

. Data Description For the analysis PROC MEANS in SAS was used to calculate the acres that utilized each tillage type and total acres for each crop, region and year. The percent of total acres was calculated by dividing acres that utilized each tillage typ e by total acres.

Statistical Methods and Results A quadratic regression model of the following form was fit for each crop, region and tillage type combination: Percent of total acres = β 0 + β 1 *Year + β 2 *Year* Year + ε (1) in which β 0 is the intercept, β 1 is the linear slope, β 2 is the quadratic slope and ε is the residual error. PROC MIXED in SAS was used to fit model (1) separately for each crop, region and tillage type combination. Tests were performed to determine if the quadratic slopes of the regression lines were significantly different from zero. These tests are displayed in Table 1. Twenty of the 42 tests observed quadratic slopes that were significantly different from zero at the 5% level of significance.

In the 20 cases where the quadratic slopes were significant, a quadratic regression model was deemed appropriate. For the 22 cases where the quadratic slopes were not significant, a linear regression model of the following form was fit for each crop, region and tillage type
co mbination: Percent of total acres = β 0 + β 1 *Year + ε (2) in which β 0 is the intercept, β 1 is the linear slope and ε is the residual error. PROC MIXED in SAS was used to fit model (2) separately for each crop, region and tillage type combination. Te sts were performed to determine if the linear slopes of the regression lines were significantly different from zero. These tests are displayed in Table 2. Fourteen of the 22 tests observed linear slopes that were significantly different from zero at the 5% level of significance. In the 14 cases where the linear slopes were s ignificant, a linear regression model was deemed appropriate. For the 8 cases where the linear slopes were not significant, there was no significant change in tillage practices over time.

Page 9

- 10Conclusions In 8 of the 42 crop, region and tillage type combinations there was no significant change over time. In 14 of the 42 crop, region and tillage type combinations the change over time can be described using a linear regression model. In 20 of the 42 crop, region and tillage type combinations the change over time can be described using a quadratic regressi on model. The regression parameter estimates for the crop and region combinations with a significant the change over time, are displayed in Table 3. Plots of the percent total acres data and model fit are displayed in the Appendix.

Page 9

- 11Table A

- 1. Tests t o Determine if the Quadratic Slopes of the Regression Lines Were Significantly Different From Zero
Crop Region Tillage_Type P

- value Corn East Conservation 0.1381 Corn East Conventional 0.6663 Corn East No

- Till 0.1161 Corn MidSouth Conservation 0.5547 Corn MidSouth Conventional 0.1925 Corn MidSouth No

- Till 0.0582 Corn MidWest Conservation 0.0218 * Corn MidWest Conventional 0.5444 Corn MidWest No

- Till 0.0015 * Corn Southeast Conservation 0.1322 Corn Southeast Conventional 0.0038 * Corn Southeast No

- Till 0.0018 * Corn West Conservation 0.9108 Corn West Conventional 0.2174 Corn West No

- Till 0.1183 Cotton MidSouth Conservation 0.0018 * Cotton MidSouth Conventional <.0001 * Cotton MidSouth No

- Till <.0001 * Cotton MidWest Conservation 0.2096 Cotton MidWest Conventional 0.0017 * Cotton MidWest No

- Till <.0001 * Cotton Southeast Conservation 0.7367 Cotton Southeast Conventional 0.0002 * Cotton Southeast No

- Till <.0001 * Cotton West Conservation 0.0539 Cotton West Conventional 0.0582 Cotton West No

- Till 0.8615 Soybeans East Conservation 0.4610 Soybeans East Conventional 0.0051 *

Page 9

- 12Table A

- 1 (continued). Tests to Determine if the Quadratic Slopes of the Regression Lines Were Significantly Different From Zero
Crop Region Tillage_Type P

- value Soybeans East No

- Till 0.0017 * Soybeans MidSouth Conservation 0.5038 Soybeans MidSouth Conventional 0.0003 * Soybeans MidSouth No

- Till 0.0013 * Soybeans MidWest Conservation 0.0006 * Soybeans MidWest Conventional 0.0056 * Soybeans MidWest No

- Till 0.0002 * Soybeans Southeast Conservation 0.3208 Soybeans Southeast Conventional 0.0495 * Soybeans Southeast No

- Till 0.0447 * Soybeans West Conservation 0.1184 Soybeans West Conventional 0.0921 Soybeans West No

- Till 0.7472

Note: Twenty of the 42 tests observed quadratic slopes that were significantly different from zero at the 5% level of significance. The tests that were significant at the 5% level are marked with an ‘*’.

Page 9

- 13Table A

- 2. Tests to Determine if the Linear Slopes of the Regression Lines Were Significantly Different From Zero
Crop Region Tillage_Type P

- value Corn East Conservation 0.2078 Corn East Conventional <.0001 * Corn East No

- Till <.0001 * Corn MidSouth Conservation 0.0195 * Corn MidSouth Conventional 0.4904 Corn MidSouth No

- Till 0.3690 Corn MidWest Conventional 0.0011 * Corn Southeast Conservation 0.0835 Corn West Conservation 0.0011 * Corn West Conventional <.0001 * Corn West No

- Till 0.0114 * Cotton MidWest Conservation 0.0210 * Cotton Southeast Conservation <.0001 * Cotton West Conservation <.0001 * Cotton West Conventional <.0001 * Cotton West No

- Till 0.0001 * Soybeans East Conservation 0.1917 Soybeans MidSouth Conservation 0.1896 Soybeans Southeast Conservation 0.6675 Soybeans West Conservation 0.1233 Soybeans West Conventional 0.0067 * Soybeans West No

- Till 0.0002 *

Note: Fourteen of the 22 tests observed linear slopes that were significantly different from zero at the 5% level of significance. The tests that were significant at the 5% level are marked with an ‘*’.

Page 9

- 14Table A

- 3. Regression Parameter Estimates for t he Crop and Region Combinations with a Significant the Change in Tillage Over Time
Crop Region Tillage Type Intercept Year Year*Year Corn East Conventional 3466.72

- 1.7079

. Corn East No

- Till

- 3039.87 1.5340

. Corn MidSouth Conservation

- 1769.03 0.8933

. Corn MidWest Conservation 300587

- 299.62 0.07467 Corn MidWest Conventional 1114.90

- 0.5355

. Corn MidWest No

- Till

- 383597 381.93

- 0.09506 Corn Southeast Conventional 766604

- 763.20 0.1900 Corn Southeast No

- Till

- 1202619 1198.66

- 0.2987 Corn West Conservation

- 2375.58 1.1991

. Corn West Conventional 3782.79

- 1.8592

. Corn West No

- Till

- 1307.20 0.6601

. Cotton MidSouth Conservation

- 1044452 1041.04

- 0.2594 Cotton MidSouth Conventional 2648507

- 2639.72 0.6577 Cotton MidSouth No

- Till

- 1603955 1598.68

- 0.3983 Cotton MidWest Conservation

- 2277.83 1.1529

. Cotton MidWest Conventional 1707629

- 1701.22 0.4237 Cotton MidWest No

- Till

- 2295716 2289.07

- 0.5706 Cotton Southeast Conservation

- 3534.42 1.7786

. Cotton Southeast Conventional 1405216

- 1399.58 0.3485 Cotton Southeast No

- Till

- 1304016 1300.48

- 0.3242 Cotton West Conservation

- 2656.63 1.3372

. Cotton West Conventional 4244.03

- 2.0828

. Cotton West No

- Till

- 1487.40 0.7456

. Soybeans East Conventional 902937

- 899.02 0.2238 Soybeans East No

- Till

- 1061879 1057.33

- 0.2632 Soybeans MidSouth Conventional 1373279

- 1368.84 0.3411 Soybeans MidSouth No

- Till

- 1208347 1204.77

- 0.3003 Soybeans MidWest Conservation 387479

- 386.03 0.09615 Soybeans MidWest Conventional 311116

- 309.83 0.07714

Page 9

- 15Table A

- 3 (continued). Regression Parameter Estimates for the Crop and Region Combinations with a Significant the Change in Tillage Over Time
Crop Region Tillage Type Intercept Year Year*Year Soybeans MidWest No

- Till

- 698495 695.85

- 0.1733 Soybeans Southeast Conventional 600500

- 597.28 0.1485 Soybeans Southeast No

- Till

- 768636 765.12

- 0.1904 Soybeans West Conventional 3901.95

- 1.9250

. Soybeans West No

- Till

- 6423.22 3.2204

.

Page 9

- 16Appendi x A Figures

Figures

Page 9

- 17Page 9

- 18Page 9

- 19Page 9

- 20Page 9

- 21Page 9

- 22Page 9

- 23Page 9

- 24Page 9

- 25Page 9

- 26Page 9

- 27Page 9

- 28Page 9

- 29Page 9

- 30Page 9

- 31Page 9

- 32Page 9

- 33Page 9

- 34Page 9

- 35Page 9

- 36Page 9

- 37Page 9

- 38Page 9

- 39Page 9

- 40Page 9

- 41Page 9

- 42Page 9

- 43Page 9

- 44Page 9

- 45Page 9

- 46Page 9

- 47Page 9

- 48Page 9

- 49Page 9

- 50Page 9

- 51Page 9

- 52Page 9

- 53Page 9

- 54Page 9

- 55Page 9

- 56Page 9

- 57Page 9

- 58Appendix B: CTIC Survey Results of Leading Conservation Tillage Experts The following pages summarize the results of the CTIC (Conservation Tillage Information Center) survey of 21 total (14 in Midwest and 7 in South) leading conservation tillage experts across the key agronomic regions of the U.S. for soybean, corn and cotton production. These experts were asked to rate the importance of 11 factors that could influence tillage practices of growers in their region. Re sponses the the question below are summarized on the following pages. Question: In general, how important are the following factors to the majority of the farmers in your region as they determine the total amount of tillage done to produce corn, regardle ss of whether the tillage is done prior to planting or done during the growing season? Choose the rating below that best reflects the importance of each factor in determining the amount of tillage being used.

Page 9

- 59Table B

- 1. Midwest Corn (14 total Ex perts) Number of Experts Responding

Manage

excess crop residue Manage existing weeds Manage d isease Manage
s oil moisture Manage s oil temperature Prevent weed resistance Seed bed preparation Use of
s trip till / vertical tillage tools Economics Availability of l abor Water penetration

Not important / Not mentioned 4 6 4 4 4 8 4 6 6 8 6

Sometimes important 4 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 4 Quite important 2 2 4 5 5 2 3 2 3 2 Extremely important 4 3 1 2 2 2 5 3 7 1 2 Ranking Sum 1 34 30 30 33 33 26 37 30 36 25 28

1 Ranking Sum was calculated as follows, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to ‘not i mportant or not mentioned’ and 4 assigned to ‘extremely important’. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the experts and then added together for each factor.

Page 9

- 60Table B

- 2. Midwest Soybean (13 total Experts) Number of Experts Responding
Manage

excess crop residue Manage existing weeds Manage d isease Manage
s oil moisture Manage s oil temperature Prevent weed resistance Seed bed preparation Use of
s trip till / vertical tillage tools Economics Availability of l abor Water penetration

Not important / Not mentioned 6 4 7 3 5 6 4 10 4 2 4

Sometimes important 0 4 2 6 4 3 2 1 3 6 5 Quite important 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 2 Extremely important 6 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 1 1 Ranking Sum 1 33 30 25 29 28 26 33 20 32 27 24

1 Ranking Sum was calculated as follows, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to ‘not i mportant or not mentioned’ and 4 assigned to ‘extremely important’. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the experts and then added together for each factor.

Page 9

- 61Table B

- 3. South Corn (6 total Experts) Number of Experts Responding
Manage

excess crop residue Manage existing weeds Manage d isease Manage
s oil moisture Manage s oil temperature Prevent weed resistance Seed bed preparation Use of
s trip till / vertical tillage tools Economics Availability of l abor Water penetration

Not important / Not mentioned 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 2

Sometimes important 1 1 2 4 5 2 1 2 1 3 1 Quite important 3 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 Extremely important 1 1 1 3 1 2 Ranking Sum 1 13 11 10 14 11 13 18 12 20 14 15

1 Ranking Sum was calculated as follows, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to ‘not i mportant or not mentioned’ and 4 assigned to ‘extremely important’. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the experts and then added together for each factor.

Page 9

- 62Table B

- 4. South

- Soybean (6 total Experts) Number of Experts Responding
Manage

excess crop residue Manage existing weeds Manage d isease Manage
s oil moisture Manage s oil temperature Prevent weed resistance Seed bed preparation Use of
s trip till / vertical tillage tools Economics Availability of l abor Water penetration

Not important / Not mentioned 3 4 2 1 1 1

Sometimes important 2 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 Quite important 1 3 1 2 4 3 2 3 1 1 Extremely important 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Ranking Sum 1 10 17 9 16 10 18 17 13 19 12 14

1 Ranking Sum was calculated as follows, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to ‘not important or not mentioned’ and 4 assigned to ‘extremely important’. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the e xperts and then added together for each factor.

Page 9

- 63Table B

- 5. South

- Cotton (6 total Experts) Number of Experts Responding
Manage

excess crop residue Manage existing weeds Manage d isease Manage
s oil moisture Manage s oil temperature Prevent weed resistance Seed bed preparation Use of
s trip till / vertical tillage tools Economics Availability of l abor Water penetration

Not important / Not mentioned 3 2 1 2

Sometimes important 4 3 2 2 3 4 1 3 2 1 Quite important 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 Extremely important 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Ranking Sum 1 15 17 10 17 11 18 16 16 20 17 14

1 Ranking Sum was calculated as follows, a number from 1 to 4 was assigned to each response category, with 1 assigned to ‘not i mportant or not mentioned’ and 4 assigned to ‘extremely important’. The assigned number was multiplied by the number of responses from the experts and then added together for each factor.

Page 9

- 64

### Appendix 10. EPA Resistance Management Requirements for Registration of Dow Agrosciences Enlist Duo TM

Page 10

- 1Th e following text in this appendix contains excerpts regarding the weed resistance management requirements specified in the U.S. EPA’s Proposed Registration of Enlist Duo TM Herbicide

. EPA may require similar requirements be added to the proposed registration of Monsanto’s dicamba formulation, Exte ndiMax.

IV. Resistance Management The emergence of herbicide resistant weeds is an increasing problem that has become a significant economic issue to growers. This has led to a concern that the use of 2,4

- D on GE crops may result in more resistant weeds. In an effort to address this issue going forward, EPA is requiring that DAS develop a stewardship program that will aggressively promote resistance management efforts. The overall goal of the stewardship plan is to assist and support responsible use of th e product. With regard to weed resistance management, the plan mandates that DAS must immediately investigate any claims of non

- performance. The initial mechanism users can use for communicating directly with DAS is a toll

- free number to get advice on how to resolve any uncontrolled weeds. Academia, growers, USDA, and other leaders involved with pest management acknowledge the importance of field scouting. For this reason, the Enlist Duo TM label includes a requirement to scout treated fields. Field scouting before application will be essential to determining the weed species present as well as their stage of growth. Scouting 7

- 21 days after herbicide application will be used to assess the performance of weed control. In the event that a user encounters a non

performance issue, the toll

- free number could be used to initiate an intervention against that weed population. The DAS response to reports of non

- performance must be immediate and must ensure that possible incidents of resistance are promptly investigate d and resolved. EPA proposes that when
a non

- performance issue is identified , DAS or its representative will conduct a site visit and evaluate the issue using decision criteria identified by leading weed science experts (Norsworthy, et al.), in order to d etermine if “likely herbicide resistance” is present. This is distinct from, and more broad than, the term “likely herbicide resistance,” as explained below. For purposes of this decision, a report of non

- performance to DAS will be the trigger for a site v isit.

Non

- performance refers to any cause that results in inadequate weed control after an herbicide application. “Lack of herbicide efficacy” refers to inadequate weed control with various possible causes, including but not limited to: application rate, s tage of growth, environmental conditions, herbicide resistance, plugged nozzle, boom shut off, tank dilution, post

- application weed flush, unexpected rainfall event, weed misidentification, etc. EPA recognizes that it can be challenging to determine emergi ng weed resistance at an early stage. Therefore, EPA is selecting criteria that it feels will be helpful to DAS and to users in identifying when instances of “lack of herbicide efficacy” in fact constitute “likely herbicide resistance.” These “likely herbi cide resistance” criteria are: (1) failure to control a weed species normally controlled by the herbicide at the dose applied, especially if control is achieved on adjacent weeds; (2) a spreading patch of

Page 10

- 2uncontrolled plants of a particular weed species; a nd (3) surviving plants mixed with controlled individuals of the same species (Norsworthy, et al., 2012). When DAS or its representative applies the Norsworthy, et al., criteria cited above and likely herbicide resistance is identified, then DAS must take immediate action to eradicate likely resistant weeds in the infested area. This may be accomplished by re

- treating with an herbicide or using mechanical control methods. If herbicide re

- treatment is used to eliminate the likely resistant weed(s), follow

- up scouting will be required to confirm that the lack of herbicide efficacy has been resolved. DAS must also notify EPA that likely herbicide resistance has been identified and report this on a monthly basis. In addition, samples of the likely herbicide resi stant weeds and/or seeds must be taken, and prior to the next growing season laboratory or greenhouse testing must be initiated in order to determine whether resistance is the reason for the lack of herbicide efficacy. DAS must also work to develop a labor atory diagnostic test to quickly identify herbicide resistance, and report to EPA its progress toward developing such a diagnostic test. In addition to reporting incidents of likely resistance, on or before October 15 of each year, DAS will submit annual s ummary reports to EPA. These reports must include a summary of the number of instances of likely and confirmed resistance to Enlist Duo TM by weed species, crop, county and state. They will also summarize the status of laboratory or greenhouse testing for
r esistance, as well as the status of the development of a laboratory test. The annual reports will also address the disposition of incidents of likely or confirmed resistance reported in previous years. Users and other stakeholders must be informed of repor ts of likely and confirmed herbicide resistance to Enlist Duo TM , if any. The information will include details of weed species and crop. To accomplish this, EPA expects that DAS will establish a website to facilitate delivery of resistance information. Several management practices that are designed to help users avoid initial occurrences of weed resistance will appear on the product labeling under the Resistance Management heading of the label. These practices are discussed in Section VII.B.3 of this doc ument. Refer to Section VII.C below for EPA’s delineation of necessary terms of registration to address the issue of weed resistance. VII. Proposed Registration Decision B. Labeling Requirements 3. Resistance Management
a. Herbicide Selection:

• Apply full rates of GF

- 2726 for the most difficult to control weed in the field at the specified time (correct weed size) to minimize weed escapes.

• Rotate the use of this product with non

- Group 4 and non

- Group 9 herbicides.

Page 10

- 3• Utilize sequential applications of herbicid es with alternative modes of action.

• Avoid using more than two applications of GF

- 2726 and any other Group 4 or Group 9 herbicide within a single growing season unless mixed with another mode of action herbicide with overlapping weed spectrum.

• Use a broad spectrum soil applied herbicide with other modes of action as a foundation in a weed control program. b. Crop Selection and Cultural Practices:

• Incorporate additional weed control practices whenever possible, such as mechanical cultivation, crop rotation, and weed

- free crop seeds, as part of an integrated weed control program.

• Do not allow weed escapes to produce seeds, roots or tubers.

• Thoroughly clean plant residues from equipment before leaving fields suspected to contain resistant weeds.

• Scout fields be fore application to ensure herbicides and rates will be appropriate for the weed species and weed sizes present.

• Scout fields between 7 and 21 days after application to detect weed escapes or shifts in weed species.

• If resistance is suspected, treat weed e scapes with an alternate mode of action or use nonchemical methods to remove escapes.

• User report any incidence of non

- performance of this product against a particular weed species to the DAS representative. C. Registration Terms
EPA has determined that certain registration terms are needed to ensure that likely weed resistance as discussed in section IV can be adequately addressed. EPA believes that it is important to address likely weed resistance and not wait until confirmation of resistance has been f

ound. EPA is basing the registration terms on a list of criteria, presented in the peer

- reviewed publication, Norsworthy, et al., “Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations,” Weed Science 2012 Special Issue: 31

– 62 (Norsworthy criteria). 1. Stewardship Program EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to have a stewardship program for Enlist Duo TM . DAS has begun developing its program which it states is focused on educating and training retailers, farmers and applicators on the appropriate use of the EnlistTM technology. EPA has determined that the stewardship program must include the following measures (also to be included as terms on the registration) that would minimize the potential for off

- target movement and avoid the development of weed resistance.

Page 10

- 4a. Investigation EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS or its representative to investigate reports of non

- performance as reported by users following required “scouting” (in accordance with labeling requirements). When investigating these reports, DAS or its representative would be required to conduct site visits. b. Reporting of the Incidence of Likely Herbicide Resistance
EPA has deter mined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to use the Norsworthy criteria for determining likely herbicide resistance and inform EPA if likely resistance has been identified. This information must be submitted to the Agency on a mont hly basis.
c. Remediation EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to take immediate action to eradicate likely resistant weeds in the infested area as well as requiring DAS to collect material for further testing.
d. Annual Reporting of Herbicide Resistance to EPA EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to submit annual summary reports to EPA that include a summary of the number of instances of likely and confirmed weed resistance by weed species, crop, county and state. The annual reports must include summaries of the status of laboratory or greenhouse testing for resistance. The annual reports would also address the disposition of incidents of likely or confirmed resistance repor ted in previous years. These reports would not replace or supplement adverse effects reporting required under FIFRA 6(a)(2). e. Reporting of Likely Resistance to other Interested Parties EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that req uires DAS to inform growers and other stakeholders of likely and confirmed resistance to Enlist Duo TM . The information will include details of weed species and crop. EPA understands that DAS already plans to provide this information though a devoted websit e. f. Reporting on the development of diagnostic tests EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires that DAS would inform EPA of DAS’s progress toward diagnostic testing for evaluating resistant weed species.

Page 10

- 5g. Monitoring the use of Enlist DuoTM on EnlistTM Seed EPA believes it is important to require DAS to monitor whether Enlist Duo TM is being used on the EnlistTM seed purchased from DAS. EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to provide EPA with a protocol to survey whether Enlist Duo TM is being used on EnlistTM seed purchased from DAS and not the non

- choline 2,4

- D products that are not registered for these application windows. EPA expects that a protocol would be agreed upon quickly so t hat monitoring the use of Enlist Duo TM can begin shortly thereafter. h. Training and Education EPA has determined that the registration must contain a term that requires DAS to provide training on the use of Enlist Duo TM when it provides training on the En listTM Seed technology. The training would focus on proper use of the technology to avoid off

- target movement as well as avoid weed resistance. 2. EPA’s Continued Control over the Registration Because the issue of weed resistance is an extremely important i ssue to keep under control and can be very fast moving, EPA has determined that the registration must contain terms that ensure that EPA retains control to easily and quickly modify or cancel the registration if necessary.

References:
Jason K. Norsworthy, Sarah M. Ward, David R. Shaw, Rick S. Llewellyn, Robert L. Nichols, Theodore M. Webster, Kevin W. Bradley, George Frisvold, Stephen B. Powles, Nilda R. Burgos, William W. Witt, and Michael Barrett, Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resis tance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations, Weed Science 2012 60 (sp1), 31

- 62.

Page 10

- 6