United States

Department of

Agriculture

Marketing and

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Asian Longhorned 

Beetle Cooperative

Eradication Program

Hudson County, New Jersey

Environmental Assessment,

March 2003
Asian Longhorned Beetle

Cooperative Eradication

Program

Hudson County, New Jersey

Environmental Assessment,

March 2003

Agency Contact:

Mike Stefan

Operations Officer

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 134

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236

Telephone: 301–734–4387

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s 

TARGET Center at 202–720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director of Civil Rights,

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call 202–720–5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the 

standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely 

to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides 

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they 

can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. Need for Proposal .......................................... 1

A. Introduction ............................................. 1

B. Purpose and Need for Action ................................ 1

II. Alternatives ............................................... 3

A. No Action ............................................... 3

B. Quarantine Action ........................................ 3

C. Integrated Eradication Program (Proposed Alternative) ........... 4

III. Environmental Consequences ............................... 4

A. No Action ............................................... 4

B. Quarantine Action ........................................ 5

C. Integrated Eradication Program .............................. 6

IV. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted ........... 11
1

I. Need for Proposal

A. Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS), is proposing a program to quarantine and

apply chemical treatments for the control and eradication of the Asian

longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky), in Hudson

County, New Jersey. This program is necessary to enhance program

operations to reduce the potential for damage from this major pest of

trees. The Asian longhorned beetle bores into and kills a variety of tree

species, including species of maple, elm, horse chestnut, birch, poplar,

and willow. This nonnative pest has the potential to spread to other

areas of the United States and cause extensive losses to ornamental and

commercial tree species. The beetle was detected at several locations in

the Chicago and New York City metropolitan areas and now at this most

recent find in Jersey City, New Jersey. Based on an initial survey, it

appears that the beetle was found within a 9-acre commercial and

residential site just north of the Newport Parkway and east of

Washington Boulevard. This exotic insect pest ultimately may be found

in other areas as well. 

Under APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act Implementing

Procedures, 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 372, the proposed

action is a class of action for which an environmental assessment (EA) is

normally prepared. This EA considers the potential effects of the

proposed action and its alternatives, including no action.

North America has abundant forest resources. Most logs and lumber

imported into the United States have historically been limited to those

from the forests of Canada. Increased trade has resulted in more

frequent and greater quantities of logs and lumber (including solid wood

packing materials (SWPM)) entering the United States from other parts

of the world. Various plant pests, such as the Asian longhorned beetle

from China, can occur on or in these unfinished wood products. 

Protection of the forest resources of the United States from damage by

foreign pest species is part of the mission of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

Exclusion of those pest species is the most effective method of

preventing the losses associated with new pest infestations.

B. Purpose and Need

Increased trade and the resultant increased opportunities for invasion by

alien agricultural pests have placed the United States and its agricultural 
2

economies at substantially increased risk in recent years. In particular, a

number of infestations and interceptions of exotic forest wood boring

insects have been associated with SWPM from the People’s Republic of 

China. Outbreaks of the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora

glabripennis), a destructive pest of maple and other hardwoods, were 

first detected in New York in 1996 and in Chicago, Illinois, in 1998. In

addition, four genera of wood borers (Anoplophora, Ceresium,

Hesperophanes, and Monochamus) have been intercepted in shipments

from China that were delivered to warehouses in 11 other States. 

APHIS has responsibility for taking actions to exclude, eradicate, and/or

control plant pests, including Asian longhorned beetle, under the Plant

Quarantine Act (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 151–165, 167), the

Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a), and the Federal Plant Pest Act 

(7 U.S.C. 150dd). APHIS has been delegated the authority to administer

these statutes and has promulgated Quarantines and Regulations (7 CFR

319) which regulate the importation of commodities and means of

conveyance. 

The current exclusion and eradication program consists of various

regulations designed to require treatment of SWPM from China and

eliminate the Asian longhorned beetle. This approach is currently

effective at preventing new infestations from wood products imported

from China. Other methods such as removal and destruction of infested

host trees are expensive. Effective elimination of the beetle by removal

of infested host plants depends upon early detection and timely

identification of infestations in trees and cutting before the beetle can

spread to nearby host plants. Small infestations that are detected early

may be eradicated easily, but several small infestations in a localized

area may become more difficult to eliminate. Therefore, in addition to

cutting and removal of infested trees, the program also employs

chemical methods to prevent infestation of healthy trees from adult

beetles in the vicinity of presently infested areas. Field tests for several

treatments have been conducted in China that indicate that the chemical

treatments are suitable for cost-effective use in control of the beetle in

the United States. There is also 3 years of supporting data from the

United States suggesting chemical treatment is effective.

This site-specific EA has been prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4327 (NEPA)) and

its implementing regulations. APHIS, in its programmatic Asian

Longhorned Beetle EA, originally identified three alternatives. They are

(1) no action; (2) injection application; and (3) injection application and

bark treatment. Each of these alternatives are described in the

programmatic EA for Asian longhorned beetle. In this site-specific EA,

APHIS proposes, in response to this infestation of Asian longhorned 
3

beetle in Jersey City, New Jersey, an emergency program of eradication 

utilizing an integrated pest management program of declaring and

establishing quarantine boundaries in which there is limited movement

of host material, tree removal, and chemical treatments. 

II. Alternatives

APHIS considered carefully three alternatives in response to the need for

better methods to eradicate and contain Asian longhorned beetle

infestations: (1) no action, (2) quarantine action, and (3) integrated

eradication program (the proposed action). Each is described briefly in

this section and the potential impacts of each are considered in the

following section.

A. No Action 

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would continue the current

programmatic control measures against Asian longhorned beetle. Some

control measures could be taken by other Federal or non-Federal entities;

those actions would not be under APHIS’ control or funded by APHIS. 

In the absence of more effective measures to contain and control the

Asian longhorned beetle, the gradual spread of the beetle in the vicinity

of the New Jersey and New York area infestations would be expected to

continue. Local business owners and area residents could attempt to

control damages from beetle infestation by removing the infested trees

from their properties. The lack of effective control measures to prevent

the spread of Asian longhorned beetle from its initial site of introduction

could lead to an increase in beetle population as well as its range of

distribution. This would result in more continuing costs for detection

and removal of infested host trees. 

B. Quarantine Action

Under this alternative, APHIS would work cooperatively with the New

Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) to implement program control

measures to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle in Jersey City, New

Jersey. The beetle was detected in a commercial and residential site

located just north of the Newport Parkway and east of Washington

Boulevard in Jersey City, New Jersey. Restrictions on movement and/or

treatment, such as tree removal, would reduce the spread of Asian

longhorned beetle to other areas. Current regulations require any

infested trees discovered by the program to be cut and removed in a

manner that eliminates all life stages of the beetle. 
4

The NJDA has quarantined the affected 9-acre site and the surrounding

11⁄2-mile area to prevent the beetle’s spread. All infected trees and some

host trees within the 11⁄2-mile area will be cut and chipped on site into

5/8-inch diameter chips. This measure will ensure it is small enough to

kill any beetle or beetle larvae. The quarantine will restrict the

movement of firewood, green lumber, and other living, dead, cut or

fallen material, including nursery stock, logs, stumps, roots and branches

from potential host trees. These materials may be moved within the

quarantine area but would be restricted from moving outside the area. 

C. Integrated Eradication Program (Proposed

Alternative) 

 

Under this alternative, APHIS would use a combination of integrated

pest management methods (including alternative B) with chemical

injection treatments to prevent the further establishment and expansion

of Asian longhorned beetle. As in established programs in New York

and Illinois, the program would consist of work activities such as survey,

tree removal, systemic injection treatments, and other regulatory actions

in a quarantine area. The continuation of survey and quarantine

activities in this program would depend upon the extent to which Asian

longhorned beetle is effectively eliminated from potential host plants

within the program area. Each of the program actions would be

extended in length and geographical scope if evidence of new

infestations are found in host trees within the quarantine area or outside

the present quarantine boundaries.

III. Environmental Consequences

There are potential impacts from each of the alternatives being

considered. The pest risk from Asian longhorned beetle is an important

consideration for all alternatives. Potential program impacts arise from

each of the chemical treatments, but most of the treatment impacts are

not expected to be substantial. The potential affected areas are primarily

urban parks and residential areas. Exposure to humans and potential

effects to human health are primary considerations addressed for

program actions in these locations.

A. No Action

Environmental impacts that could result from APHIS’ implementation of

the no action alternative relate primarily to pest risk effects. The

potential establishment of Asian longhorned beetle would be associated

with damage to and loss of valuable ornamental and commercial trees, 
5

spread of the beetle to other areas of the country with resultant damage

to and loss of trees, loss of associated forest products (e.g., maple syrup),

and private or uncoordinated use of pesticides to control the pest with

associated adverse impacts to the environment (the physical

environment, human environment, and nontarget species). 

The wide distribution of host plants suggests the danger of spread across

much of the country with increases in damage and losses commensurate

with the spread. The damage and losses could result in reductions in

private property value. The damage and losses to commercial trees

would lower the value and production of timber and tree products such

as maple syrup. The changes in the composition and age structure of

forests resulting from no action could have long-term effects on the

ecological relationships in the forested areas. There could be losses in

recreational revenue to some areas from diminished amount of certain

activities such as fall foliage visitations. There would be losses of

valuable shade and ornamental trees in residential areas. The potential

for future quarantine restrictions on the export of logs and nursery stock

increases if no action is taken. The primary environmental consequences

of this alternative are increased risk of pest spread and elevated

environmental risks from uncoordinated application of pesticides to limit

damage from the Asian longhorned beetle. The potential adverse

impacts from selection of this alternative are considerably greater than

those anticipated for the other alternatives.

B. Quarantine Action

The environmental consequences of this alternative relate primarily to

the potential for the reduction of pest risk as compared to the no action

alternative and to potential environmental effects from tree and other

host plant removal methods. The environmental consequences of this 

alternative depend upon the ability of the quarantine and removal of

susceptible host plants to reduce pest risk. Potential movement of adult

beetles outside the quarantine area could result in expansion of the

infested area with commensurate increase in environmental damage. 

Although the rate of the beetle spread would be much slower with the

quarantine action alternative than with the no action, the potential for

damage and losses would be similar as the infested area expanded. The

lack of chemical treatments under this alternative would not protect

susceptible host plants from any adult beetle that flies to trees adjacent to

the quarantine area. 

The ability of this quarantine and tree removal alternative to successfully

eradicate Asian longhorned beetle is contingent upon adequate 
6

knowledge of the pest and effective control measures to eliminate the

pest and prevent access of the pest to susceptible host plants. The

determination of locations for host plant removal are based upon known

dispersal patterns and flight distances of the adult beetles. Although it is

certain that removal of all host plants ensures eradication, it is less clear

how far individual beetles, particularly mated female beetles, are likely

to disperse to spread eggs to susceptible host plants. The presence of

many susceptible host plants near the point of introduction in this

program makes it likely that any adult female beetles would place all

eggs on susceptible host plants close to this location. The establishment

of a quarantine area and removal of all infested trees and some host

plants within a 11⁄2-mile radius of the point of introduction would be

based upon site conditions and likely dispersion for the beetles. Future

surveys and monitoring will be required to determine if expansion of the

boundaries and removal of infested host plants are needed.

The removal of susceptible host plants may have adverse effects on local

wildlife that depend upon this vegetation for food, cover, and related

needs. This is particularly true for some invertebrates and other animals

that have a limited foraging range. The primary issue to humans from

loss of plants is aesthetic, but any potential removal of fruit trees could

involve loss of fresh produce to those residents. The impacts on

environmental quality from removal of trees are expected to be

negligible. Although there could be some limited soil erosion at the site

of tree removal, most locations have other forms of groundcover, and

new plant growth on these sites is anticipated shortly after removal of

susceptible species. 

C. Integrated Eradication Program

The environmental consequences of this alternative relate primarily to

the potential for pest risk reduction and to the potential environmental

effects from host plant removal and injection treatment of host plants. 

The primary pest risk issues related to establishment of Asian

longhorned beetle are described under the no action alternative and will

not be repeated here. The primary environmental issue relates to

susceptible plant host removal are described under the quarantine action

alternative and will not be repeated here. The environmental

consequences of chemical injection treatments are described in this

section. 

1. Injection

Treatment

Effective operational implementation of the chemical injection

applications by the program could help to protect susceptible host plants

and assist in the efforts to contain and eradicate Asian longhorned beetle. 

This would alleviate concerns that the quarantine and tree removal
7

alternative may not remove all host plants infested by any beetles that

dispersed from the point of introduction. Although injection treatments

have not been demonstrated to kill all beetles in infested trees, their

utility in chemical treatments to protect trees from ongoing infestations

has been shown in Asian longhorned beetle programs in China, New

York, and Illinois. This approach could prevent the damage to and loss

of many valuable ornamental and commercial trees, loss of associated

forest products (e.g., maple syrup and fruit), and the private or

uncoordinated use of pesticides to control Asian longhorned beetle

damage with associated adverse impacts to the environment (the

physical environment, human environment, and nontarget species).

Effective injection applications provide an alternate means of protection

for trees to the practice of removing and destroying potential host trees. 

The insecticide proposed for application against beetles is imidacloprid. 

Determination of the potential environmental impacts from this

alternative requires analysis of toxicity, environmental fate, exposure,

and associated risks from imidacloprid injections. 

a. Toxicity

Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl insecticide chemically

related to the tobacco toxin nicotine. The mode of toxic action is unique

and works by interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect

nervous system. Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal

pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warm

blooded animals. Because of their molecular shape, size, and charge,

nicotine and nicotinoids fit into receptor molecules in the nervous

system that normally receive the molecule acetylcholine. This molecule

carries nerve impulses from one nerve cell to another or from a nerve

cell to the tissue that a nerve controls. Imidacloprid overstimulates the

nerve, ultimately resulting in the insect’s paralysis and eventual death. 

Since this nicotinergic site of action is more prevalent in insects than in

higher organisms, the pesticide is selectively more toxic to insects. 

The acute oral toxicity to mammals is moderate. The acute oral median

lethal dose of imidacloprid to rats is 450 milligrams per kilogram

(mg/kg) body weight. The acute dermal median lethal dose to rats of

imidacloprid is greater than 5,000 mg/kg. Imidacloprid is not irritating

to eyes or skin and is not a skin sensitizer. Signs and symptoms of

intoxication include fatigue, twitching, cramps, and muscle weakness

including the muscles for breathing. Chronic toxicity from imidacloprid

is low. The systemic No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) for a 2-year

feeding study of male rats was 5.7 mg/kg based on increased thyroid

lesions observed at the next higher dose, 17.1 mg/kg. The reproductive

NOEL determined from a three-generation reproduction study of rats 
8

was 8 mg/kg based upon decreased pup body weight at 20 mg/kg. 

Imidacloprid may be weakly mutagenic. Test results were negative for

mutagenicity in all but 2 of the 23 laboratory mutagenicity assays

conducted. The positive assays were for genotoxicity in Chinese

hamster ovary cells and changes in chromosomes in human lymphocytes. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified

imidacloprid in “Group E” in regards to carcinogenic potential. This

indicates that the submitted studies provide evidence of

noncarcinogenicity for humans. 

Toxicity to other wildlife varies considerably. Imidacloprid is

moderately to severely toxic to birds, but the repellant nature of

imidacloprid to birds makes hazardous exposures unlikely. It is severely

toxic to bees, but it is not considered a hazard to bees when used as a

seed treatment. Imidacloprid is acutely toxic to adult fish at high

concentrations and slightly toxic to daphnia. 

b. Environmental Fate and Exposure

Imidacloprid residues from injection applications are not expected to

persist in the environment. The vapor pressure of imidacloprid is low

and little volatilization to the atmosphere is expected. Imidacloprid is

moderately soluble in water, and its half-life in water exceeds 31 days at

pH 5, 7, and 9. Soil injection applications and trunk injections are not

expected to result in any transport of imidacloprid to groundwater or

surface water. Imidacloprid adsorbs to soil particles and is expected to

have low mobility in the dry soils within the treatment area. The 

half-life in soil varies from 48 to 190 days depending upon the organic

matter, ground cover, and plant uptake. The systemic action of

imidacloprid from injections would be expected to carry the residues to

other locations within the plant. The insecticidal activity of imidacloprid

within trees has been shown to remain effective for up to 1 year, but the

distribution within treated trees is limited to those portions that are

actively transporting fluids and nutrients. There is no systemic

movement into heartwood. Imidacloprid from soil injection treatments

could be taken up systemically by other nonhost plants. The program

treatments using soil injection applications would only be at locations

where the primary uptake of imidacloprid is by a susceptible host plant. 

Trunk injection would be made at locations where other plants could not

compete for uptake of the imidacloprid residues. This approach

precludes potential adverse effects to nontarget species and ensures that

the applications protect only susceptible host plants of Asian longhorned

beetle. 

Adherence to the pesticide label and standard operating procedures

ensures that exposures are minimal. This has been demonstrated by 
9

APHIS’s Environmental Monitoring conducted during program

operations in New York and Illinois. The injections would not be

expected to routinely result in any exposure to humans except the

program applicators. The required protective gear and safety precautions

minimize applicator exposure. The applicators would ensure that the

trunk injection devices are not disturbed during injection and the devices

are removed from the drill holes when the application is complete to

prevent exposure to the public. The only route for potential exposure of

the public to imidacloprid is from the accidental scenario of a person

digging in the treated soil following soil injection applications. Much of

the compound would have adsorbed to soil particles or would have been

taken up by the host plant and, thus, the actual exposure to imidacloprid

would be minimal. The injection applications avoid exposure to most

species of wildlife. The only species likely to be directly exposed by

these injections are those nontarget invertebrates present in the treated

soil or in the wood of the treated tree. Some insectivores and scavengers

also could be exposed to residues during foraging activities in the soil

below or in the bark of treated trees. The exposures of these species to

imidacloprid are expected to be light. Insectivorous birds are repelled by

imidacloprid residues and would avoid locations where exposure was

possible. 

c. Risk

The risk of adverse effects to environmental quality are minimal. The

imidacloprid from soil injections and trunk injections is not expected to

volatilize to the atmosphere, is not expected to be leached to

groundwater, and is not expected to be carried to surface water except

from heavy rainstorms. The soil and plant residues are expected to

remain active for up to 1 year to protect the trees from infestation by

Asian longhorned beetle. Injection treatments are directed to protect

susceptible host plants and minimize potential uptake by other plants

nearby.

The risks to human health are minimal. The required protective gear and

safety precautions for applicators result in potential exposures much

lower than any that could result in adverse effects. The anticipated

margins of safety from the accidental exposure scenario where a person

digs up the soil from the treated area under a tree are less than for the

applicators, but no adverse effects are anticipated for those individuals

either. 

Mortality from exposure would be expected for some invertebrates. The

populations of insects directly exposed to imidacloprid would be

expected to decrease temporarily in the treatment area until the residues

decrease and recolonization occurs from surrounding areas. This 
10

recovery would be expected to occur more rapidly in the soil because the

compound would be readily taken up by the tree roots and residues

would not persist in the soil. The insects exposed to residues in the trees

would require longer periods of time for recolonization. Although the

prey for some insectivores would decrease in treated areas, the additional

forage effort by these species is not expected to be increased greatly. 

Insect populations would remain unaffected in the untreated plants. The

low exposures to birds and insectivores foraging in the soil and tree bark

are not expected to result in any adverse effects to those species. 

2. Other Issues An effort was made by APHIS to determine what, if any, measures

would be required for program compliance with the Endangered Species

Act of 1973. The potential for exposure and any adverse effects was

analyzed for those endangered and threatened species and their habitats

within the proposed program area. Based upon the findings of that

analysis, it was determined that there are no threatened and endangered

species in the proposed program area, and the program would therefore

have no effect on threatened and endangered species.

 

Consistent with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations,” APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority

populations and low-income populations. The environmental and

human health effects from the proposed applications are minimal and are

not expected to have disproportionate adverse effects to any minority or

low-income populations. 

Consistent with Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” APHIS considered the

potential for disproportionately high and adverse environmental health

and safety risks to children. The program applications are made to trees

and soil below trees in urban parks and residential areas where children

would be expected to play and climb trees. The program applicators

ensure that the general public is not in or around areas being treated, so

no exposure will occur for trunk injection applications and the only

possible exposure could occur from a child playing in the treated soil

under a tree. This accidental exposure scenario was analyzed and it was

determined that no adverse human health effects would result to the

child. Therefore, it was determined that no disproportionate effects on

children are anticipated as a consequence of implementing the preferred 

alternative. 
11

IV. Agencies, Organizations, and

Individuals Consulted

This environmental analysis was prepared and reviewed by APHIS. The

addresses of participating APHIS units, cooperators, and consultants (as

applicable) follow.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Program Support

4700 River Road, Unit 134

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Program Development 

Environmental Services

4700 River Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Eastern Regional Office

920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200

Raleigh, NC 27606–5202

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ALB National Program Coordinator

210 Varick Street 

Federal Building, Room 731 

New York, NY 10014

U.S. Department of Interior 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Northeast Region 

New Jersey Ecological Service Field Office

Pleasantville, NJ 08232 
Finding of No Significant Impact

Asian Longhorned Beetle Cooperative Eradication Program

Environmental Assessment

March 2003

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), has

prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for a proposed program to contain the Asian longhorned beetle. 

The proposed program is needed to improve containment and control of the Asian longhorned beetle at

locations in the United States where it has been detected. Previous regulations designed to eradicate this

pest have proven ineffective at eliminating the pest risk and containing new infestations. The EA,

incorporated by reference in this document, is available from–

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Surveillance and Emergency Programs

Planning and Coordination

4700 River Road, Unit 137

Riverdale, MD 20737–1229

The EA analyzed three alternatives: no action, quarantine action, and integrated eradication program. Each

alternative was determined to have potential environmental consequences. Based on the information

presented in the EA, I have selected the integrated eradication program as the preferred alternative because

of the feasibility to implement an integrated management operational program that will deliver the capability

to meet the pest risk reduction objectives and to provide the lower overall risk to human health and the

natural environment than the current operational methods.

APHIS considered the potential environmental consequences of each alternative. Based on analysis of the

environmental impacts, APHIS has determined that there would be no significant impact on the quality of

the human environment from the implementation of the injection application alternative. APHIS’ finding of

no significant impact for this rule was based upon the application of standard operating procedures for the

applications and their expected environmental consequences, as analyzed within the EA. APHIS will

continue to confer, where appropriate, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that this program

will have no adverse effects on endangered and threatened species. 

In addition, I find that the environmental process undertaken for these tests is entirely consistent with the

principles of environmental justice as expressed in Executive Order 12898 and that implementation of the

control measures will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on any minority populations and low-income populations. Lastly, because I have not found evidence

of significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed program, I further find that an

environmental impact statement does not need to be prepared and that the program may proceed. 

 /S/ 03/19/2003

Christine Markham Date

National Asian Longhorned Beetle Program Director

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service