<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="4955">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="Sarah Stella">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="rsolomon">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2010-11-09T19:51:00Z">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="16">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2010-11-09T19:52:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2010-11-09T19:52:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="28247">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.OfficeParser">
<meta name="dc:title" content="Movement of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium) from Australia into the United States">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="600000000">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="300032">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="16">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/msword">
<title>Movement of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium) from Australia into the United States</title>
</head>
<body><p><img src="embedded:image1.jpg" alt="image1.jpg"><img src="embedded:image2.emf" alt="image2.emf"><b>Importation of Wood Packaging Material from Canada</b></p>
<p><b>Environmental Assessment,</b></p>
<p><b>November 2010</b></p>
<p><b>Importation of Wood Packaging Material from Canada</b></p>
<p><b>Environmental Assessment,</b></p>
<p><b>November 2010</b></p>
<p><b>Agency Contact
</b></p>
<p>John Tyrone Jones, II</p>
<p>Forestry and Forestry Products Trade Director</p>
<p>Phytosanitary Issues Management</p>
<p>Plant Protection and Quarantine
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture
</p>
<p>4700 River Road, Unit 140Riverdale, MD  20737–1236</p>
<p>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 TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
</p>
<p>To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC  20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD).  USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.  
</p>
<p class="body_Text">CAUTION:  Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, </p>
<p class="body_Text">desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied </p>
<p class="body_Text">properly.  Use all pesticides selectively and carefully.  Follow recommended 
</p>
<p class="body_Text">practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.</p>
<p><b>Table of Contents
</b></p>
<p><b>1.  Need for the Proposal
1
</b></p>
<p><b>A.  Background
1
</b></p>
<p><b>B.  Need
5</b></p>
<p><b>II.  Alternatives
6</b></p>
<p><b>
A.  No Action
6</b></p>
<p><b>
B.  Proposed Regulation
7</b></p>
<p><b>
C.  Alternatives Not Considered in Detail
7</b></p>
<p><b>
III. 
Potential Environmental Consequences
8</b></p>
<p><b>

A.  Environmental Quality
9</b></p>
<p><b>

B.  Human Health
9</b></p>
<p><b>

C.  Nontarget Species
10</b></p>
<p><b>IV.  Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted
12 
</b></p>
<p><b>
V.  References Cited
13
</b></p>
<h1>I.  Need for the Proposal</h1>
<p><b>A.  Background</b></p>
<p><b>History of Trade and Pest Introduction </b></p>
<p>In recent years, the United States has experienced an enormous increase in 
</p>
<p>international trade.  Those import shipments were accompanied by 
</p>
<p>commensurately increasing amounts of untreated wood packaging 
</p>
<p>material (WPM) consisting of pallets, crating, and dunnage.  WPM has 
</p>
<p>the potential to harbor environmentally and economically devastating 
</p>
<p>invasive species that may use it as host material, feed upon it, or simply 
</p>
<p>hitch a ride on it.  For example, the United States has experienced 
</p>
<p>introductions and costly infestations of the Asian longhorned beetle, 
</p>
<p>Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky), and pine shoot beetle, Tomicus 
</p>
<p>piniperda (L.), that were traced to importations of WPM.  More recently, 
</p>
<p>an infestation of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 
</p>
<p>has been found in Michigan and Ohio. </p>
<p>Approximately 52 percent of maritime shipments and 9 percent of air 
</p>
<p>shipments into the United States are accompanied by WPM.  Between 
</p>
<p>1996 and 1998, pest interceptions associated with WPM were recorded 
</p>
<p>for 64 different countries of origin.  WPM usually arrives in sealed 
</p>
<p>containers and may not be listed on the shipping manifest, making it 
</p>
<p>difficult for inspectors to select shipments for inspection.  With 
</p>
<p>containerized cargo, only 1 to 5 percent of the WPM may be visible from 
</p>
<p>the opening of the container.  In addition, most of the pests may go 
</p>
<p>undetected in a visual inspection because the insect pests or plant 
</p>
<p>pathogens of concern are often buried in the wood, and are unable to be 
</p>
<p>readily detected, isolated, or identified upon inspection. 
</p>
<p>A variety of methods have been proposed by exporters or government 
</p>
<p>regulatory agencies to reduce the risk of invasive pests in WPM.  Those 
</p>
<p>methods range from intensive inspection programs through various kinds 
</p>
<p>of risk mitigation (e.g., fumigation, heat treatment, and irradiation), to the use of substitute packing materials (prohibition of WPM).  Many of those 
</p>
<p>methods are more efficacious against one type of organism than another, 
</p>
<p>and no single method (with the exception of substitute packing materials 
</p>
<p>if hitch-hiking pests are not included) appears capable of eliminating the 
</p>
<p>risk from all types of invasive pests.  Some of the methods available for 
</p>
<p>control, such as fumigation using methyl bromide, are associated with adverse environmental impacts; however, use of methyl bromide is diminishing.  There are a number of issues that must be considered, along with the potential environmental effects of the WPM alternatives, before any 
</p>
<p>regulatory changes may be promulgated.  These include—</p>
<p>(1)  foremost, the phytosanitary protection of the alternative in mitigating risk; </p>
<p>(2)  the relative costs of the alternatives/methods; </p>
<p>(3)  the differing capabilities of exporting nations to comply with quarantine requirements; and </p>
<p>(4)  the need for harmonization of regulatory efforts among trading partner nations. 
</p>
<p>The United States is not alone in its recognition of and concern for the risk 
</p>
<p>from imported WPM.  The International Plant Protection Convention 
</p>
<p>(IPPC), under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
</p>
<p>Nations, as a part of its “International Standards for Phytosanitary 
</p>
<p>Measures,” has published “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging 
</p>
<p>Material in International Trade” (referred to hereafter as the IPPC 
</p>
<p>Guidelines).  The IPPC guidelines are an attempt to provide effective, 
</p>
<p>equitable, and uniform standards (prescribed treatments, certification 
</p>
<p>procedures, and standardized markings) that all nations could use to 
</p>
<p>mitigate the risk from WPM.  As a signatory to the IPPC, the United States has input into the IPPC guidelines and is expected to support them.  These guidelines are not static but allow further refinement, as described in annex 3, for future inclusion of effective treatments of WPM that result from further technological development.
</p>
<p><b>History of WPM Rulemaking and International Guidelines</b></p>
<p>Following APHIS’ confirmation of the pest risks associated 
</p>
<p>with WPM, mitigation measures, risk analyses, and environmental 
</p>
<p>analyses were developed to assist decisionmakers regarding how best to 
</p>
<p>protect U.S. forests from such pest risks.  Environmental analyses for 
</p>
<p>those rulemakings were necessary to address the potential environmental 
</p>
<p>impacts associated with the implementation of each rulemaking.  The 
</p>
<p>treatment of WPM, specifically, the options of heat treatment and methyl 
</p>
<p>bromide fumigation, were assessed to consider potential impacts to the 
</p>
<p>human environment, including public health.  Of importance in regard to 
</p>
<p>methyl bromide fumigations is its capacity to damage the atmosphere’s 
</p>
<p>ozone layer.
</p>
<p>Because of the increased risk of pests in WPM from China (the Asian 
</p>
<p>longhorned beetle infestations were traced to that source), APHIS 
</p>
<p>promulgated two interim rules regulating solid WPM from China (September 18, 1998, 63 <i>Federal Register</i> (FR) 50099, Docket No. </p>
<p>98–087–1; amended December 17, 1998, 63 FR 69539, Docket No. </p>
<p>98–087–4).  These rules (referred to below as the China interim rule) required all WPM from China, including Hong Kong, to be treated with heat, preservatives, or fumigated prior to arrival in the United States (7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 319.40).  In 1998, a draft environmental assessment (EA) was completed for the “Proposed Rule for the Importation of Wood Articles from Mexico.”  Since then, in calendar years 2000 and 2001, APHIS intercepted more than 700 quarantine pest species in WPM at 58 ports of entry from points of origin other than China. During this time period, there was an 80 percent reduction in quarantine pest species in WPM from China.  Later, in 2002 the final environmental impact statement was prepared entitled “Rule for the Importation of Unmanufactured Wood Articles from Mexico, with Consideration for Cumulative Impact of Methyl Bromide Use.”  Exotic insects and pathogens associated with WPM that exist in Mexico differ from those in the United States; however, those that exist in the United States are similar to those that are found in Canada.  Therefore, the likelihood of establishment and overall pest risks are higher, without mitigation, in WPM moving between the United States and Mexico as compared to the movement of WPM between the United States and Canada.  The enormous quantity of shipments (in the millions), the negative consequences of the introduction and establishment of invasive species, and the barriers to detecting and efficiently eradicating invasive species at the U.S. ports of entry made it was clear that the United States needed a more effective way of protecting its valuable resources. 
</p>
<p>Although the interceptions of invasive species in WPM from China and 
</p>
<p>Hong Kong decreased subsequent to promulgation of the China interim 
</p>
<p>rule, interceptions from WPM from other parts of the world continued to</p>
<p>increase.  It was clear that the pest risk from these locations would also need to be mitigated.  Concurrent with APHIS’ deliberations on potential regulatory options to address the pest risk of WPM from other countries, the international community, through the IPPC, became aware of the pests associated with WPM, and began to consider comparable approaches to alleviate pest risks associated with international trade.  This international effort to address pest risks ultimately resulted in the guidelines negotiated for regulating WPM in international trade that were published by the IPPC Secretariat (2002) in ISPM 15.  The international negotiations and revisions of these guidelines are expected to continue.  APHIS recognized that the ISPM 15 guidelines provided a firm basis for amendment to our regulations and, consequently, APHIS promulgated a final rule that established regulations for importation of WPM that were consistent with those guidelines negotiated in ISPM 15.  APHIS’ final rule for Importation of Wood Packaging Material was published on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719, Docket No. 02–032–3), and was designed to provide mitigations for the potential pest risks from importation of WPM worldwide.</p>
<p>The final rule for the importation of wood packaging material did not consider the potential pest and disease risk associated with its interstate movement and its importation from Canada.  The general permit regulations in 7 CFR 319–3 exempt most wood packaging material from Canada with either a specific permit or an importer document.  </p>
<p><b>History of Forest Wood Pests
</b></p>
<p>Exotic or introduced timber pests can have damaging effects on forest ecosystems and timber production areas.  North American forests are particularly vulnerable to pests, such as fungi, nematodes, and insects introduced through the importation of logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles (USDA–APHIS, 1994).  These pests can bore into the roots, limbs, or trunk can interfere with a tree's reproductive capabilities, and can cause defoliation, wood damage, or a shift in tree species composition over time. Extensive tree death can have serious impacts on the ecosystem and cause changes in habitat and food supply. In addition, establishment of non-indigenous organisms has clearly been shown to reduce biodiversity (USDA 1994).

There are several historical examples showing that importation of non-indigenous timber pest species has led to widespread blights within the United States.  Notable cases this century have included chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica, 1904–1955), Dutch elm disease (caused by the fungus Ophiostoma ulmi, mid-1920s), white pine blister rust (fungus</p>
<p> Cronartium ribicola, early 1900s), Port Oxford cedar root rot (fungus Phytophthora lateralis, 1923), and the recent gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar, 1870s) outbreaks.  Each of these outbreaks has caused ecological damage, such as shifts in species composition, changes in habitat, as well as tree defoliation, stress, and death (USDA–APHIS, 1994).
</p>
<p>Forest ecosystem diversity, function, and productivity have been 
</p>
<p>dramatically altered by the introduction of exotic insects and pathogens. 
</p>
<p>Recently, outbreaks of the Asian longhorned beetle, (Anoplophora 
</p>
<p>glabripennis (Motschulsky)), pine shoot beetle, (Tomicus piniperda (L.)), and the emerald ash borer, (Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)) have been traced to importations of WPM.  A brief history of the introduction into the 
</p>
<p>United States of Asian longhorned beetle, pine shoot beetle, and emerald ash borer follows below.</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image3.png" alt="image3.png">Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is a native of China, and was first found in the United States 1996 in New York City and Amityville, New York (on Long Island).  Since the initial discovery, it has been found in parts of Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.  Scientists believe that the beetle entered the United States via wooden crates and pallets used in shipping cargo from China.  The only way to get rid of ALB is to cut down, chip, and burn the infested trees.  Since 1996, many trees have been eliminated to eradicate this pest in New Jersey, New York, and Illinois (USDA–APHIS, 2007).   </p>
<p></p>
<p>Pine shoot beetle (PSB) was discovered at a Christmas tree farm near Cleveland, Ohio, in July 1992.  The only previous infestation of PSB in the United States occurred in New Jersey in 1913.  It is believed that PSB was probably introduced into the United States in 1992 by foreign ships carrying PSB-infested wood as dunnage (USDA–APHIS, 2007).  Since the 1992 introduction, PSB has been detected in 16 States.  Quarantines have been established in those States to restrict the movement of regulated articles in order to prevent the artificial spread of PSB. 
</p>
<p></p>
<p>Emerald ash borer (EAB) was identified as the causative agent in 
</p>
<p>ash tree mortality and decline in Detroit, Michigan.  EAB was 
</p>
<p>unknown in North America until June 2002.  Since then, EAB has established infestations in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.  Quarantines have been established in those States that</p>
<p>have become infested with EAB.  Under the quarantine, ash trees, branches, logs, and firewood are prohibited from movement from any affected counties within a State where a pest has been identified (USDA–APHIS, 2007). 
</p>
<p>Historically, wood pests in the United States and Canada have been widely distributed throughout the forests.  Damage was limited due to natural enemies of the native pests and the relatively stable environmental conditions in forested areas.  However, the recent introductions of PSB, ALB, EAB, and the wood wasp, <i>Sirex noctilio</i>, into parts of the United States and Canada have resulted in serious threats to U.S. agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban forests.  These species and other plant pests are known to occur in untreated wood, including wood packaging material.  The importation of untreated wood packaging material from Canada now poses elevated risks of movement and introduction of these wood-boring pests into uninfested parts of the United States.  It is clear that some regulatory requirements for importation of wood packaging material from Canada are appropriate to mitigate the pest risks associated with this pathway.  Although the proposed amendments being considered here may not have the degree of urgency that the September 2004 amendments had, agency efforts to mitigate the continuing pest risk should be readily undertaken.
</p>
<p><b>B.  Need
</b></p>
<p>APHIS is required, by virtue of its mission and statutory responsibilities, to 
</p>
<p>take action to minimize the potential risk and resultant damage from 
</p>
<p>foreign invasive species to agricultural, forest, and environmental 
</p>
<p>resources of the United States.  In addition to establishing the necessary framework for protecting U.S. agriculture and forests, this regulation would help harmonize the requirements for importation from Canada with the international standards of the IPPC adopted for other countries.  Specifically, the regulation under consideration would be designed to make these requirements consistent with the requirements of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15).  </p>
<p>APHIS’ authority to exclude, eradicate and/or control invasive alien agricultural pests is based upon the Plant Protection Act (Title 4 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to take measures to prevent the dissemination of plant pests that are new or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed within or throughout the United States.  APHIS has been delegated authority to administer this statute and has promulgated Foreign Quarantine Regulations, 7 CFR part 319, which regulate the import of commodities.
</p>
<p>Preparation of this EA is designed to fulfill the requirements of (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b, 3100), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).  
</p>
<h1>II.  Alternatives
</h1>
<p>The alternatives considered in this EA for this program include (1) no action, and (2) the proposed regulation of WPM from Canada.  The no action alternative would involve maintaining the current regulations for the importation of WPM from all countries except Canada.  APHIS’ preferred alternative for the program is regulation of the importation of WPM from Canada using the same requirements applied to other countries and consistent with the ISPM 15 guidelines.  Component techniques include the use of treatment methods to ensure the effective elimination of those wood pests occurring in Canada that are not present or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed within or throughout the United States.</p>
<h2>A.  No Action
</h2>
<p>The no action alternative would involve continuation of the final regulations for importation of WPM published in the <i>Federal Register</i> on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719–55733, Docket No. 02–032–3).  Alternatives for the no action alternative have been discussed and analyzed comprehensively within the “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material, Final Environmental Impact Statement—August 2003” (USDA–APHIS, 2003), which is incorporated by reference and summarized within this EA.  The potential environmental impacts of the control measures applied to the current program were analyzed further within the supplement to the final EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2007), and the supplement is also incorporated by reference and summarized within this EA.</p>
<h2>B.  Proposed Regulation
</h2>
<p>This alternative involves application of the same regulations to WPM imported from Canada that currently apply to WPM from other countries of the world.  That is, the regulations described in the no action alternative above and analyzed in the final EIS and its supplement (USDA–APHIS, 2003, and 2007) would be extended to include WPM from Canada.  This would serve to ensure that any risk of movement of any wood pests present in WPM coming from Canada to the United States would be mitigated by certain regulatory treatment requirements.  This has become a greater issue in recent years with the introduction of foreign invasive wood pests to Canada, as described in this document in chapter 1 regarding the need for this action. </p>
<h2>C.  Alternatives Not Considered in Detail</h2>
<p>APHIS analyzed, in detail, five alternatives in the final EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2003).  Although all five alternatives ((1) no action (no change in the current regulation), (2) extension of the treatments in the China interim rule to all countries, (3) adoption of the IPPC guidelines, (4) a comprehensive risk reduction program, and (5) substitute packing materials only) provided a useful comparison for the decisionmaker regarding the global WPM regulations at that time, their application to WPM from Canada or for review of their potential application to global WPM import are not warranted in this EA.  The adoption of the IPPC guidelines in the EIS is the same option as the no action alternative in this EA.      </p>
<p>The no action alternative does not meet the need to mitigate wood pests in WPM, and is no longer a useful baseline for comparison to the present alternatives.  Likewise, the extension of the China interim rule provided a meaningful comparison for the final EIS; however, there is no benefit from analysis of previous regulations no longer in effect.  
</p>
<p>The comprehensive risk reduction alternative analyzed in the final EIS is a strategy that depends upon extensive wood pest information and extensive pest mitigation information for all parts of the world.  The determinative process for potential application of this alternative is not yet practical for consistency throughout the world; nevertheless, ongoing efforts may eventually provide a basis for further consideration of this alternative.  </p>
<p>Any application of the substitute packing material only alternative in the final EIS presumes that packaging material, other than wood, could be expanded to accommodate trade in a timely manner, with some phasing out of wood packaging and phasing in of other packaging materials.  Although this alternative has merit in regard to reducing pest risks, some logistical considerations, and other environmental risks related to manufacturing and life cycle issues, make further consideration from the regulatory perspective problematic.  At present, the market share for these packaging materials remains limited compared to WPM.  Currently, the United States usage of these packaging materials is only 10 percent.  Application of this alternative only to Canada is of limited value relative to pests and environmental risks.  Therefore, consideration of this alternative is only meaningful on a global basis and, therefore, an analysis for Canada alone in this EA would not provide helpful information to the decisionmaker who has to consider consistency of regulatory actions for all countries.  This alternative may be revisited in the future as part of the ongoing review of wood pest mitigations and regulations. </p>
<h1>III.  Potential Environmental Consequences</h1>
<p>This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives which have been considered for the importation of WPM from Canada.  This includes the use of various component methods to eliminate the introduction of wood pests; the component methods include regulatory compliance through the use of heat treatment and fumigation with methyl bromide.  
</p>
<p>Alternatives for the no action alternative have been discussed and analyzed comprehensively within the “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material, Final Environmental Impact Statement—August 2003” (USDA–APHIS, 2003), which is incorporated by reference and summarized within this EA.  The potential environmental impacts of the control measures applied to the current program were analyzed further within the supplement to the final EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2007), and the supplement is also incorporated by reference and summarized within this EA.</p>
<p>

 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1The potential environmental impacts of the application of these same regulations to WPM from Canada were considered with respect to their ability to affect (1) environmental quality, (2) human health, and (3) nontarget species (including threatened and endangered species).  The primary impacts of concern relate to wood pest mitigation and the direct impacts of the WPM treatment measures.  In addition, consideration was given to potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action when assessed with other previous, current, and reasonably foreseeable future effects of other actions.</p>
<h2>A.  Environmental Quality
</h2>
<p>The principal environmental quality concerns are for the preservation of clean air, pure water, and a pollution-free environment.  Methyl bromide's half-life varies from 3 to 7 days; however, the small quantities used disperse when fumigation chambers are vented.  (Refer to the EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2003) for a more detailed consideration of the environmental fate of the pesticide.)  </p>
<p>The program use of heat treatment involves the heating of the internal temperature of the wood to at least 56 oC for at least 30 minutes.  Most of the sources of heat for this process come from combustion of scrap wood; however, some heat treatments involve combustion of fossil fuels or the use of electrical heaters.  Although some facilities recover some energy from individual heat treatments to minimize costs, the practice of heat treatment does release heat and some gases.  Some of these emissions are specific to the type of wood, such as α-pinene and β-pinene from pine (<i>Pinus</i> sp.) wood (McDonald et al., 2002), but the quantities of these emissions from heat treatment facilities are insufficient to substantially lower local air quality.  The contribution to global climate effects from heat treatment practices is also negligible.  Relative to heat released from high temperature incinerators, the heat and gas emissions from these treatments (even when considered cumulatively as a regulatory treatment of WPM) is not expected to measurably affect global temperatures or the levels of atmospheric carbon.
</p>
<p>The potential impacts from fumigations of WPM with methyl bromide to the stratospheric ozone are discussed in detail in the final EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2003) and the supplement to the final EIS (USDA–APHIS, 2007).  That information will not be repeated here except as it relates to the proposed regulation of WPM from Canada.  The supplement to the final EIS estimated methyl bromide usage for treatment of WPM in Canada to release 27 to 76 metric tons of gas per year (USDA–APHIS, 2007); however, this practice is no longer permitted for treating WPM in Canada.  Since that time, Canada has indicated that their WPM industry is handling virtually all mitigations of these wood pests using heat treatments.  There is no reason to expect their WPM industry to fumigate WPM with methyl bromide to accommodate any new WPM regulations promulgated in the United States.  To the contrary, Canadian authorities indicate that heat treatment is expected to continue to be the primary means of compliance with WPM; therefore, further impacts to the stratospheric ozone levels are not expected from the proposed changes in the regulation of WPM from Canada.        
</p>
<h2>B.  Human Health
</h2>
<p>The principal concerns for human health are related to the potential program use of heat treatment and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Each of these treatments requires the use of specific protective gear and safety procedures to protect the applicators, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) officers, and others near the treatment areas.  These are spelled out in the APHIS PPQ Treatment Manual (USDA–APHIS, 1998).  The potential effects to workers from acute and chronic exposures from these treatments were determined to be negligible when the mandatory safety precautions are followed (USDA–APHIS, 2003).    </p>
<p>In addition to consideration for direct effects from exposure to heat or fumigant, there are potential issues related to global effects from these treatment measures when considered on a cumulative basis with other comparable impact-generating actions.  This issue is discussed in more detail above in the environmental quality section; the potential effects to human health from these global effects are discussed briefly here.  The lack of fumigation of WPM with methyl bromide in Canada eliminates any concerns related to impacts to the stratospheric ozone and human health.  However, the extensive use of heat treatment to comply with the proposed WPM regulations for Canada does increase the emissions and heat released from their heat treatment facilities.  As indicated in the section regarding environmental quality, this increased heat treatment is not expected to contribute substantially to local air quality issues or associated human health concerns.  The majority of the fuel is from scrap wood; therefore, the contribution to carbon levels and heat comes from wood within the biosphere.  The potential relative contribution to global climate change is minimal from these heat treatments and is not expected to add cumulatively to human health effects associated with climatic effects.  </p>
<p>Some executive orders, such as Executive Order 13045, “Protection of
</p>
<p>Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” and
</p>
<p>Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations,” as well as departmental and/or agency directives call for special environmental reviews in certain circumstances.  No circumstance that would trigger the need for special environmental reviews is involved in implementing the preferred alternative considered in this document.  In addition, the implementation of the preferred alternative does not pose any disproportionately high or adverse impacts to children, any minority populations, any low-income populations, or any other subgroup of the general population.  </p>
<h2>C.  Nontarget Species
</h2>
<p>The principal concerns for nontarget species, including threatened and endangered species, involve the efficacy and effects of the regulatory treatments of WPM.  Although the proposed regulatory treatments do not eliminate all wood pests, those pests of quarantine concern are considered to be adequately eliminated.  The external temperature needed to achieve an internal temperature of 56 oC for at least 30 minutes results in higher temperatures on the surface and in parts of the treated WPM; consequently, some more tolerant pests are also eliminated by the heat treatment.  As was discussed in the section on environmental quality, emissions from these treatments are insufficient to affect local air quality or global parameters— the only impacted nontarget species are those within the treatment chambers.  </p>
<p>Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations govern consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.  APHIS has analyzed the potential for program actions to affect threatened and endangered species, and has determined that no such species and/or their critical habitats will be affected by program actions.  Should the program change in the future, any potentially sensitive species and areas will be identified, considered, and accommodated through special selection of appropriate regulatory methods and use of specific protective measures.</p>
<h1>IV.  Agencies, Organizations, and 
Individuals Consulted</h1>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</p>
<p>Plant Protection and Quarantine
</p>
<p>Phytosanitary Issues Management</p>
<p>4700 River Road, Unit 140</p>
<p>Riverdale, MD  20737–1236
</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture 
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
</p>
<p>Policy and Program Development 
</p>
<p>Environmental Services
</p>
<p>4700 River Road, Unit 149
</p>
<p>Riverdale, MD  20737–1238
</p>
<h1>V.  References Cited</h1>
<p>McDonald, A.G., Dare, P.H., Gifford, J.S., Steward, D., and Riley, S., 2002.  Assessment of air emissions from industrial kiln drying of <i>Pinus radiata</i> wood.  Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 60:181–190.
</p>
<p>USDA, APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Health Inspection Service</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2007.  Importation of solid wood packing material, Supplement to the final environmental impact statement—October 2007.  USDA–APHIS, Riverdale, MD.
</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2003.  Importation of solid wood packing material, Final environmental impact statement—August 2003.  USDA–APHIS, Riverdale, MD.
</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998.  Plant protection and quarantine treatment manual, Interim edition.  PPQ 04/98–01.  July 1998.  USDA–APHIS, Frederick, MD.
</p>
<p>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1994.  Importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles.  Environmental impact statement, July 1994.  USDA–APHIS, Hyattsville, MD. </p>
<p>United States Department of Agriculture
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marketing and Regulatory Programs
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>�
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>� EMBED MSPhotoEd.3 ���
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>2.  Pine Shoot 
</p>
<p>Beetle     
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3.  Emerald Ash 
</p>
<p>Borer
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1.  Asian Longhorned Beetle
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1.  Need for 
</p>
<p>	Action
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>2.  Statutory Authorities
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<div class="footer"><p class="footer">PAGE  </p>
</div>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>_1177150950.bin</h1>
</div>
</body></html>