Finding of No Significant Impact 


For 


Asian Citrus Psyllid Control Program in the Continental United States and Puerto Rico 


Environmental Assessment 


August 2010 


In August 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed potential environmental 

consequences of implementing a cooperative Federal, State, and industry Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) and 

citrus greening (CG) management program. The final EA, incorporated by reference in this document, is 

available online at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/pJant_health/ea/citrusgreening.shtml and from: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 


Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 


Plant Protection and Quarantine 


Emergency and Domestic Programs 


Emergency Management 


4700 River Road, Unit 134 


Riverdale, MD 20737-1236 


The August 2010 ACP EA was prepared to comply with the procedural requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.c. 4321 et seq.) and APHIS' NEPA 

implementing procedures (7 CFR part 372). The EA analyzed two alternatives: (1) the no action 

alternative, in which APHIS would not participate with citrus-producing States or the citrus industry to 

implement a coordinated and cooperative program to control ACP and prevent the spread of CG; and 

(2) the proposed action alternative, in which APHIS would provide the overall national coordination and 

technical support to assist States and the citrus industry in implementing a cooperative program designed 

to suppress ACP and, hence, prevent or slow the spread of CG into citrus-producing areas. 

The purpose of preparing an EA is for an agency to detennine whether a significant environmental impact 

is likely to occur as a result of the proposed action. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be 

prepared if implementation of the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. Based on the infonnation provided in the August 2010 EA, I have detennined that there 

would be no significant impact to the human environment from the implementation of the proposed 

control program and, therefore, no EIS needs to be prepared. APHIS' finding of no significant impact 

from the proposed control program is based upon the expected limited environmental consequences, as 

analyzed in the EA and summarized below. 

The EA primarily analyzed the potential environmental impacts arising from chemical treatments to 

control ACP. Potential treatments included foliar sprays (i.e., abamectin, azadirachtin, bifenthrin, 

carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, citrus oils, ~-cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, diflubenzuron, dimethoate, fenpropathrin , 

fonnetanate, imidacloprid/cyfluthrin, kaolin clay, malathion, petroleum oils, phosmet, pyrethrin, 

spinetoram, spirotetramat, thiamethoxan, and zeta-cypennethrin) and/or soil treatments (dinotefuran, 

imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam) in commercial citrus groves, abandoned groves, and noncommercial 

sites, such as residential properties with citrus trees. Treatments could occur in all areas that could 

reasonably harbor ACP and host CG and be expected to serve as reservoirs of ACP. (Please see the 

attached map which highlights the areas where treatments could potentially occur under the proposed 

action.) 

The EA concluded that no significant adverse effects to human health or the environment are expected. 

State laws, standard program operating procedures, and label precautions, such as wearing protective 
gear, are designed to minimize adverse effects to applicators. Applications made in accordance with the 

label directions (including harvest and reentry intervals, and washing of fruit at packinghouses) reduce 

public exposure so that chemical residues are below tolerance limits and are unlikely to be harmful to the 

public. During treatments of residential areas. human exposure to program insecticides is minimized 

through adherence to recommended practices at the time of program control applications. One such 

practice is to notify residents prior to spraying in order to minimize their exposure to chemical treatments. 

Environmental exposure and risks are minimized by adherence to label requirements, such as buffers and 

other drift reducing measures, avoidance of permeable soils, and avoidance of areas where the water table 

is high. 

APHIS intends to work with the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to ensure that any regional or local actions taken under the proposed action do not affect 

threatened and endangered species or their designated or proposed critical habitats. Ifthere is a 

possibility for adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat, the proposed action wiH not occur until 

APHIS has completed its work with FWS and/or NMFS, and has reached either a determination of "no 

effect" to listed species for the site, or until these agencies have concurred with a "may affect but not 

likely to adversely affect" determination by APHIS. 

The proposed method of treatment, adherence to label language by applicators, and notification of 

residents prior to spraying should minimize exposure and risk to all population subgroups, including 

minority, low-income populations, and children. Therefore, APHIS anticipates no disproportionate 

adverse effects in accordance with Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," and Executive Order 13045, "Protection 

of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." In addition, consistent with the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, APHIS has examined the proposed action in light of its 

impacts to national historic properties. APHIS has determined that the proposed action is a type of 

activity that is unlikely to have the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 

The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations require that environmental 

documents be made available to the persons and agencies that may be interested or affected . The August 

20!O EA prepared for the proposed ACP and CG control program was made available to the public for 

comment. The agency accepted comments for 30 days, ending September 26, 20 10. APHIS received a 

total of three comments. As a result of the comments, minor editorial revisions were made to the August 

2010 EA. In addition , one commenter provided a list of additional chemicals that he felt should be 

considered in the EA. APHIS will evaluate the potential for adding chemicals to those approved for use 

in the program. If it is determined that the addition of new chemicals would be beneficial, the potential 

addition would be evaluated under NEPA in a separate document. 

Based on the August 2010 EA, I have determined that this finding of no significant impact is the 

appropriate· environmental decision to make in reference to the proposed control action. Additionally, 

I have selected the proposed action alternative because it will be able to effectively address the serious 

plant disease risk caused by ACP and CG. 

10- t'f - ZOI 0 

G maEI-LiSSY &~3&li~'tJ, Date 


Plant Protection and Quarantine 


Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service