### Finding ofNo 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 ofAgriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed potential environmental consequences ofimplementing 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 ofAgriculture 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 ofthe 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 ofCG; 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 ofCG into citrus-producing areas.
The purpose ofpreparing an EA is for an agency to detennine whether a significant environmental impact is likely to occur as a result ofthe proposed action. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared ifimplementation ofthe proposed action may significantly affect the quality ofthe 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 ofthe proposed control program and, therefore, no EIS needs to be prepared. APHIS' finding ofno 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 ofACP. (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 protectivegear, are designed to minimize adverse effects to applicators. Applications made in accordance with the label directions (including harvest and reentry intervals, and washing offruit at packinghouses) reduce public exposure so that chemical residues are below tolerance limits and are unlikely to be harmful to the public. During treatments ofresidential areas
. human exposure to program insecticides is minimized through adherence to recommended practices at the time ofprogram 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 ofpermeable soils, and avoidance ofareas 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 oftreatment, 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 ofChildren 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 ofits 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 ofthree comments. As a result ofthe comments, minor editorial revi sions were made to the August 2010 EA

. In addition, one commenter provided a list ofadditional 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. Ifit is determined that the addition ofnew 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 ofno 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
- ZOI0 G maEI-LiSSY

# &~3&li~'tJ, Date

Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service