Finding of No Significant Impact for 


Quarantine and Interstate Movement of 


Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid 


Environmental Assessment 


July 2009 

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

prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental consequences of 

implementing a citrus greening (CG) and Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) control program. The proposed 

program is needed to control the spread of CG and ACP in order to minimize economic damage to citrus 

in groves and nurseries. The final 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 


Emergency and Domestic Programs 


Emergency Management 


4700 River Road, Unit 134 


Riverdale, MD 20737-1236 


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

undertaken measures to control the artificial spread of CG and ACP to noninfested areas of the United 

States since the introduction ofthe CG in 2005. Since September 16,2005, APHIS has issued Federal 

Orders to designate quarantined areas and imposed restrictions on the interstate movement of all CG and 

ACP host material from these areas. 

A July 2009 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 withdraw the current Federal Order and would take no further regulatory action; and (2) the 

proposl d action alternative, in which the control program would codify sorr.(: of the provisions of the 

current Federal Order, clarify others, and add provisions that APHIS has determined to be necessary to 

prevent the spread ofCG and ACP to noninfested areas of the United States. Under the proposed 

program, the interstate movement of articles regulated for CG and ACP from an area quarantined for CG 

or ACP will be prohibited, except under certain conditions. 

The purpose of preparing an EA is for an Agency to determine whether a significant environmental 

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

must be prepared if implementation of the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. Based on the information provided in the July 2009 EA, I have determined 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 up on the expected limited environmental consequences, as 

analyzed in the EA and summarized below. 

The EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts arising from chemical (i.e., methyl bromide, 

dinotefuran, imidacloprid, bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, or an imidacloprid and 

cyfluthrin mixture) and irradiation treatments that would be required ifregulated articles were moved 

interstate from areas quarantined for ACP. The only potentially affected areas to be treated pursuant to 

the proposed program are within commercial nurseries. The EA concluded that, provided persons 

applying the chemical treatments follow the pesticide label, its applicable directions, and all restrictions 

and precautions, including statements pertaining to Worker Protection Standards, the effects to the 
environment and to humans from chemical treatments within nurseries are not expected to be substantial. 

Protective gear and safety precautions required by the label and standard operating procedures are 

designed to ensure that no adverse effects to program workers will be expected. 

Since methyl bromide fumigation is conducted in contained facilities, potential exposure to the 

environment and to nontargets, including humans in the surrounding communities, is minimal. 

Additionally, adherence to good practices and guidelines should ensure that there are no adverse effects 

on workers and bystanders. Consumers are unlikely to be impacted by handling a commodity which has 

been fumigated with methyl bromide because methyl bromide dissipates quickly once the commodity is 

removed from the fumigation chamber. The expected use of methyl bromide in fumigation of articles 

under the proposed control program is well below any levels that could contribute measurably to ozone 

depletion. In addition, irradiation treatment ofregulated articles is under controlled conditions in 

contained facilities, and, therefore, the potential exposure to the environment and nontarget species is 

minimal. Irradiation facilities are strictly regulated for human and environmental safety. Consumption of 

irradiated regulated articles should pose no significant risk to consumers. 

The potential for affecting threatened and endangered species exists only at the site where the chemical 

treatments will occur, namely in the nurseries. APHIS is in the process of gathering pertinent information 

and intends to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service 

to ensure that proper measures are taken to protect endangered and threatened species. Any conservation 

measures decided upon would be incorporated into the compliance agreements required by APHIS for the 

nursenes. 

Due to the nature of the proposed actions, we anticipate no disproportionate adverse effects to minorities, 

low-income populations, or children 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." APHIS is in 

the process of complying with the Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments," by collaborating with Indian tribal officials to ensure that they are well-informed 

and represented in decisions regarding the proposed program. 

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

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

2009 EA prepared for the proposed CG and ACP control program was made available to the public for 

comment. The agency accepted comments for 30 days, ending November 9,2009. APHIS received three 

comments. 

One comment was not related to the EA but to the CG and ACP control program. The commenter 

requested that we allow the limited interstate movement of citrus nursery stock from an area quarantined 

for citrus greening; under the program, such movement is prohibited, unless the articles are destined for 

immediate export. We would authorize such movement only if we determine that measures exist that 

adequately mitigate the risk associated with it. Our evaluation of possible measures is currently ongoing. 

A second comment was received from the United States Department ofthe Interior (DOl), Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service). The commenter indicated a general agreement with the EA, referenced the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and requested applicators avoid 

direct spraying of birds of any species. A third comment was received from the DOl's National Park 

Service (NPS). NPS requested that they be informed if new information becomes available regarding 

control strategies and threatened and endangered species. 
APHIS acknowledges and appreciates these comments, but we do not consider it necessary to revise 

the EA in response to them. However, we have revised the EA to reference Federal Orders issued 

since the close of the comment period. 

Based on this July 2009 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 ca?EJfA1..-/1,5(zd / () 

Date I 

Plant Protection and Quara 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Osama EI-Lissy