# Quarantine and
Interstate Movement of Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid

Environmental Assessment July 2009 United States Department of Agriculture

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and

Plant Health Inspection
Service

# Quarantine and Interstate Movement of Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid

Environmental Assessment July 2009

Agency Contact:

Patrick Gomes, National Project Manager Citrus Health Response Program
Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 920 Main Campus Drive - Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27606-5213

__________________________________________________________ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, se xual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases appl y to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, writ e 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.

__________________________________________________________ Mention of companies or commercial pr oducts 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 involvi ng pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they

can be recommended.

__________________________________________________________ CAUTION: Pesticides can be inju rious 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 surp lus pesticides and pesticide containers.

## Table of Contents

I. Purpose a nd Need ................................................................... 1

A. Intr oduction ...................................................................... 1

B. Purpose and Need ........................................................... 2

II. Altern atives .............................................................................. 3

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

B. Proposed Action .............................................................. 3

III. Environmenta l Impacts ........................................................... 8

A. No Action ......................................................................... 8

B. Proposed Action .............................................................. 9

IV. Other Environmenta l Considerat ions .................................. 23

A. Endangered Species Act .............................................. 23

B. Executive Orders ........................................................... 23

V. Agencies, Organizations, a nd Individuals Consulted ........ 25

VI. Refere nces ............................................................................. 261 

## I. Purpose and Need

A. Introduction

Citrus greening disease (CG), also known as Huanglongbing disease of citrus, is considered to be one of th e most serious citrus diseases in the

world. CG is a bacterial disease caused by strains of the bacterial pathogen “ Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus” th at attacks the vascular system of host plants. The pathoge n presents no threat to humans or animals. The pathogen is phloem- limited, inhibiting the food-conducting tissues of the host plant, and causes yellow shoots, blotchy mottling and chlorosis, reduced foliage, and tip dieback of citrus plants. CG greatly reduces production, destroys the econom ic value of the fruit, and can kill trees. Once infected, there is no cure for a tree with CG. In areas of the world where CG is endemic, citrus tr ees decline and die within a few years and may never produce usable fruit. CG was first detected in the United States in Miami-Dade County, Florid a, in 2005. Currently, CG is only known to be present in Florida, Geor gia, Puerto Rico, two parishes in Louisiana, and two counties in South Carolina.

The bacterial pathogen causing CG can be transmitted by grafting and, under laboratory conditions, by dodder. Additionally, there is some evidence that seed transmission may occur. The pathogen also can be transmitted by two insect vectors in the family Psyllidae: Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), and Trioza erytreae (del Guercio), the African citrus psylli d. In addition to transporting

“ Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus,” ACP can cause economic damage to citrus in groves and nurseries by dire ct feeding. Both adults and nymphs feed on young foliage, depleting the sap and causing galling or curling of leaves. High populations feeding on a citrus shoot can kill the growing tip. ACP is currently present in por tions or all of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawa ii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Guam, and Puerto Ri co. The African citrus psyllid will

not be discussed further in this document because it is not known to be present in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Agricultur e (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has undert aken measures to control the artificial spread 1 of CG and ACP to noninfeste d areas of the United States since the introduction of the CG in 2005. On September 16, 2005, APHIS issued a Federal Order designating all or parts of 10 affected counties in Florida as quarantined areas, and impos ing restrictions on the interstate

movement of all CG and ACP host mate rial from these areas. Since then,

1 Humans moving CG or ACP host plant material have been responsible for the long-distance spread of CG and ACP; this is often referred to as "artificial" spread.2 it has been necessary to update the restrictions and expand the CG and/or ACP quarantine areas with subsequent Federal Orders 2 due to the continuing spread of both CG and AC P. APHIS has issued a total of

fifteen Federal Orders 3 to impose restrictions on the interstate movement of CG and ACP host plant materi al from quarantined areas.

APHIS is proposing a control program that would replace the December 16, 2009, Federal Order for CG and ACP (s ee footnote 2). It would codify some of the provisions of the Order, clarify others, and add provisions that APHIS has determined to be necessary since the issuance of the last Federal Order so as to prevent the sp read of CG and ACP to noninfested

areas of the United States.



### B. Purpose and Need

Under § 412(a) of the Plant Protection Ac t (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agricu lture may prohibit or restrict the

movement of interstate commerce of any plant or plant product, if the Secretary determines that the prohibi tion or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of a plant di sease within the United States. Under the Act, the Secretary may also issue regulations requiring plants and products moved in interstate co mmerce to be subject to remedial measures determined necessary to prev ent the spread of the disease, or requiring the objects to be accomp anied by a permit issued by the Secretary prior to movement.

There is a need to control the spread of CG and ACP in order to minimize economic damage to citrus in groves and nurseries. The purpose of the proposed control program outlined below would be to protect the domestic citrus industry, including the individual farmers who comprise the base of that industry, by controlling the arti ficial spread of CG and ACP.

In September 2005, APHIS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to analyze and evaluate pot ential environmental effects resulting from the proposed CG control program. On October 5, 2005, APHIS issued a notice of availability of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the EA concerning the citrus greening control program in Florida nurseries. The EA was subsequently revised an d finalized, and a FONSI was issued in January 2006. APHIS prepared a second EA, and a FONSI was issued

in October 2007. The EA evaluated the possible environmental impacts

2 To view these Federal Orders, go to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/pl ant_pest_info/citrus_greening/regs.shtml

. 3 The fifteen Federal Orders are as follows: September 16, 2005, DA#2005-30; May 3, 2006, DA#2006-19, 5/3/06; November 2, 2007, DA#2007-54; January 11, 2008, DA#2008-02; June 24, 2008, DA#2008-26; July 11, 2008, DA#2008-31; July 22, 2008, DA#2008-36; August 5, 2008, DA#2008-40; September 12, 2008, DA#2008-61; October 1, 2008, DA#2008-67; January 28 2009, DA#2009-06; July 29, 2009, DA-2009-36; September 21, 2009, DA#2009-47; November 20, 2009, DA#2009-58; and December 16, 2009, DA#2009-63.3 associated with implementation of the revised Federal Order, and, in particular, the treatment schedules specified within it.

This EA analyzes the environm ental impacts anticipated from implementation of the proposed program actions stated below. This EA has been prepared consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and APHIS’ NEPA implementing procedures (7 CFR pa rt 372). APHIS provided a 30-day public comment period for this EA that ended on November 9, 2009. APHIS acknowledges receipt of several comments; however, none of the comments have caused APHIS to substantively revise the EA.



## II. Alternatives

APHIS has considered two alternatives in response to the need for better

methods to control and contain CG and ACP: (1) no action, and (2) the proposed action. Each alternative is de scribed briefly in this section, and the potential environmental impacts of each are considered in the following section.



### A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would withdraw the current

Federal Order and would take no furt her regulatory action. APHIS would not implement any quarantine or control measures to eradicate or even attempt to locally contain the spread of CG or ACP. It is likely that this

action would result in an increase in control measures from other Federal

or non-Federal entities to control CG and ACP.



### B. Proposed Action

Under the proposed actio n alternative, APHIS would adhere to the measures outlined below. The requirements in the current Federal Order, with some modifications, would rema in in effect as a result of implementation of this program. This alternative would provide protection to the domestic citrus industry by cont rolling the artificial spread of CG

and ACP.

The interstate movement of articles regulated for CG and ACP from an area quarantined for CG or ACP would be prohibited, except under certain

conditions outlined below.

A State, or a portion of a State, woul d be designated as a quarantined area for CG when the presence of CG is c onfirmed within the area following an

APHIS-administered test. 1. Quarantined

Areas4 A State, or a portion of a State, woul d be designated as a quarantined area for ACP when an established population 4 of ACP has been detected.

The Administrator 5 may also consider it necessary to quarantine an area because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from

localities in which CG and/or ACP have been found.

APHIS would publish the description of all areas quarantined for CG or ACP on the Plant Protection and Qu arantine (PPQ) Web site (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health /plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/i

ndex.shtml ). Lists of all quarantined areas also may be obtained by request from any local office of PPQ; local offices are listed in telephone directories. APHIS would publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of any changes th at have occurred to the quarantined

areas.

Currently, the entire States of Florida and Georgia, the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two parishes in Louisiana, and two counties in South Carolina are design ated as quarantined areas for CG. The entire States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and the en tire Territory of Guam, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are quarantined for ACP. Additionally, portions of the States of Arizona, California and South Carolina are quarantined for ACP.

The following are regulated articles for ACP and CG—

All plants and plant pa rts (including leaves), except fruit, of: Aegle marmelos, Aeglopsis chevalieri, Afraegle gabonensis, A. paniculata,

Atalantia spp . ( including Atalantia monophylla), Balsamocitrus dawei, Bergera (= Murraya ) koenigii, Calodendrum capense

,  Citroncirus webberi, Citropsis articulata, Citrop sis gilletiana, C. schweinfurthii,

Citrus madurensis (=  Citrofortunella microcarpa), Citrus spp., Clausena anisum-olens, C. excavata, C. indica, C. lansium, Eremocitrus glauca,

Eremocitrus hybrid , Fortunella spp. , Limonia acidissima, Merrillia caloxylon, Microcitrus australasic a, Microcitrus australis, M. papuana,

 Microcitronella spp. , Murraya spp. , Naringi crenulata, Pamburus missionis, Poncirus trifoliata, Severinia buxifolia, Swinglea glutinosa, Tetradium ruticarpum, Toddalia asiatica, Triphasia trifolia, Vepris (= Toddalia ) lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum fagara 6

.

4 An “established population” under the CG and ACP c ontrol program is defined as the presence of
ACP within an area that the Administrator determines is likely to persist for the foreseeable future.

5 The Administrator refers to the Administrator of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or any individual authorized to act for the Administrator.

6 Any other product, article, or means of conv eyance may be designated a regulated article for ACP or CG, if an inspector determines that it presents a risk of spreading these pes ts and provides written 2. Interstate
Movement of Regulated

Articles5 Propagative seed of the species listed above is considered a host of CG,

but not a host of ACP.

Labeling Requirements

All regulated nursery stock 7 offered for commercial sale within an area quarantined for CG must be promin ently labeled with language alerting consumers to Federal prohibitions rega rding the interstate movement of

the article.

Nursery stock produced within a quara ntined area for planting in a commercial citrus grove 8 within that same area and moved directly to that grove, without movement outside of the quarantined area, may be moved without being labeled.

Nursery stock that would be moved interstate for immediate export under a limited permit may be move d without being labeled.

Issuance of Certificat es and Limited Permits

Certificates are issued when an inspector 9 or person operating under a compliance agreement 10 finds that a regulated ar ticle can be moved safely from a quarantined area without risk of spreading the disease or pest. Regulated articles accompanied by a cer tificate may be moved interstate

without further movement restrictions.

Limited permits are issued for regulated articles when an inspector finds that the articles may safely be m oved interstate only with additional restrictions, such as pr ohibitions on movement to certain locations. An inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a limited permit for the interstate movement of a regulated article only if the regulated article is to be moved inte rstate to a specified destination for specified handling, processing, or utili zation (the destination and other

a notification to the person in possession of the produc t, article, or means of conveyance that it is subject to restrictions.

7 Nursery stock are any plants or plant parts, ex cluding fruit or propagative seeds, intended to be planted, to remain planted, or to be replanted. Nursery stock includes, but is not limited to, trees, shrubs, cuttings, grafts, scions, and buds.

8 A commercial citrus grove is a solid-set planti ng of trees maintained for the primary purpose of producing citrus fruit for commercial sale.

9 An inspector is an individual aut horized by the APHIS Administrator to perform the duties required under the program.

10 A compliance agreement is a written agreement between APHIS and a person engaged in the business of growing, maintaining, processing, handli ng, packing, or moving host articles for interstate movement, in which the person agrees to comply with this subpart. A compliance agreement can be a memorandum of understanding.6 conditions to be listed in the limited permit) and this movement of the regulated article would not result in the spread of CG or the ACP.

Certificates and limited permits woul d be issued only if the regulated articles are moved in compliance wi th additional emergency conditions that may be imposed to prevent the sp read of CG or ACP and the articles are eligible for intersta te movement under all othe r Federal domestic plant quarantines and regulations a pplicable to the article.

Any certificate or limited permit that has been issued may be withdrawn by an inspector if he or she determines that the holder of the certificate has not complied with all relevant regulations.

Additional Conditions

Regulated Articles from Areas Quarantined for Only ACP But Not
CG

In addition to the general conditions for issuance of a certificate, an inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a

certificate for the interstate movement of any regulated arti cle to any State,

if—

 The article is treated with methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

 The article is shipped in a sealed container; and

 The container is labeled with the certificate; and

 A copy of the certificate is attached to the consignee’s copy of the accompanying waybill.

An inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may also issue a limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock if all of the following conditions are met—

 The nursery stock, unless fumigate d with methyl bromide, is

treated for ACP with an APHIS- approved soil drench or in-ground granular application (as discusse d below) no more than 30 days and no fewer than 20 days before shipment, followed by an APHIS-approved foliar spray (as discussed below) no more than10 days before shipment. All treatments must be applied according to their EPA label, including directi ons on application, restrictions on place of application, and other restrictions and precautions, including statements pertaining to Worker Protection Standards.

 The nursery stock is inspected by an inspector and found free of

ACP.

 The nursery stock has the follo wing statement prominently and legibly displayed, “Limited permit: US DA-APHIS-PPQ. Not for distribution in American Samoa, AZ, Northern Mariana7 Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands or those portions of CA and SC not quarantined due to the presence of Asian citrus psyllid or citrus greening”

.

 The nursery stock is moved in a sealed container.

 The container also prominently a nd legibly displays the statement of the limited permit.

 A copy of the limited permit is att ached to the cons ignee’s copy of the accompanying waybill.

 The nursery stock is moved in accordance with the conditions specified on the limited permit.

An inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a limited permit for the interstate move ment of regulated articles intended for consumption, for use as apparel or a similar personal accessory, or for

other decorative use if—

 The articles are treated with irra diation in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 at an irradiation facility that is not located in an area quarantined for CG; and

 The container is clearly labeled with the limited permit; and

 A copy of the limited permit is att ached to the cons ignee’s copy of the accompanying waybill.

Regulated Articles from Areas Quarantined for CG

Prior to shipping regulated nursery st ock from areas quarantined for CG, in addition to the general conditions for issuance of a limited permit, an inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a limited permit for the interstate move ment of regulated nursery stock grown, produced, or maintained at a nurse ry or other facility located in the CG-quarantined area if all of th e following conditions are met—

 The nursery stock is treated for ACP with an APHIS-approved soil drench or in-ground granular ap plication, followed by an APHISapproved foliar spray (as discu ssed below), or with methyl bromide or irradiation, in accordance with 7 CFR part 305.

 The nursery stock is inspected by an inspector and found free of

ACP.

 The nursery stock is prominently and legibly labeled with the following statement “Limited permit: USDA-APHIS-PPQ. For immediate export only.”

 The nursery stock is accompanied by a copy of the limited permit attached to the consignee’s copy of the waybill.

 The nursery stock is directly m oved in a sealed container in accordance with the conditions specified on the limited permit to the port of export specified on the limited permit.

 A copy of the limited permit is att ached to or legibly printed on

this container.8  The nursery stock remains in this sealed container as long as the plants are within the United States.

APHIS-Approved Treatments

APHIS would maintain a continuall y updated list of all pesticides approved for use in the control program on the PPQ Website ( http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ plant_health/plant_pest_ info/citrus_greening/i

ndex.shtml ). Currently, methyl bromide and several soil drenches and foliar sprays are approved for use in certain circumstances.

The treatment requirements for ACP are summarized below—

 Any regulated article that will be m oved interstate must be treated with methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305, or

 Any regulated nursery stock that wi ll be moved interstate must be

treated with a soil drench or in -ground granular application of dinotefuran or imidacloprid as th e sole active ingredient in the pesticide product. The application must be made no more than 30 days and no less than 20 days before sh ipment, followed by a foliar spray containing either bifenthrin, chlo rpyrifos, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, or an imidacloprid and cyfluthr in mixture as the sole active ingredient(s) in the pesticide product. The foliar spray must be applied no more than 10 days prior to shipment.

 Regulated articles intended for cons umption, for use as apparel or a similar personal accessory, or for ot her decorative use may be moved

interstate if treated w ith irradiation, in accordance with 7 CFR part

305.

Treatments for CG do not currently exist.



## III. Environmental Impacts

There are potential environmental eff ects from each of the alternatives being considered. The environmental risks from the spread of CG and ACP are important considerations for evaluating the alternatives. In addition, potential program impacts aris ing from chemical and irradiation

treatments will be considered.



### A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would not implement any quarantine or control measures to er adicate or even attempt to locally contain the spread of CG or ACP. Some control measures, albeit limited

control measures without APHIS’ i nvolvement, could be taken by other

Federal or non-Federal en tities—those actions woul d not be under APHIS’9 authorities, expertise, control, or funding. For example, local business

owners and area residents could atte mpt to control damages from CG and ACP by removing the infested trees from their properties. Absent APHIS’ assistance and expertise along with the absence of more effective measures to contain and control the sp read of CG and ACP, new areas of infestation would be expected to con tinue and become more widespread.

The lack of effective control measures to prevent the spread of CG from

sites of infestation to other areas and counties could lead to higher production costs and an increase in shortage s of availability of citrus fruits and plants to the general economy. This would potentially result in increased costs for survey, detection, and treatment for the control of CG and ACP as it spreads to ot her areas and counties.



### B. Proposed Action

Under the proposed action alternative, APHIS would be involved in the proposed control program measures pr eviously discussed which include inspections, quarantines, and treatmen ts. The aspects of the proposed control program, which include rout ine inspections and quarantines of

commercial nurseries 11 , are program activities that pose negligible

environmental effects that need not be described in detail. Such “routine” control measures are specifically de signated as “categorically excluded” 12
activities and actions pursuant to AP HIS’ NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR § 372.5(c)(1)). The primar y action in this proposed control program that could be associated with any potentially noteworthy environmental impacts is the use of chemical and irradiation treatments. The environmental impacts of these requirements will be discussed below.

Under the proposed action alternative, APHIS would allow the use of multiple pesticides, which may provide some benefits to the environment over the use of a single pesticide. On e such benefit may be the increased ability of nurseries to find one product that is registered to treat multiple pests. With a greater number of pr oducts to choose from, it is possible that applicators could find products th at are not only registered for use

11 The proposed program would consider a nursery to be any commercial location where nursery stock is grown, propagated, stored, maintained, or sold, or any commercial location from which nursery stock is distributed. In contrast, this environmental assessment primarily examines the application of treatments in commercial nurseries. APHIS recognizes that this is more limited in scope than the proposed program’s definition; for example, it does not consider treatment applications in commercial retail stores. However, the EPA approved labels of most of the insecticide treatments that the program intends to approve for use limit application to a commercial nursery. Moreover, only commercial nurseries are currently shipping regulated articles interstate and APHIS considers it likely that only commercial nurseries would request to do so under the proposed action alternative. Finally, many States that are quar antined for ACP have elected to maintain quarantines that effectively limit treatment to the site of propagation.

12 Categorical exclusion “means a ca tegory of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implement ation of these regulations (§ 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental asse ssment nor an environmental impact statement is required” (40 CFR § 1508.4). 1. Chemical

Treatments10 against ACP, but are also registered against additional pests. Instead of applying two products against two pest s, applicators may only need to apply one product to combat two pests. In addition, allowing multiple pesticides to be used against ACP incr eases the potential for applicators to employ sustainable pest management which may minimize pesticide resistance. EPA has defined pesticid e resistance as a “heritable and significant decrease in th e sensitivity of a pest population to a pesticide that is shown to reduce the field pe rformance of pesticides” (EPA, 2001). EPA indicates that an important pes ticide resistance management strategy is to avoid the repeated use of a particular pesticide (EPA, 2001). By alternating the chemicals used to co mbat ACP, applicators might reduce the ability of ACP to deve lop pesticide resistance.

The only potentially affected areas to be treated pursuant to the proposed program are within commercial nurseries. Provided that persons applying the chemical treatments follow the pesticide label, its applicable directions, and all restrictions and precautions, including statements pertaining to Worker Protection Standards 13 , the effects to the

environment and to humans from chemic al treatments within nurseries are not expected to be substantial.

Due to the fact that chemical treatmen ts would only be applied to specific articles in limited locations, the numb er of treatments that would be required under the proposed program is expected to be minimal. Currently, nurseries in portions or al l of Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missis sippi, South Carolina, Texas, Guam, and Puerto Rico are required to use chemical treatments against ACP if they move their ACP host articles interstate.

While additional States may be added to this list, the number of treatments applied annually is still expected to remain low due to the limited number

of nurseries that intend to move hos t plants interstate. The cumulative number of treated plants in any State will depend on the extent and duration of the proposed program in that State. The number of host plants and plant parts that would require treatment annually under the proposed control program is not available for most States; however, APHIS believes

that use of chemicals to combat AC P in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas currently represents the vast majority of the use of chemicals to combat

ACP.

In 2007, 32 Texas counties were quarantined for ACP. As part of the Texas Department of Agriculture’s eval uation of the fiscal implications of the quarantine, they established that of the 18 commercial citrus nurseries that operate in Texas, nine were lo cated inside the 2007 quarantine area.

13 It is “unlawful for any person to use any regist ered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” (7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G)).11 Additionally, “89 percen t (240,000) of the 275,000 citrus nursery plants produced annually in Texas are grow n in the quarantine area....70 percent (168,000) of the 240,000 plants produced in the quarantined area are shipped outside the quarantined area” (4 TAC §§ 19.410–19.413 14 ). Therefore, under the 2007 quarantine, when 32 Texas counties were under quarantine for ACP, approximately 168,000 plants were being chemically treated for ACP. APHIS expects the number of plants treated in these counties to remain constant; thus, APHIS predicts that no fewer than 168,000 plants would be treated for ACP in Texas annually.

Under the 2009 quarantine, in which the entire State of Texas became quarantined, APHIS expects the total th e number of plants treated in Texas to increase, although minimally. If 240,000 of the 275,000 of the citrus nursery plants produced annually in Texas were grown inside the 2007 quarantined area, then approximately 35,000 15 citrus nursery plants were produced outside the 2007 quarantined ar ea. These plants now fall within the statewide quarantine area. At most then, an additional 35,000 citrus plants could be treated for ACP w ithin this newly quarantined area, although the actual number may be far less than 35,000.

Under the proposed program, Florida c ould only ship their plants out of the State for immediate exportation from the United States. Three commodities that are shipped out of Florida for immediate export are Murraya, Calamondin, and kumquat plan ts. According to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consum er Services, in 2008, there were 13 nurseries which propagated 1,922,512 plants that were potential hosts of CG (FDACS, 2009). However, the number of plants that would need to be treated under the proposed program may be far less than 1,922,512.

In the State of Louisiana, the majo rity, if not all, commercial citrus nursery products are located within one parish, Plaquemines Parish. According to the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, there are roughly 10 citrus nurseries loca ted in Plaquemines Parish, which produce a total of 350,000 to 400,000 tr ees per year. Roughly 60 to 70 percent of the trees (210,000 to 280,000 trees) are moved interstate and, therefore, would require chem ical treatment (LDAF, 2008).

Provided that EPA and/or State approved pesticide labels are adhered to, human and environmental exposure in each of the above mentioned States

should be minimal.

a. Soil Drench or In-ground Granular Treatment

14 Texas Register, 2008. Volume 33, pp. 1465–1656.

15 275,000 citrus nursery plants – 240,000 citrus nursery plants = 35,000 citrus nursery plants12 Under the proposed action alternative, unless fumigated with methyl bromide, regulated nursery stock will n eed to be treated with a soil drench or in-ground granular treatment contai ning dinotefuran or imidacloprid as the sole active ingredient in the pesticide product, not more than 30 days and not less than 20 days prior to move ment, in order to move interstate. Soil drenches and in-ground granular tr eatments are applied to the soil around the article, absorbed into the plan t, and are then translocated within the plant’s system. Potential human e xposure and risk from these types of applications is greatest for applicator s and workers in nurseries. To ensure adequate safety for the use of either chemical, they must be used according to label directions, including any restrictions or precautionary label language. Exposure would be le ss to those who may handle treated nursery stock after application, sinc e the chemicals would have already

moved into the treated articles. Th e potential environmental impacts of soil drenches and in-ground granular treatments are discussed below.

(1) Dinotefuran

(a) Human Health

Dinotefuran is a systemic insecticid e, belonging to the neonicitinoid class but within the nitroguanidine sub-cla ss. Dinotefuran has moderate acute toxicity to mammals and low inhalati on and dermal toxicity. It is not

considered a skin irritant based on skin sensitization and irritation studies; however, it is considered an eye irrita nt. Based on sublethal study results,

dinotefuran is not considered a carc inogen or mutagen, and developmental effects only occur at doses that ar e maternally toxic. Immune- and

endocrine-related effects have been observed in multiple studies (EPA, 2004a). These effects were obser ved during prolonged exposures andwould not be anticipated in this program. The primary immune systemrelated effect observed in the studie s was altered thymus weights which may not be related to direct immune toxicity of dinotefuran. However, they may be a secondary effect due to overall reduced body size and weight gain during exposures that we re 13 weeks or greater, depending on the type of study. Based on EPA’s eval uation of risk to different human population subgroups, including occ upational exposures, it was

determined that the dinotefuran risk alone, as well as aggregate risk when including other neonicitinoi d insecticides, did not exceed agency levels of concern (EPA, 2004a).

The proposed use of dinotefuran in this program is restricted to applications to soil on re gulated nursery stock; th erefore, potential humanrelated exposure would be restricted to workers a nd applicators. Exposure to workers and applicators would be minimized by adherence to all precautionary statements on the label, as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.13 (b) Nontarget Organisms

Dinotefuran has low to moderate acut e and chronic toxicity to nontarget wildlife, such as mammals and birds. Dinotefuran also ha s low toxicity to fish and most aquatic invertebrates with the exception of some marine invertebrates, where it is considered highly toxic. T oxicity is also high for pollinators, such as the honey bee. Degradates of dinotefuran are less toxic to aquatic organisms based on av ailable toxicity da ta. Based on the available effects data for nontarget or ganisms and the proposed use pattern for dinotefuran in this program, the risk to terrestrial and aquatic nontarget organisms is expected to be negligible (EPA, 2004a). All soil applications would be made on regulated nursery stock, reducing off-site movement via drift or runoff. Potential impacts to terrestrial inve rtebrates would be restricted to the nursery wh ere treatments occur to soil.

(c) Environmental Quality

The environmental fate of dinotefuran suggests it is highly mobile, based on solubility and soil adso rption characteristics. Dinotefuran is stable to hydrolysis, but is somewhat susceptible to microbial degradation and is very sensitive to photolysis. Based on the method of application, which would eliminate significant off-site dr ift, no adverse impacts on air quality are expected. Off-site negative im pacts to soil and ground or surface water are not expected, based on the use pattern for dinotefuran and its

environmental fate.

(2) Imidacloprid

(a) Human Health

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’s nervous system. Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warmblooded animals. Because of their molecular shape, size, and charge, nicotine and nicotinoids fit into recep tor molecules in the nervous system that normally receive the molecule ac etylcholine. This molecule carries nerve impulses from one nerve cell to another or from a nerve cell to the

tissue that a nerve controls. Im idacloprid overstimulates the nerve, ultimately resulting in the insect’s paralysis and eventual death. Because this nicotinergic site of action is mo re prevalent in insects than in higher organisms, the pesticide is selectivel y more toxic to insects. Signs and symptoms in humans include fatig ue, twitching, cramps, and muscle weakness, including the muscles fo r breathing. Imidacloprid is not considered carcinogenic by EPA. The application of this pesticide is restricted to soil treatments for regul ated nursery stock. Imidacloprid is14 the least toxic of the syst emic program pesticides. None of the routine or extreme exposure scenarios pose unacceptable risks to workers or applicators. Moreover, required pr otective gear and safety precautions further ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(b) Nontarget Organisms

The program use of imidacloprid is unlikely to impact most nontarget wildlife. Imidaclop rid is moderately to severe ly toxic to birds including, but not limited to, the American r obin, northern mockingbird, European starling, red-winged blackbird, and h ouse sparrow. However, the area affected by the pesticide would be limited to nurseries and should only affect a limited number of birds, if a ny at all. Although it is nontoxic to fish, it is highly toxic to aquatic inse cts. Adherence to label and program application restrictions should preclu de any drift or runoff to water. Terrestrial invertebrates within the nursery where treatments would occur could be impacted; however, the effect s would be localized and restricted to those plants that have been treated (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(c) Environmental Quality

Any potential impacts of imidacloprid to the quality of the air, soil, and

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. Imidacloprid is moderately soluble in water and will dissipate quickly. It is absorbed by soil particles and has low mobility. Imidacloprid is readily taken up by plants and translocated; however, program treatments are not expected to result in any bioaccumu lation hazards (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

b. Foliar Treatment

Under the proposed action alternative, unless fumigated with methyl bromide, regulated nursery stock will n eed to be treated with a foliar spray 10 days prior to movement in order to move interstate. Foliar sprays are applied to the leaves of plants acco rding to label instructions. The program would require foliar applica tions containing either bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, or a mixture of imidacloprid and cyfluthrin as the sole active ingred ient(s) of the pesticide product. Potential human-related exposure to and risk caused by program insecticides would be gr eatest for applicators and workers in nurseries. The products must be used according to label directions, including any restrictions or precautio nary label language. After regulated articles are treated, the potential for human expos ure and risk decreases because as pesticide treatments dry, the potentia l for dermal exposure is greatly reduced and pesticides degrade over time. The potential environmental impacts of foliar treatment s are discussed below.15 (1) Bifenthrin

(a) Human Health

Bifenthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide with a mode of action similar to other pyrethroids, such as fenpropathrin and cyfluthrin, which have been previously discussed. Bi fenthrin has moderate acute oral toxicity but low dermal toxicity. It is not considered to be a dermal sensitizer or an eye or skin irr itant (EPA, 2004b). Bifenthrin is not considered to be a reproductive or de velopmental toxicant. However, it is considered a potential carcinogen ba sed on the formation of urinary bladder tumors administered at high doses to mice. The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated nursery stock. The potential for bifenthrin exposure would be rest ricted to applicators; however, by adhering to the label and other sta ndard operating procedures, no adverse effects to applicators are expected.

(b) Nontarget Organisms

Bifenthrin has low to slight toxicity to birds and m oderate acute toxicity to

wild mammals. Bifenthrin is cons idered highly toxic to honey bees by oral and contact exposure.

Similar to other pyrethroid insecticid es, bifenthrin is considered highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Toxicity values for both groups of organisms range from the low part pe r trillion to the low part per billion, depending on the test species and co nditions (Solomon et al., 2001; EPA, 2008).

Significant exposure and risk to most nontarget terrestrial and aquatic biota is not expected. Potential imp acts are restricted to nurseries and, based on the application method, would not result in significant off-site movement of residues through drift or runoff. Impacts to terrestrial

invertebrates from bifenthrin treatmen ts within the nursery are expected; however, effects would be locali zed and populations would recover rapidly due to movement of invert ebrates from untreated areas into previously treated nursery areas.

(c) Environmental Quality

Bifenthrin is not expected to have any off-site adverse impacts on soil, water, or air, based on the proposed us e pattern and environmental fate for

this class of insecticides. Bifent hrin has extremely low solubility and mobility in soil, which suggests th at it would not be a threat to groundwater. The low solubility and mobility, along with its use being restricted to nursery-only applicatio ns, would also reduce the potential16 exposure to surface water. Impacts to air are not expected, based on the low vapor pressure for bifenthrin.

(2) Chlorpyrifos

(a) Human Health

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate in secticide that can cause neurotoxic effects. The toxicity of chlorpyr ifos occurs primarily through the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase enzyme activity which permits the transmission of nerve impulses acro ss the nerve synapse. Signs and symptoms of low doses include local ized effects (such as nosebleeds, blurred vision, and bronchial constric tion) and systemic effects (such as nausea, sweating, dizziness, and muscul ar weakness). At higher doses the signs and symptoms include irregular heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, cramps, and convulsions. Chlorpyrifos is not considered carcinogenic, based upon studies acceptable to EPA (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated nursery stock. The only individuals that might be affected by the use of this insecticide are the nursery work ers and the occupational workers who apply the pesticide. Several chlorp yrifos scenarios (such as backpack applicators, hydraulic rig applicator s, and ground personnel) do exceed the maximum acceptable exposure that poses no evident risk to human health (Regulatory Reference Value (RRV)) when proper safety precautions are not taken and protective gear is not worn. However, this elevated risk is not life-threatening. Protective gear and safety precautions required by label adherence and standard program operating procedures are designed

to ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(b) Nontarget Organisms

The program use of chlorpyrifos is unlikely to impact most nontarget wildlife. Chlorpyrifos has a moderate toxicity to mammals when consumed. It can be moderately toxic to birds and severely toxic to some individual bird species; however, ma mmals and birds would generally not

be in the affected area at the time of spraying. Symptoms of nonfatal exposure to birds include cholinesterase depressi on (ChE), weight loss, reduced egg production, and reduced ha tchling survival. Impacts to terrestrial invertebrates, such as ea rthworms and worker honey bees, are expected; nevertheless, this effect would be restrict ed to areas within the nursery, and invertebrates from outside the treatment area would repopulate areas after treatment. Chlorpyr ifos can be severely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates; however , the label does not allow direct application to water. Residues from drift or runoff are not anticipated to pose substantial risks to thes e species (USDA, APHIS, 2005).17 (c) Environmental Quality

Any potential impacts of chlorpyrifos to the quality of the air, soil, or

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. Chlorpyrifos can persist in soil and water for several months under certain conditions; however, the persistence is generally only for a month or less. This is dependent on the organic cont ent of the soil. Nevertheless, it can

remain in silt which can run off or drift to surface waters. Significant bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in aquatic organisms is not expected due to its proposed use, which would mi nimize drift and runoff to aquatic

areas.

(3) Deltamethrin

(a) Human Health

Deltamethrin is a pyrethroid insecticid e that has both contact and ingestion activity to several pest insects. It is widely used on a variety of crops and ornamentals to control sucking insects as well as some lepidopteran pests.

Based on the test conditions and spec ies, acute mammalian toxicity for deltamethrin is variable, with oral to xicity values ranging from toxic to practically nontoxic (CA DPR, 2000; Barlow et al., 2001). Dermal toxicity is considered to be low, as well as inhalation toxicity for most formulations, with the exception of one emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

formulation which demonstrates mode rate inhalation toxicity (CA DPR, 2000). Several studies have shown th at deltamethrin is not a carcinogen, mutagen, or teratogen (Barlo w et al., 2001; EPA, 2004b).

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated nursery stock. The potential for expo sure to deltamethrin would be restricted to applicators; however , by adhering to the label and other standard operating procedures, no ad verse effects to applicators are expected.

(b) Nontarget Organisms

Comparative deltamethrin toxicity to nontarget birds and mammals suggests effects at lower concentrati ons for mammals when compared to birds, where deltamethrin is consid ered practically nontoxic (EPA, 2008).

Deltamethrin is considered highly toxic to honey bees.

Deltamethrin is considered highly toxic to fish a nd aquatic invertebrates, with fish being less sensitive than aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2008; Solomon et al., 2001). Acute fish t oxicity values vary based on test species and conditions, but range from the mid-part per trillion to low-part18 per billion range (EPA, 2008). Acute aqua tic invertebrate toxicity is also dependent on the test species and cond ition, with toxicity values that range from low-part per trillion to low- part per billion range (EPA, 2008). Aquatic chronic toxicity is also high for fish and aquatic invertebrates,

with no effect concentrations in the low-parts per trillion range.

Significant risk to nontarget organisms is not expected due to the restricted use of deltamethrin on nursery stock. Application me thods would reduce the possibility of off-site drift and runoff. There is the potential for localized impacts to terrestrial invert ebrates; however, it would be limited to those insects that are foraging wi thin the nursery during the time of

treatment.

(c) Environmental Quality

Deltamethrin has low solubility and a strong binding affinity for soil and sediment. In aquatic environments, de ltamethrin is stable to degradation at a neutral pH, but will degrade quickl y in more alkaline environments. Deltamethrin is susceptible to photo lysis and microbial degradation in water and soil (Laskowski, 2002). De ltamethrin has low vapor pressure and is not expected to have adverse impacts to air quality. Due to its use being restricted to application on nurs ery stock and its environmental fate, no off-site impacts to soil or ground and surface water are expected.

(4) Fenpropathrin

(a) Human Health

Fenpropathrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide which affects the nervous system. It is a moderate skin and eye irritant. Signs and symptoms can include muscle contr actions, tremors, ataxia, and nerve paralysis at moderate to high levels of exposure. Fenpropathrin is not considered carcinogenic by EPA (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated nursery stock. Potential pesticide expos ures are limited to nursery workers and the occupational workers who appl y the pesticide. Backpack spray application and hydraulic rig appli cations for the extreme exposure scenario are the only circumstances that exceed the RRV. The extreme exposure scenario presumes that the worker would be exposed to higher quantities of the pesticide when that individual is not following safety protocols or wearing protective g ear. Protective gear and safety precautions required by label adheren ce and standard program operating procedures are designed to ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(b) Nontarget Organisms19 The program use of fenpropathrin is unlikely to impact most nontarget wildlife. The toxicity of fenpropathrin is moderate to mammals and has a slight oral toxicity to birds and terrestrial stages of reptiles and amphibians. For shrews and bats there is a high risk for exposure; however, given the limited use of fenpropathrin in this program, shrews and bats are unlikely to be located in th e affected area. It is highly toxic to most aquatic organisms; neverthele ss, aquatic organisms would most likely not be affected because the lim ited area of application within the nursery should not pose any risk of drift or runoff to waters containing aquatic organisms. Terrestrial inverteb rates could be impacted in areas of treatment; however, these effects would be restricted to the nursery and would be temporary due to recoloni zation from untreated areas (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(c) Environmental Quality

Impacts to air, water, and soil from the proposed fenpropathrin applications are expected to be mi nimal, based on its use pattern and environmental fate properties. Fenpropa thrin is persistent in water at a neutral pH but degrades more quick ly at alkaline pH values, with a hydrolysis half-life of 14 days. Photol ytic degradation in soil is much faster than photolytic degradation in water, with a reported half-life in soil of 14 days compared to a half-life in water greater than a year. Potential mobility is low, based on low water so lubility and a high binding affinity for soil, which reduces the potential for runoff. Residues on treated vegetation are also of short pers istence (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(5) Imidacloprid/Cyfluthrin Mixture

(a) Human Health

Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl insecticide whose mode of toxic action and toxicity has been described above. Cyfluthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid inse cticide which affects the nervous system in a manner similar to fenpropathrin. Cyfluthr in is not considered to be an eye irritant or skin sensitizer. Signs and symptoms can include muscle contractions, tremors, ataxia, and ne rve paralysis at moderate to high levels of exposure. Cyfluthrin is not considered to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic by EPA. Th e difference in mechanism of toxic

action ensures that this mixture doe s not pose increased toxicity through synergistic action. Altho ugh synergistic effects on toxicity are possible with simultaneous exposure to orga nophosphates (such as chlorpyrifos) and cyfluthrin, this type of exposure is unlikely with the safety precautions required of this program. The applica tion of this pesticide is limited to treatments of nursery stock. None of the routine or extreme exposure scenarios from this mixture pose unacceptable risks to workers or20 applicators. Moreover, required pr otective gear and safety precautions further ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected.

(b) Nontarget Organisms

The program use of this mixture for treatment in nurseries is unlikely to impact most nontarget wildlife. Alth ough imidacloprid is moderately to highly toxic to some songbirds and cy fluthrin poses some risks to small mammals, program use of this mixture is not expected to pose a high risk because of the limited exposure potential. Both products are toxic to fish and most aquatic organisms; however , adherence to label and program application restrictions should reduce off-site drift and runoff to surface

water. Terrestrial invertebrates coul d be impacted in treated areas, but

these effects are restricted to the nu rsery and would be temporary due to

the movement of invertebrates from unt reated areas into previously treated nursery areas (USDA, APHIS, 2005).

(c) Environmental Quality

Any potential impacts of this formulati on to the quality of the air, soil, and

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. Although cyfluthrin is of low water solubility and adsorbs readily to organic matter, it is not as persistent as imidacloprid in soil. Imidacloprid is moderately soluble in water and di ssipates quickly. It is also absorbed by soil particles and has low mobilit y. Both compounds are readily taken up by plants and translocated; howev er, program treatments are not expected to result in any bioaccumulation hazards.

c. Fumigation Treatment

Methyl bromide is a broad-spectrum fu migant chemical that can be used

as an acaricide 16 , antimicrobial, fungicide, herbicide, in secticide, nematicide, and vertebrate control agent. It is a colorless and odorless gas at normal temperatures and pressu res. When used as a commodity treatment, methyl bromide gas is inj ected into an enclosure or chamber containing the commodities.

Under the proposed control program, regulated articles may be moved interstate if they are treated with methyl bromide according to the APHISapproved treatment schedule MB T101-n-2. Methyl bromide T101-n-2 treatments are conducted at normal atmospheric pressure for 2 hours at the following rates:

Temperature (°F) Dosage rate of methyl bromide

16 An acaricide is a pesticide toxic to mites, ticks, and spiders.21 (lb/1,000 cubic feet)

70 or above 2

60-69 2.5

50-59 3

45-49 3.5

40-44 4

The fumigation treatment facility must be certified by AP HIS. Facilities are required to be inspected and rece rtified annually. Treatment must be monitored by an official authori zed by APHIS to ensure proper

administration of the treatment.

Since methyl bromide fumigation is conducted in contained facilities, potential exposure to the environmen t and to nontargets, including humans in the surrounding communities, is minimal. The greater concern is exposure of workers and bystanders to methyl bromide at the use site. EPA has identified potential human health risks associated with methyl bromide treatments on commodities from acute inhalation exposure to workers and bystanders. “Human expos ure to high concentrations of methyl bromide can result in central nervous system and respiratory system failure, as well as specific and severe deleterious actions on the lungs, eyes, and skin” (EPA, 2009a). However, adherence to good practices and guidelines should ensure that there are no a dverse effects on workers and bystanders.

To minimize risks, all methyl bromide products are classifi ed as restricteduse pesticides (RUP). This restrictio n is required to appear on the product labels. Restricted-use products may only be used by certified pesticide applicators or those working under thei r direct supervision. Another label requirement includes aerating treatm ent enclosures and the treated commodity within the enclosures (EPA, 2006). These measures protect not only workers that must re-ent er the fumigated area and other bystanders, but those that handle the commodity during transport.

To further reduce potential human exposures, additional requirements include (but are not limited to): si te-specific fumigant management plans 17 , respiratory protection, buffer zone s in which only supervisors or pesticide applicators are allowed to enter, notification to workers that handle commodities that a commodity has been treated with methyl bromide, and notification to the community living or working in close proximity to commodity fumigation s ites that methyl bromide is being utilized (EPA, 2006).

17 Fumigant management plans 17 (FMPs) must contain general site information, treatment and aeration procedures, buffer zones, personal prot ective equipment, posting and notification plans, record keeping, emergency procedures, site security , etc. FMPs must be made available to the surrounding community (EPA, 2006).22 Lastly, 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.

Methyl bromide is a substance clas sified by EPA under the Clean Air Act as a Class I ozone-depleting chemi cal. The expected use of methyl bromide in fumigations of articles unde r this quarantine is well below any

levels that could contribute meas urably to ozone depletion. A thorough review of the potential effects of methyl bromide uses in fumigations on ozone depletion was originally presente d in the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material— August, 2003” (USDA, APHIS, 2003). This document has recently been updated and is titled “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material, Supplement to the Final Environmen tal Impact Statement—October 2007” (USDA, APHIS, 2007). This EIS determined that the cumulative impact of methyl bromide on ozone depletio n from routine commodity treatments is not expected to be consequential.

Under the proposed control program, regulated articles intended for consumption, for use as apparel or a similar personal accessory, or for other decorative purposes may be mo ved interstate if treated with

irradiation. Irradiation treatment woul d involve exposure of the articles,

under controlled cond itions, to gamma rays or to electron beams. The amount of energy absorbed is expre ssed in units of Grays (Gy). The required minimum dose (Dmin) is 400 Gy to sterilize ACP.

Consumption of irradiated regulated articles poses no significant risk to consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issu ed a final rule regarding food irradiation in 1986 (21 CFR part179) wh ich states that absorption rates below 1,000 Gy will not make food radioa ctive, affect the safety of the food, alter the nutritional value of the food, or adversely affect the balance between microbial spoilage organi sms and pathogenic organisms.

Since irradiation is conducted in contained facilities, the potential exposure to the environment and no ntargets, including humans in the surrounding communities, is minimal. Ir radiation facilitie s are strictly regulated for human and environmental safety. Irradiation treatments involving gamma rays utilize radioactive sources, such as colbalt-60 or cesium-137. Facilities utilizing such ra dioactive sources must follow the United States Nuclear Regulatory Co mmission licensing requirements.

Facilities that utilize electron beams are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the appropriate State agencies. According to EPA, the basic elements of radiation protection at

all food irradiation facili ties consist of facility design; worker training, 2. Irradiation23 procedures, and supervision; and re gulatory oversight. Shielding the

radiation source is an im portant component of fa cility design. While the amount of shielding necessary depends on the strength of the radiation source, facility treatment chambers may be surrounded with as much as

9 feet of concrete or a combination of concrete and earth or sand (EPA, 2009b). Facility designs must also antic ipate and protect workers and the surrounding communities from natural di sasters such as an earthquake, fire, or tornado (EPA, 2009b). If work ers need to enter an irradiation room, the energy source is turned off in an electron beam facility or the energy source is lowered into a pool of water that absorbs the radiation and protects the workers from exposure (FDA, 2000).

While EPA has indicated that accide nts have occurred at irradiation

facilities which resulted in contamination, all occurred when safety systems and control procedures were bypassed (EPA, 2009b). Under the proposed control program, a written cer tification by a licensed engineering and safety inspector would be issued showing that an irradiation facility meets all safety and health requireme nts for safe operation in compliance with 7 CFR part 305. Provided that safety standards are adhered to, no impacts to human health are expected.



## IV. Other Environmental Considerations

A. Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that their 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. The potential for affecting endangered and th reatened species exists only at the site where required pesticide treatments may occur, namely in nurseries. APHIS is in the process of gathering pertinent information and intends to

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildli fe Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that pr oper 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 nurseries.



### B. Executive Orders

Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minorit y Populations and Low-income24 Populations,” APHIS considered the potential for the proposed control measures to have any disproportionate ly high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority populations and low-income populations. Because chemical treatmen ts are being applied within very limited controlled areas, primarily nurseries, APHIS has determined that

the human health and environmen tal 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 EO 13045, “Protecti on of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately high and adverse envi ronmental health and safety risks to children resulting from the proposed control measures. Because chemical treatments are being applied within very limited controlled areas, primarily nurseries, no exposure to childre n is expected to occur. It is the responsibility and obligation of the pr ogram pesticide applicators (either employees of the commercial plant nursery or those hired by the commercial plant nursery to perform th e pesticide applications) to ensure that the general public is not in or around areas being treated. This ensures that no exposure of the general public or children would occur during the application process. The only possible exposure would be to the applicator and nursery workers when not follo wing the prescribed label use and safety directions. Therefore, it wa s determined that no disproportionate effects to children are anticipated as a consequence of implementing the proposed action alternative.

Executive Order (EO) 13175, “Consultati on and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” was issued to ensure that there would be “meaningful consultation and collaborat ion with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications....” APHIS is in the process of complying with this EO by collaborating with Indian tribal officials to ensure that they are well-informed and represented in decisions regarding the proposed program.25 

## V. Agencies, Organizations, and
Individuals Consulted

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Emergency and Domestic Programs 4700 River Road, Unit 134 Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Planning, Analysis, and Re gulatory Coordination 4700 River Road, Unit 156 Riverdale, MD 2073726 

## VI. References

Barlow, S.M., Sullivan, F.M., and Lines, J., 2001. Risk assessment of the

use of deltamethrin on bednets for the prevention of malaria. Food Chem.

Toxicol. 39:407–422.

CA DPR—See California Departme nt of Pesticide Regulation.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2000. Deltamethrin risk characterization document, volume 1. Medical Toxicology Branch– Department of Pesticide Regulation. 93 pp.

EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDA—See U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDACS —See Florida Department of Ag riculture and Consumer Services

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Correspondence with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2009.

Laskowski, D.A. Physical and chemi cal properties of pyrethroids. Rev.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 174:49–177.

LDAF—See Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Louisiana Department of Agricultur e and Forestry. Correspondence with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2008.

Solomon, K.R., Giddings, J.M., and Ma und, S.J., 2001. Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional anal ysis of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. Env. Toxicol. Chem. 20(3):652–659.

USDA—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

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, Maryland.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2005. Citrus greening eradi cation program pesticide applications27 human health and non-target species risk assessment, September, 2005. USDA, APHIS, Riverdale, Maryland.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2003. Importation of So lid Wood Packing Material—August, 2003. USDA, APHIS, Riverdale, Maryland.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Ozone Layer Depletion Regulatory Programs; Methyl Bromid e Questions & Answers. April 14, 2009. [Online]. Available at h ttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/qa.html

. [May 18, 2009].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy. 2009b. Radiation Protection; Facility Safety and Environmental Impact. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/facility_env.html . [May 18, 2009]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. OPP Ecotox Database. [Online]. Available: http://www.ipmcenters.org/index.cfm . [May 26, 2008].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Report of Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Re assessment and Risk Management Decision (TRED) for Methyl Bromid e, and Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Methyl Bromide’s Commodity Uses. August, 2006. [Online]. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/methyl_bromide_tred.pdf . [May 19, 2009].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004a. Pesticide fact sheet: dinotefuran. Conditional Registration. 63 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b. Deltamethrin pesticide

tolerance—final rule. Federa l Register. Vol. 69, No. 207:62602–62615.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Office of Prevention, Pesticide and Toxic Substances, 2001. Guidance for pesticide registrants on pesticide resistance management la beling. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/#2001 . [July 10, 2008]. Fax

on demand: 202–401–0522.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2000. Food Irradiation: A Safe Measure. [Online]. Available: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html . [May 19, 2009].