Calendar Year 2010 Amendment to
Finding of No Significant Impact
for
Asian Citrus Psyllid Control Research Project in Hidalgo County, Texas
Environmental Assessment
January, 2009

In January 2009, 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 an Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) control research project
in citrus groves and residential properties in Hidalgo County, Texas. The EA looked at
approximately 4,100 acres, of which 1,400 were to be treated. The proposed 2010 program is a
continuation of that program—it would treat approximately 4,700 acres in an overlapping but
slightly larger area than was considered in 2009. The attached map compares the 2009 and 2010
areas. The larger area is not anticipated to result in additional or more severe environmental or
human health impacts than was anticipated in the original EA because most of the area is
overlapping with the area evaluated in 2009. The area which was not evaluated previously is
essentially identical to the areas that were evaluated.

The EA discussed four chemical treatment options available to citrus growers and two chemical
treatment options available to homeowners. Each treatment option for citrus growers consisted of a
single pesticide application made four to five times from mid-February 2009 to September 2009.
The single application could be an aerial or ground foliar application of fenpropathrin, imidacloprid,
zeta-cypermethrin, chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin, kaolin clay, citrus oil, or neem oil, or a soil application
of aldicarb (soil incorporation by burial) or imidacloprid (soil incorporation by injection or tablet).
Each treatment option for homeowners consisted of a single pesticide application made three
separate times. The single application could be a ground foliar application (with hand-held
sprayers) of pyrethrin, citrus oil, neem oil, or kaolin clay, or a soil application (via soil injection or
tablets) of imidacloprid.

The proposed 2010 program would use the same pesticides as 2009 except that aldicarb would no
longer be included in the program. Other alterations for treatment of commercial orchards are
designed to add flexibility and compatibility with ongoing grower pest management programs.
There would be two coordinated aerial spray applications to knock down ACP populations: one
would be just prior to flush in early February, and the second would occur in the mid-October to
mid-November timeframe. Subsequent sprays during the primary growing season would consist of
the grower’s normal pest management regime. The spray regime for abandoned groves present
within the project area would be a pre-flush spray with fenpropathrin, a May/June application of
imidacloprid, a July/August application of zeta cypermethrin, and a fall application of chlorpyrifos.

While APHIS did provide a public comment period in order that the public could respond to the
January 2009 EA, no comments were received. However, based upon information provided to
APHIS from FWS, this EA was updated in February, 2009. It is incorporated by reference in this
document, and is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/citrusgreening.shtml and
from—


U.S. Department of Agriculture or U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Domestic and Emergency Operations 320 North Main Street, Suite 119
Emergency Management McAllen, TX 78501

4700 River Road, Unit 134

Riverdale, MD 20737-1236

The EA analyzed alternatives consisting of (1) not conducting an ACP control research project (no
action alternative), and (2) conducting an ACP control research project (proposed action
alternative). The impacts to human health, other nontarget organisms, and environmental quality
(including soil, water, and air) were analyzed for each chemical treatment.

APHIS’ finding of no significant impact for the proposed research project is based upon the limited
environmental impacts, as expressed in the EA. Adherence to product label language, including the
use of personal protection equipment and ensuring adequate buffer zones from water, preclude
significant impacts to humans, other nontarget organisms, and the environment (i.e., soil, water, and
air).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations require Federal
agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. In 2009, after informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
APHIS determined that the program would have no effect on the Texas ayenia and star cactus.
APHIS also determined that the program may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Gulf
Coast jaguarundi, northern aplomado falcon, ocelot, and Walker’s manioc. On February 9, 2009,
FWS concurred with this determination. In December 2009, APHIS asked FWS to concur with our
determinations of no effect and not likely to adversely effect the same listed species for the
proposed expanded pilot program. After reviewing the expanded program, FWS concurred with
APHIS’ findings in a letter dated December 29, 2009.

There are no disproportionate adverse effects anticipated 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.”

Lastly, because I have not found evidence of significant environmental impact associated with this
program, I find that an environmental impact statement does not need to be prepared and that this
program may be implemented.

WQS dL 10

George Nash Date
Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Attachment



Sexal ‘AdeA Spues Oly JaMOF 8002 feans snug LSHdD Odd SIHd¥ ¥OSN 9240s

sxo2 “Bnqups
= pefoig juowsbeuewW doy epim eauy 6002 29d LL :@Ra

Semuas ayousy PSTD +
abeseoy snip pesodoig sey pied :Aq paywaig

7] UOISSIAI - LSHd9 Odd SIHd¥ VaSN.

= == =

aunebuey E

ojeBuey =
uowe] a
aBuelo ee
unjedey

AOueA

snd AON

$210 Llp - Alepunog paloig pasodoig 6007 CJ
souoe 112 - Arepunog yaloig pasodold 0107 Cc]

me a

it
t

CN
;
.
in

wy
2

T Juomporaiy