Finding of No Significant Impact

Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program Fence Deterrent in

Cameron and Zapata Counties, Texas

Environmental Assessment

March 2023

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

APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) analyzing 

potential environmental consequences associated with the installation of high game fencing at 

specific locations in Cameron and Zapata County, Texas, to prevent or limit the spread of cattle 

fever ticks by free-ranging wildlife hosts (such as white-tailed deer and nilgai). The EA, 

incorporated by reference in this document, is available from:

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Veterinary Services 

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. B 

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Ongoing cattle fever tick eradication efforts in southern Texas include surveillance and patrolling 

for stray or smuggled tick-infested livestock, treatment of tick-infested animals, and vacating of 

tick-infested pastures and premises. Unfortunately, these efforts seem to be insufficient given the 

persistent increasing number of tick-infested premises observed outside of the Permanent Tick 

Quarantine Zone in recent years and given the potential for both the ticks and the bovine disease 

to spread across the region including Cameron and Zapata Counties. Installing high game 

fencing, in addition to above-mentioned ongoing eradication efforts, may limit the movements of 

tick hosts (such as white-tailed deer and nilgai antelope) and eventually contribute to the 

program’s effort to reducing the use of chemicals needed to treat tick-infested cattle, as well as 

associated animal production costs overall. Therefore, by funding the installation of high game 

fencing against potential wildlife tick-hosts, the USDA APHIS VS’ cattle fever tick eradication 

program (CFTEP) expects to reduce the risk of the spread of the disease bovine babesiosis 

among U.S. cattle populations in southern Texas. 

The EA analyses the alternatives of (A) no action under which USDA-APHIS would not fund 

the installation of high game fencing in Cameron and Zapata Counties, which would then cause 

the continued spread of cattle fever ticks by infested wildlife ungulates in cattle ranches with the 

potential of increasing the likelihood of babesiosis outbreaks in U.S. cattle populations and 

related financial consequences; and (B) proposed action under which USDA-APHIS would fund 

the installation of high game fencing at specific locations in Cameron and Zapata Counties to 

deter the movements of potential wildlife tick-hosts, facilitating current CFTEP efforts. 

USDA-APHIS determined that there are no disproportionate adverse effects associated with the 

preferred action alternative to children, minority populations, or low-income populations over 

those effects to the general populations, in accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; 
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks; Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad; Executive 

Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; and 

Executive Order 13985 “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities 

Through the Federal Government”, which is furthered by Executive Order 14091 that extends

and strengthens equity-advancing requirements for agencies for a better outcome delivery for the 

American people. 

I found that the implementation of the proposed program will not significantly impact the quality 

of the human environment. I have considered and based my finding of no significant impact on 

the environment on the analysis contained within the EA. Because I have not found evidence of 

significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, I find that an 

environmental impact statement does not need to be prepared and that the program may proceed. 

_________________________________                                   ____________________ 

Dr. Mark A. Lyons                                                                Date 

Director, Ruminant Health Center

Strategy and Policy

Veterinary Services

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service