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 on 1,400 acres in Hidalgo County, Texas. 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 consists of a single pesticide application
applied 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 consists of a single pesticide application, 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.

APHIS provided a public comment period for the EA that ended on February 13, 2009. No
comments were received. However, based upon information provided to APHIS from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), this EA was revised as described later. The EA is incorporated by
reference in this document, and is available at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/acp-tx-ea2009.pdf

and from:

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine
320 North Main St. Suite 119
McAllen, Texas 78501

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 non-target 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 non-target 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 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. Originally,
the EA stated that the Biological Assessment prepared by APHIS indicated that the program would



have no effect on the Texas ayenia, star cactus, and Walker’s manioc. APHIS also determined that
the program may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Gulf Coast jaguarundi, Northern
aplomado falcon, and ocelot. After informal consultation with the Service, the EA was revised to
state that the program would have no effect on the Texas ayenia and star cactus and 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, the Service concurred with
this revised determination.

There are 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.”

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

GODS Nun Qllalys 9

George Nash Date
Plant Protection and Quarantine
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency