[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19302-19307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10206]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Environmental Impact for the Boll Weevil Eradication
Loan Program
AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of Availability and Finding of No Significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is preparing to implement the
Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program as provided in an Act making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies (Act) programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. The specific
elements of this program will be to provide financing to State Boll
Weevil Eradication Foundations to enable them to conduct or continue to
conduct boll weevil eradication activities in cooperation with the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of USDA. In
accordance with the Act, the loan funds will supplement program cost-
share funds appropriated to and administered by APHIS for boll weevil
eradication activities.
The FSA has assessed the potential environmental impacts of this
proposed action in the attached Environmental Assessment which is,
hereby, incorporated into this notice. Based on this analysis, FSA has
determined that the proposed action will not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, the Agency will not
prepare an environmental impact statement for this proposed action.
Although this program is new to FSA as a loan program, APHIS previously
operated eradication programs and therefore a 15-day comment period is
appropriate. The FSA will make no further decisions regarding this
proposed action during a 15-day comment period.
DATES: Written comments regarding this determination should be provided
by May 6, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Carolyn B. Cooksie, Deputy
Administrator for Farm Loan Programs, Farm Service Agency, Stop 0520,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael R. Hinton, Chief, Direct Loans and Funding Branch, Farm Loan
Programs Loan Making Division, Farm Service Agency, telephone 202-720-
1632; facsimile: 202-690-1117; or e-mail: mhintonwdc.fsa.usda.gov
Signed at Washington, DC, on April 15, 1997.
Bruce R. Weber,
Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
Farm Service Agency Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program
Environmental Assessment, March 1997
Agency Contact: Michael R. Hinton, Chief, Funds Management/
Direct Loans Branch, Loan Making Division, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, Mail Stop 0522,
Washington, DC 20013, (202) 720-1764.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national
origin, gender, religion, age, disability, marital or familial
status, or political beliefs. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication of program information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at
202-720-5881 (voice) or 202-720-7808 (TDD).
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, USDA,
Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice) or 202-720-1127
(TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
Table of Contents
I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action...........................1
II. Alternatives......................................................2
III. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternative.........3
IV. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted........................10
Appendix. References.................................................11
I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency
(FSA), is proposing to issue regulations for a loan program in support
of the National Boll Weevil Cooperative Control Program (BWCP). FSA
loans would support and enable Federal/State/private cooperation for
components of a national incremental strategy to eradicate the boll
weevil from the U.S. Cotton Belt. The proposal would implement
provisions of the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, '' which
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a new loan program
to facilitate efforts to eradicate the boll weevil and to protect
previous program areas from reinfestation. This programmatic
environmental assessment (EA) considers the potential environmental
impacts of FSA's proposed loan program and its ``no action''
alternative.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (NEPA)) and its implementing regulations, the
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its
cooperators in boll weevil control analyzed the potential environmental
effects of the BWCP in a comprehensive, programmatic environmental
document, the ``National Boll Weevil Cooperative Control Program, Final
Environmental Impact Statement--1991''(EIS). Subsequent to the
publication of the EIS, new program increments have been analyzed
within site-specific EA's, and minor program changes/or alterations
have been analyzed within other supporting reference documents. The
[[Page 19303]]
site-specific EA's and program experience both suggest that there are
no significant environmental effects (including those of the
synergistic and cumulative variety) at the site-specific level. Copies
of the EIS, site-specific EA's, and other reference documents may be
reviewed at the APHIS Headquarters, the APHIS Reading Room in
Washington, DC, and APHIS' Regional Office (which have announced plans
of moving).
National Boll Weevil Eradication Program, Plant Protection and
Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 4700 River Road, Unit 138, Riverdale, MD 20737
APHIS Reading Room, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, South Building, Room 1141, 14th &
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.
To assess the potential impacts of FSA's proposed loan program,
this programmatic EA provides analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the BWCP. The analysis (1) summarizes and incorporates by
reference the findings of the EIS, (2) summarizes and incorporates by
reference information in other analytical reference documents pertinent
to the BWCP, (3) considers new issues that have been raised since the
publication of the EIS, and (4) summarizes FSA plans to further ensure
environmental compliance for this loan program.
This EA is intended to be consistent with the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. In keeping with that guidance, the EA
integrates existing environmental documentation, facilitates concurrent
and cooperative planning, and reduces the administrative documentation
burden. Finally, FSA's administration of loans, grants, and guarantees
is guided by 7 CFR 1940, Subpart G, which specifies that an
environmental assessment should be prepared for proposals of this
nature. The 7 CFR Part 1941 will include a new Subpart C, ``Boll Weevil
Eradication Loan Program,'' including sections 1941.970 through
1941.991.
II. Alternatives
There are two alternatives considered within this environmental
assessment--FSA Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program (the proposed
action) and no action. Each is characterized in this section.
A. FSA Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program (Proposed Action)
The proposed action, a Federal loan program to support and enable
components of the BWCP, would implement provisions of the
``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997,'' which directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to implement a new loan program to facilitate
efforts to eradicate the boll weevil and to protect previous program
areas from reinfestation. The intended effect is to comply with the
Act, assist in boll weevil eradication, and promote cooperation between
the USDA and State chartered organizations with regard to boll weevil
eradication.
The BWCP is a cooperative effort between cotton growers and Federal
and State governments. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the lead Federal agency for the BWCP, provide eligible
grower organizations with (1) equipment, (2) technical and
administrative support, and (3) cost-sharing not to exceed 30 percent
of the program costs. The portion of the program costs not provided by
APHIS are paid by participating grower organizations through the
collection of producer assessments. These assessments, often high in
early program stages, can create financial hardship for producers.
The FSA Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program will provide loans to
eligible grower organizations (not individual growers) for the purpose
of spreading startup costs over a period of several years, thereby
reducing the initial annual assessments that producers are required to
pay and resulting in a financially feasible program.
B. No Action
Under the no action alternative, there would be no FSA Boll Weevil
Eradication Loan Program. The no action alternative is considered for
the purpose of establishing a hypothetical baseline against which the
proposed action may be evaluated. Consideration of no action is
appropriate for the purpose of this assessment, notwithstanding the
explicit mandates of the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997''
and Congress' direction to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to
implement a new loan program. Under the no action alternative,
cooperation between Federal, State, and grower groups would likely
diminish.
Under a free market system, cotton producers would be expected to,
but might not be able to, bear the high assessments in the startup
phase of an eradication program. Because of the problems regarding cash
flow, some grower groups may not be able to meet their operating
expenses and their programs would be forced to be suspended. Suspension
of programs in some areas could cause reinvasion by boll weevil
populations to the extent that it would put at risk the progress,
continuity, and integrity of the BWCP's national strategy to eradicate
the boll weevil.
III. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternative
The environmental impacts that may result from implementation of
the proposed action and its no action alternative are considered in
this section. Because the principal environmental concern over this
proposed program relates to its use of pesticides, this EA focuses on
the potential effects of the proposed program's pesticides.
A. FSA Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program (Proposed Action)
The loan approval process, in and of itself, does not directly
generate environmental impacts. However, in the sense that the loan
approval process may enable certain increments of the eradication
program to take place, it could indirectly contribute to the potential
impacts of that control program. Therefore, the environmental impacts
from implementation of the eradication program are addressed here.
The national program to eradicate the boll weevil employs a
beltwide integrated control strategy. This strategy involves the
selection of specific control methods for the individual site based on
factors including variation in boll weevil biology, availability of
overwintering sites, environmental concerns, weather patterns, and crop
production requirements. The integrated control components of this
program include limited no action, mechanical control, sterile insect
technology, biological control, cultural control, and chemical control.
The environmental impacts and related issues of the integrated control
methods are described below.
1. Environmental Impacts in General
Most of the issues related to environmental impacts of this program
have been analyzed in detail in the EIS and in the ``Chemicals Risk
Assessment, Boll Weevil Cooperative Eradication Program, December
1995'' (CRA). The
[[Page 19304]]
results of the environmental risk assessments prepared for these two
documents are incorporated by reference, and a summary is given within
this section.
The history and evaluation of the BWCP has confirmed the analytical
predictions of the EIS and site-specific, EA's. For example, completion
(in 1990) of the boll weevil eradication program in Georgia resulted
(in 1995) in a dramatic resurgence in cotton production, accompanied by
a 60% reduction in post-eradication insecticide treatments, 30%
reduction in pest management costs, and 70% reduction in overall crop
damage (Haney et al., 1996). Similarly, the BWCP's carefully managed
efforts in Alabama resulted in diminished pesticide use, greater
survival of beneficial arthropods, and preservation of the
effectiveness of pyrethroid chemistry for years to come (Smith and
Foshee, 1993). Finally, a series of monitoring reports (some with
special focus on human health or endangered species) have been done for
program increments. Those monitoring reports have documented
appropriate use and deposition of pesticides, have confirmed that there
have been no adverse impacts on humans, and confirmed that the
programs' protection measures have adequately protected endangered and
threatened species.
The nonchemical control methods have minimal impact on human
health, the physical environment, and nontarget species. The use of
``no action'' buffer zones and related practices for the limited no
action method reduce the risk of exposure and effects from program
pesticides. The use of methods, such as mechanical control (trapping)
and sterile insect technique, that directly target only boll weevils
have little impact on human health, the physical environment, and
nontarget species. The disturbance from vehicular and foot travel is
negligible and exposure to trap chemicals is minimal. The use of
biological control is associated with reduced need for chemical
pesticides and commensurate reductions in exposure and impacts. The use
of cultural control methods (crop rotation, short-season varieties, and
mandatory postharvest stalk destruction) pose minimal risks to
equipment operators, slight losses from soil disruption, and no impacts
to nontarget species that exceed the effects of current practices.
The potential impacts of the chemical control methods relate to the
program use of any of the six pesticides: azinphos-methyl,
diflubenzuron, endosulfan, malathion, methyl parathion, and oxamyl.
Refer to the EIS and CRA for greater detail on the formulations and use
patterns. The potential impacts to human health, the physical
environment, and nontarget species were assessed through both
quantitative and qualitative methods. Hazard information (pesticide
toxicity and environmental fate) was integrated with exposure
predictions to develop the risk characterization. Potential exposure
scenarios were analyzed for dermal, inhalation, and dietary exposures
of the public and program workers from applications of each program
chemical.
Human health risk was quantified by comparing predicted exposure to
toxicity reference levels based upon intrinsic hazards as described in
detail in the EIS (volume 1, appendix B, section B.4) and in the CRA
(chapter 3). Those toxicity reference values were applied to expected
exposures to quantify risk. The classifications of the program
pesticide's acute human oral toxicities are as follows: slight for
malathion, very slight for diflubenzuron, and moderate to severe for
azinphos-methyl, endosulfan, methyl parathion, and oxamyl. The
potential risk to program workers and the general public are presented
in the programmatic EIS (volume 1, appendix B, section B.4.) and in the
CRA (chapter 5, section A), Comprehensive training of all workers
assures that there will be adequate margins of safety to prevent
adverse effects for all likely exposure routes. Likewise, the margins
of safety to the general public result in minimal risk and adequate
safety against adverse effects.
Qualitative risk assessment is used to analyze risks that cannot be
quantified easily, especially those involving incomplete exposure
information or unclear relationships between dose and response.
Thorough discussions of qualitative risks are presented in the EIS and
CRA. Qualitative risks are determined for effects from program
pesticide formulations' impurities and degradation products,
anticipated cumulative and synergistic effects, and effects on
sensitive subgroups. Program quality control guidelines require proper
storage conditions and sampling of the product to ensure that
impurities and degradation products pose no significant hazard to
workers or the general public. Cumulative and synergistic effects of
the program chemicals are minimized through the use of proper safety
procedures and adherence to safe reentry periods. Refer to the EIS and
CRA for more information about synergism. Certain individuals may have
increased risk due to location, disease state, or other biological
characteristics. Those living next to a cotton field are at greatest
risk. Infants may be more sensitive than adults to the effects of
exposure to program pesticides. Individuals on certain medicines may be
at increased risk. Individuals with multiple chemical sensitivity may
be extremely sensitive to even very low levels of exposure to a variety
of chemical agents. Proper notification, instruction about reentry
precautions, and adherence to recommended safety precautions, reduces
potential for exposure to program chemicals and resultant risks.
The chemical pesticides proposed for use in the program have
potential to affect the physical environment (air, water, land).
Program pesticides are not expected to affect the air quality in the
general sense, but localized off-site drift may occur. This drift is
expected to be minimal because the proposed program chemicals have low
volatility and program precautions limit potential for drift (refer to
table 2-1 of the EIS and chapter 2 of the CRA). The potential for soil
pollution is expected to be minimal. Sophisticated guidance and control
systems of application equipment (such as the global positioning
systems), rapid degradation of program pesticides, and lack of
persistence of residues contribute to minimal impact (refer to volume
1, appendix B, section B.8. of the EIS and chapter 2 of the CRA). The
potential for runoff of program pesticides is greatest if rainfall
occurs shortly after treatments, but operating procedures and
recommended mitigation measures (tables 2-1 and 2-2 of the EIS) serve
to minimize the effects of program chemicals on bodies of water.
Modeling of the movement of program pesticides in soil following
applications indicates that the potential for percolation of pesticide
residues to groundwater is negligible.
Risks of the potential adverse effects of program chemicals to
nontarget species (domestic animals, wildlife, and plant) are
characterized as low, moderate, or high for routine and extreme
scenarios. The methodology is presented in detail in the EIS (volume 1,
appendix B, sections B.5. to B.7.) and CRA (chapter 6). Detailed
results of the nontarget risk assessments are found in tables 4-3
through 4-6 of the EIS and tables VI-1 through VI-3 of the CRA. The
data are summarized briefly as follows: Malathion poses little risk to
most terrestrial organisms, but can pose a high risk to fish,
amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. Potential drift concentrations
of azinphos-methyl present little risk, but a direct spray may present
moderate to high risk to terrestrial organisms. For aquatic
[[Page 19305]]
species, azinphos-methyl presents a high risk to fish, amphibians, and
aquatic invertebrates. Potential drift concentrations of methyl
parathion may present a moderate risk to some terrestrial species,
while a direct spray presents moderate to high risks. Also, methyl
parathion poses moderate risk to aquatic invertebrates. Diflubenzuron
presents little risk to terrestrial organisms but may pose moderate to
high risk to aquatic invertebrates. Endosulfan presents little risk to
most terrestrial and aquatic species, but poses a moderate risk to
mammals. Oxamyl presents little risk to aquatic species, but poses
moderate risk to most terrestrial wildlife species. Standard program
operational procedures and mitigations reduce the potential for
exposure of domestic animals and wildlife.
Although program applications of pesticides pose no direct risk to
plant species, there may be some indirect risk to plants associated
with adverse effects to pollinators. It is unlikely that the
application of pesticides used in the program would eliminate all
pollinators for the length of time sufficient to prevent pollination,
but pesticides could temporarily reduce the number of potential
pollinators for a particular plant species. Honey bees are important as
crop pollinators and honey producers in many areas. As a precaution,
prior to treatments with azinphos-methyl, malathion, methyl parathion,
or oxamyl, program personnel with notify registered apiarists in or
near the treatment area of the date and approximate time of the
treatment application.
2. Program Changes or Additions
a. Addition of new pesticides. Since the publication of the EIS,
two additional pesticides (endosulfan and oxamyl) have been approved
for the program. Information on those pesticides and their potential
effects is presented in a comprehensive manner in the CRA and has been
included in the above section, ``Environmental Impacts in General.''
b. Changing managerial roles. Since the BWCP's beginning, APHIS has
been the lead Federal agency for the program, providing personnel and
substantial funding. Its involvement has been critical to the program's
success and expansion across nearly 4 million acres of cotton in 10
States. As of the publication of this EA, the program in the Southeast
is rapidly moving toward completion and the program's Federal resources
in that area are changing. As work units are consolidated and
configured for post-eradication surveillance, Federal positions and
funds are being reduced.
As the program expands into remaining infested areas of the
Midsouth, most, if not all, of the funding for those remaining areas
will be provided by growers. The transition from Federal leadership and
control to grower leadership and control will continue, characterized
by a steadily diminishing APHIS role in the daily management of program
operations. APHIS has indicated that it will remain actively involved
in providing technical support and assistance to grower groups. APHIS
also has indicated that it intends to continue its involvement with the
National Cotton Council's Boll Weevil Action Committee, consulting on
the most effective way to allocate and utilize funds which may be
appropriated for boll weevil eradication.
The environmental impact of changing managerial roles is difficult
to predict with certainty. Because the program's potential
environmental impacts are related to its eradication strategies
(control methods, operational procedures, and mitigation methods), any
changes in those could result in a change in the extent or severity of
impacts. It is not likely, however, that increasing grower leadership
and control in the program will result in substantial changes to the
eradication strategies. Thus, no changes are expected in the program's
potential environmental impacts as a consequence of changing managerial
roles. (It also should be noted that FSA has no managerial role in the
BWCP, but functions solely in the approval, processing, and granting of
loans to the BWCP's member organizations.)
3. New Issues
Although the potential environmental impacts of boll weevil control
strategies have been analyzed in the EIS and CRA, some new issues have
arisen since their publication. The most important of those issues and
the program's response to those issues are summarized in this section.
a. Environmental justice. The concept of ``environmental justice''
was addressed in a general way by Executive Order 12898, ``Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (EO 12898), signed on February 11, 1994. It
was designed to make Federal agencies identify and address ``* * * as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations * * *.'' Since EO
12898's publication, environmental justice review has become a standard
part of the site-specific environmental assessment process for the
BWCP. Ethnic, social, and economic characteristics of program areas are
considered in the development, as appropriate, of innovative strategies
to communicate with, involve, and accommodate the public. Although
environmental justice concerns are reviewed for all new program
increments, those concerns have increased importance where the
composition of communities warrants extra or ``tailored'' protection
measures and operational procedures. Program managers have promptly
acknowledged those communities' special needs and worked with the
communities to accommodate them. Following are examples of the kinds of
additional things that may be done in some program areas to ensure
environmental justice.
1. Special site visits and interviews of community members.
2. Special scoping meetings to identify potential environmental impacts
and problems.
3. Additional public meetings and/or hearings.
4. Language translations for meetings, environmental documents, and
signs.
5. Additional lead time for public notification of impending pesticide
applications.
6. Specially tailored protection measures.
7. More stringent program oversight and monitoring for pesticide drift.
8. Use of extremely precise global positioning systems for pesticide
application.
FSA will also consider environmental justice within the context of
its loan approval process, adhering to the principles espoused in EO
12898. Loan approvals will be granted without discrimination based on
race, religion, color, national origin, gender, or other prohibited
basis. Further, FSA requires that no recipient of a boll weevil
eradication loan will directly, or through contractual or other
arrangement, subject any person or cause any person to be subjected to
discrimination on any of the above factors. Borrowers must comply with
all applicable Federal laws and regulations regarding equal opportunity
in hiring, procurement, and related matters. Lastly, FSA strives to
ensure environmental justice in its loan approval process through its
adherence to NEPA implementation procedures, improved accessibility of
meetings, critical documents, and notices.
[[Page 19306]]
b. Potential influence on endocrine systems. Several recent studies
have analyzed the effects of chemical exposure on the endocrine systems
of humans and wildlife (Stone, 1994; Arnold et al., 1996; Kendall and
Dickerson, 1996; Ramamoorthy et al., 1997). This has become a major
issue in science and public policy. The quantification of these effects
and the elucidation of their mechanisms of toxic action have not been
studied in detail. Because the issue has arisen subsequent to the
publication of the EIS and the CRA, available literature on these
effects relevant to the program chemicals was reviewed.
A comprehensive literature review revealed inconclusive information
linking only one of the program chemicals to this effect. One study
found that endosulfan's reported ability to disrupt estrogen production
was synergized by exposure to other compounds (Arnold et al., 1996).
However, another study did not find this relationship (Ramamoorthy et
al., 1997). The limited data and published research on this topic make
it difficult to conduct a thorough risk assessment, but the exposures
determined from risk assessment scenarios can be compared to
concentrations shown to cause adverse effects in these studies. Even
under the assumption that the study that showed the linkage was
correct, the program's operational procedures and mitigation methods
generally reduce the potential for exposure and resultant adverse
effects. Comparing the effects data of Arnold et al. (1996), typical
human exposures to endosulfan from program scenarios do not reach
levels greater than 1,000-fold lower than this data and typical
wildlife exposures to endosulfan from program scenarios do not achieve
levels greater than 10-fold lower than this data. This indicates that
exposures from program applications of endosulfan would not be
anticipated to result in endocrine disruption to any exposed animals or
humans.
4. Sequential Compliance
a. Site-specific analysis. This programmatic EA considers in
general the impacts of the FSA Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program and
its no action alternative. The impacts of FSA's loan program (the
proposed action) are related indirectly to the impacts of the BWCP,
which were analyzed programmatically in the EIS and CRA, and site-
specifically in APHIS EA's tiered to the EIS. Thus far, those site-
specific EA's have revealed no significant impact from localized
implementation of the BWCP's boll weevil control strategies.
As the BWCP expands and additional areas are taken under control,
the potential impacts of program implementation in those areas will be
analyzed in additional site-specific EA's prepared by APHIS or other
Federal cooperators (if APHIS' role is substantially diminished or
eliminated in the future). For those site-specific EA's where there is
a high probability that the grower organization may apply for a boll
weevil eradication loan, FSA will serve as a cooperating agency for
determining that no significant environmental impacts will exist. Thus,
the determination of potential environmental effect for individual FSA
boll weevil eradication loans is based primarily upon information in
the EIS, the CRA, and this EA, but is subject to further modification
by site-specific EA's for new program areas.
b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. The ESA and its
implementing regulations require Federal agencies to consult with the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/
or the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service
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. APHIS
currently consults with these agencies and prepares biological
assessments for each new increment of the BWCP. (If APHIS' role is
eliminated in this process, another Federal agency would need to take
that role.) For those species for which potential adverse effects are
identified, additional protective measures are developed and submitted
as part of the biological assessment to FWS for concurrence. The BWCP
will comply with all protection measures stipulated in the biological
assessment and mutually agreed on by FWS.
B. No Action
Implementation of the no action alternative would mean that there
would be no Federal loan program to support the BWCP. That would have
two principal effects--a devastating effect on the quality and quantity
of cotton production in the United States and the likelihood of
increased adverse impacts from the extensive private use of pesticides.
The most adverse impact of the no action alternative would be the
effects on the quality and quantity of cotton production in the United
States. More cotton would be ruined from boll weevil infestation and
less would be available for sale and processing. Growers profits would
be reduced and consumers' costs would be increased.
The lack of continuity for program funding could make it
increasingly difficult for growers near the edge of the eradicated
zones to prevent future reinfestation of their fields from the areas
not yet eradicated. The pesticide levels required to renew control
would increase to pre-eradication levels, with associated adverse
impacts. Those adverse impacts would increase dramatically because of
the need for multiple applications and the use of some pesticides that
pose greater environmental hazards than the program pesticides. These
greater hazards could impact human health, the physical environment,
and nontarget species.
IV. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted
Gary Cunningham, Coordinator, National Boll Weevil Eradication Program,
Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River Road, Unit 138,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Bill Grefenstette, Senior Operations Officer, National Boll Weevil
Eradication Program, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River
Road, Unit 138, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Harold T. Smith, Environmental Protection Officer, Environmental
Analysis and Documentation, Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700
River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
David A. Bergsten, Toxicologist, Environmental Analysis and
Documentation, Policy and Program Development, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River Road,
Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
Appendix--References
Arnold, S.F., Klotz, D.M., Collins, B.M., Vonier, P.M., Guillette,
L.J., Jr. and McLachlan, J.A., 1996. Synergistic activation of
estrogen receptor with combinations of environmental chemicals.
Science 272:1489-1492.
Haney, P.B., Lewis, W.J., and Lambert, W.R., 1996. Cotton production
and the boll weevil in Georgia: history, cost of control, and
benefits of eradication. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations,
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of
Georgia., Res. Bull. No. 428.
[[Page 19307]]
Kendall, R.J., and Dickerson, R.L., 1996. Principles and processes
for evaluating endocrine disruption in wildlife. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 15(8):1253-1254.
Ramamoorthy, K., Wang, F., Chen, I-C., Safe, S., Norris, J.D.,
McDonnell, D.P., Gaido, K.W., Bocchinfuso, W.P., and Korach, K.S.,
1997. Potency of combined estrogenic pesticides. Science 275:405.
Smith, R.H., and Foshee, W.G., 1993. Effects of the boll weevil
eradication program on insecticide use patterns on cotton in
Alabama. Dept. of Entomology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Stone, R., 1994. Environmental estrogens stir debate. Science
265:308-310.
Finding of No Significant Impact For Farm Service Agency Boll Weevil
Eradication Loan Program Environmental Assessment
March 1997.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA), has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for its participation in the
National Boll Weevil Cooperative Control Program (boll weevil program)
through the provision of a loan program. The EA, incorporated into this
document by reference, is also tiered to the ``Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the National Boll Weevil Cooperative Control
Program-1991.'' The EA is available from: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 14th and Independence Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20250-0513.
This EA is programmatic in scope and considered the impacts of two
alternatives: (1) the no action alternative, and (2) the proposed
alternative that encompasses the current control program. The current
program includes chemical, biological, cultural, and mechanical control
methods. The proposed program is needed in order to (1) reduce
agricultural losses caused by the boll weevil and allow growers to
remain economically competitive, (2) substantially reduce the amount of
pesticides used against the boll weevil and other pests, (3) maintain
the biological integrity and efficacy of the national program to
eradicate the boll weevil, and (4) comply with relevant pest control
statutes and regulations.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is consulting with
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
with regard to the protection of endangered and threatened species and
their critical habitats. All boll weevil control activity will adhere
to protective measures designed specifically for this program and
mutually agreed to with FWS.
I find that implementation of the proposed boll weevil eradication
program as described in the EA and all referenced documents will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
I have considered and base my findings of no significant impact on
the quantitative and qualitative analyses and risk assessments of the
proposed pesticides as well as a review of the program's overall
operational characteristics. In addition, I find that the environmental
process undertaken for the boll weevil eradication program is entirely
consistent with the principles of ``environmental justice,'' as defined
in Executive Order No. 12898. Furthermore, since I have not found
evidence of significant environmental impact associated with this
program, there is no need to prepare an environmental impact statement
and the program may proceed as described in the referenced documents.
Dated: April 15, 1997.
Bruce R. Weber,
Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 97-10206 Filed 4-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-M
