[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