Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. aSB945 G9G972 . 1996 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Record of Decision v January 1996 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service — — UnitedStates Department of Agriculture A suppression- National Agricultural Library reas where the insect is a eradication eliminating isolated infestations ofthe gypsy moth, to prevent establishment in new areas slow the spread keeping low level populations ofthe gypsy moth from rapidly increasing, to slow the spread ofthe insect from areas where it is already established Alternatives — Alternative 1—No suppression, no eradication, no slow the spread Alternative 2 Suppression — Alternative 3 Eradication — Alternative 4 Suppression and eradication — Alternative 5 Eradication and slow the spread — Alternative 6 Suppression, eradication, and slow the spread The complete final environmental impact statement, Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach, consists of five volumes: Volume Summary I. Volume II, Chapters 1-9 and Appendixes A-E Volume III. Appendix F, Human Health Risk Assessment Volume IV. Appendix G, Ecological Risk Assessment Volume V. Appendix H, Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Responses The record ofdecision is a separate document published and available 30 days or longer after the notice ofavailability forthe final environmental impact statement is published in CFR the Federal Register (40 Part 1506.10). Record of Decision Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Contents Purpose 1 Statutory Authorities 1 TheDecision 1 Alternatives 1 Environmentally PreferableAlternative 3 Rationale forthe Decision 3 USDA Goal 3 Issues 3 Human Health 4 NontargetOrganisms 4 ForestCondition 4 Management Flexibility 4 Mitigating Measures and StandardOperating Procedures 5 Monitoring 5 PublicInvolvement 5 Implementation 6 ResponsibleOfficials 6 Record of Decision Purpose Statutory Authorities Thisdocumentrecordsthe selectionandrationale The ForestServiceandAPHIS conductpest forselection ofan alternative from the six alternatives managementactivitiesunderbroaddiscretionary analyzedinthefinalenvironmental impactstatement, authority givenby Federal laws includingthe Federal “Gypsy Moth Management in the UnitedStates: a PlantPest Act of 1957, as amended (7 U.S.C. cooperativeapproach.” sections 150aa-150jj); the DepartmentofAgriculture The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar [L.]) is a Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. section nonnative insectthataltersecosystems,destroysthe 147a); and the Cooperative Forest Assistance Act of beautyofwoodlands, anddisruptspeople’slivesand 1978 (16 U.S.C. section 2101 [note]), as amended by livelihoods by feedingon thefoliageoftrees, shrubs, the Forest Stewardship Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. andotherplants. The European strain ofthe gypsy section2101 [note]). Activitiesconducted under moth,broughttotheUnited Statesfrom Europe and these statutory authorities are listed on pages 1-8 and accidentally released in eastern Massachusetts in the 1-9ofthe final environmental impactstatement. late 1860’s, is now established in all orportions of 16 USDAgypsy moth policy is presentedon page 1-3 of northeastern and midwestern States and the Districtof thefinalenvironmental impactstatement. Columbia. Itcontinues tospreadintouninfested areas. The Asian strain ofthe gypsy moth was introduced intoOregonandWashingtonbyships from eastern Russian ports in 1991 and into North Carolina The Decision by shippingcontainers from Germany in 1993. These introductionshave beeneradicated. Thepossibility of future introductionsisaconcern, however,especially We have selectedalternative 6, whichincludes given the recent increase in international trade and all threeo—fthegypsy moth managementstrategies analyzed suppression, eradication, andslow the travel. The U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture (USDA) spread. Implementation ofthisalternative will hascarriedout itsgypsy moth management require that site-specific environmental analyses be responsibilitiesthrough the ForestService andthe conductedto address local issues before Federal or Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperative suppression,eradication,orslow-the- spreadtreatments areconducted. These site-specific undertheprogrammaticdirectionofdecisionsbased onanenvironmental impact statementpreparedin environmental analyses will be tiered tothis programmaticenvironmental impactstatement. 1985. Changes in gypsy moth status and managementtechniquesthathaveoccurredsince Alternative 6 will guide the national gypsy moth managementprogram. 1985 indicate that a new programmatic policy built upon an updatedenvironmental impactstatementon thegypsymoth was needed. Alternatives Combinationsofthethreegypsymoth managementstrategies, ortheirabsence, comprised ten alternatives. The suppression strategy appliesto 1 Record of Decision the generally infested area (the areaofthe United discussionofthealternativesconsideredbutnot States where the European strain ofthe gypsy moth is carried forward is presented on pages 2-13 and 2-14 established). Suppression preventsorminimizes ofthe finalenvironmental impactstatement. heavy defoliation oftreesby reducingoutbreak populationsofthegypsy moth. Six ofthe alternatives were considered in detail. The slow-the-spreadstrategy appliestothe transition area (a band 50 to 100 miles wide where Alternative 1. No suppression, thegypsy moth is spreading naturally and by short- no eradication, no slow the spread. The Forest range artificial spreadfrom the generally infested Serviceand APHIS could notconductsuppression, area). The objective ofthis strategy is to slow the eradication, orslow the spread ofthegypsy moth. spreadofthe European strainofthe gypsy moth from the generally infestedarea andto delay the impacts Alternative 2. Suppression. The Forest andcostsassociated with gypsy moth outbreaks. The Servicecouldconductsuppressionandcooperate with operational andeconomic feasibility ofthisstrategy other Federal agencies andStatestoconduct are being evaluated in a large-scale pilot test initiated suppression. in 1992. The eradication strategyapplies toareas where Alternative 3. Eradication. The Forest Service the gypsy moth is not establishedbut where isolated and APHIScouldconducteradicationandcould infestationscan occur. The objectiveoferadicating cooperate with other Federal agencies and States to isolated infestationsofthe European strain ofthe conducteradicationofisolatedinfestationsofthe gypsy moth isto prevent it frombecomingestablished gypsy moth. in uninfestedareas. The objectiveoferadicating infestationsofthe gypsy moth that exhibit Alternative4. Suppression and eradication. characteristicsofthe Asian strain is to prevent it from The ForestServicecouldconductsuppressionand becomingestablished anywhere in theUnitedStates. couldcooperate with otherFederal agenciesand Treatments available foruse in suppression are States toconductsuppression. The Forest Service application ofthe insecticides Bacillus thuringiensis andAPHIS couldconducteradication andcould var. kurstaki, diflubenzuron, and thegypsy moth cooperate with otherFederal agenciesand States to nucleopolyhedrosisvirus(Gypchek). Treatments conducteradicationofisolated infestationsofthe available foruse in eradication and slow the spread gypsy moth. include these three insecticides, as well as the use of the noninsecticidal treatmentsofmasstrapping, Alternative 5. Eradication and slow the matingdisruption, andsterile insectrelease. spread. The Forest Service and APHIS could — All ofthe alternativesexceptone discontinuing conducteradication andslow the spread ofthe gypsy all gypsy-moth-relatedactivities in the USDA gypsy moth, andcouldcooperate withotherFederal — mothmanagementprogram included Forest Service agenciesand States toconducteradication andslow and APHIS support forintegratedpest management the spread. and delivery oftechnical assistance tocooperators. Fourofthe alternatives were considered but not Alternative 6. Suppression, eradication, and carried forward foranalysis in the environmental slow the spread. The Forest Service couldconduct impact statement: slow the spreadonly; suppression suppression andcouldcooperate with otherFederal andslow the spread; discontinuingthegypsy moth agencies and States toconduct suppression. The program; anderadicating thegypsy moth from the Forest Service and APHIS could conducteradication United States. These alternatives were impractical or and slow the spread ofthe gypsy moth, andcould failed to meet the USDA goal ofreducing the adverse cooperate with otherFederal agencies and States to effectsofthe gypsy moth nationwide. A detailed conducteradication andslow the spread. 2 Gypsy Moth EIS Record of Decision Published The National Gypsy Moth Environmental Impact Statement National Gypsy Moth EIS Team USDAForest Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 5 Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 200 Radnor, PA 19087-4585 March 15, 1996 Dear Key Contact, Enclosed is the Record of Decision for the environmental impact statement (EIS) titled, Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach. This document records the selection and rationale for selection of an alternative from the six alternatives analyzed in the final EIS. Additional copies of the record of decision and the final environmental impact statement are available by writing to at the address above, or calling me at (610) 975-4150. Thank you for your interest in the national gypsy moth EIS. Enclosure FederalRecyclingProgram USDAForestService Printedon recycledpaper. USDAAPHIS