Table Of ContentHistoric, 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
