SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Rangelands in the western United States are vast, diverse ecosystems that include grasslands, shrublands, deserts, and open forests that cover a significant portion of the landscape. Rangeland provides essential habitat for wildlife, forage for livestock, and vital ecosystem services such as maintaining water and air quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines rangeland as “lands on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use.” ^[1] The major differences between rangeland and pastureland are the kind of vegetation and the level of management that each area receives. Rangelands tend to support natural vegetation and introduced plant species without intensive agronomy practices such as cover cropping, irrigation, and tillage. Rangelands are managed by animal grazing, while pastures have forage that is adapted for livestock and managed by seeding and mowing.

Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets are natural components of rangeland ecosystems, serving as food for wildlife and playing an important role in nutrient cycling ( i.e., the process by which essential nutrients are exchanged and recycled between living organisms and the non-living environment). Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets are closely related insects, both belonging to the insect order Orthoptera. Grasshoppers (Family Acrididae) are relatively large insects with distinct appearances and occur throughout the North American continent and around the world. Out of approximately 400 western grasshopper species, only ten to fifteen cause recurrent economic damage to rangeland, grasses, and surrounding crops. Mormon crickets ( Anabrus simplex, Family Tettigoniidae) are a large insect native to western North America found in rangelands dominated by sagebrush and forbs. Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets feed on and damage grasses and other vegetation, including some crops.

Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets (hereinafter referred to collectively as “grasshoppers”) have the potential to occur at high population levels (hereinafter referred to as “outbreaks”). When outbreaks occur, they can reduce the value of rangeland forage, especially during droughts. A rapid and effective response is required when a grasshopper or Mormon cricket outbreak develops and threatens rangeland forage.

Section 417(a) of the Plant Protection Act of 2000, as amended (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), states that APHIS “shall carry out a program to control grasshoppers on all Federal lands to protect rangeland.” ^[2] Upon request from ( printed page 36788) the land manager, APHIS “shall immediately treat Federal, State, or private lands that are infested with grasshoppers or Mormon crickets at levels of economic infestation, unless the Secretary determines that delaying treatment will not cause greater economic damage to adjacent owners of rangeland.” ^[3] The Act further specifies that APHIS “shall work in conjunction with other Federal, State, and private prevention, control, or suppression efforts to protect rangeland.” ^[4] APHIS does not engage in grasshopper suppression efforts unless assistance is specifically requested by an affected landowner or land manager.

APHIS employs Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the control of grasshopper outbreaks. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and APHIS have explicitly adopted the statutory definition of IPM from the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),^[5] which defines IPM as “a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.” The FQPA does not define what encompasses “biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools.” However, APHIS summarizes the respective concepts as follows:

• Biological Control: The use of biological control agents to reduce pest populations. This includes the action of parasites, predators, or pathogens (disease-causing organisms) in maintaining another organism's population density at a lower average than would occur in their absence.^[6] Examples include the introduction of birds, predatory insects, parasitic flies, or biological pathogens such as Nosema locustae in grasshopper infested areas.

• Cultural Control: Involves land and habitat management practices that reduce pest survival, reproduction, or spread. These methods involve the practice of moving livestock from field to field in a way that allows the grass or other plants they eat to recover and grow. During the late nineteenth century, several cultural control methods were developed to help remove grasshoppers from agricultural lands. Examples of such methods include grazing management, conservation of game birds, crop rotation, irrigation, vegetation control, removing favorable breeding sites, and maintaining healthy plant cover to reduce bare ground. These strategies appear to offer great potential for reducing the effects of periodic grasshopper outbreaks on cultivated cropland. APHIS does not have the authority to dictate land management practices or other cultural controls on Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands. APHIS believes land management agencies and property owners are the best stewards of their resources to prevent destruction of rangeland vegetation by grasshopper outbreaks. Therefore, land management agencies and property owners are best equipped to implement cultural control methods.
• Physical Control (Mechanical Control): Involves mechanical or physical methods to directly block, remove, or kill pests. These methods do not rely on pesticides or biological agents. Examples of physical control for Mormon crickets are the use of barriers or fences to redirect their movement, trapping, fire, mechanical removal, or altering terrain to limit migration routes.^[7 8] Prior to the availability of chemical insecticides, farmers used rangeland fires to destroy grasshopper nymphs. Grasshopper nymphs also were sometimes collected in nets and tar-filled pans dragged behind tractors or horses. Reportedly, rearing turkeys and other wildfowl on cropland reduced grasshopper impacts. Plowing and harrowing soil to destroy grasshopper eggs, particularly where eggs were laid, was also used on cropland.^[9 10] APHIS does not have the authority to conduct prescribed burns, raise and manage flocks of wild fowl, or till wide swaths of rangeland to prevent grasshopper outbreaks. Although APHIS uses handheld sweep nets to survey grasshopper species, widespread use of nets to control grasshopper populations would not be economically feasible due to the vast areas of rangeland that would need to be covered, making it extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. Such methods, to the extent that they may be effective, are best implemented by land management agencies and property owners.

• Chemical Control: The use of USEPA-registered insecticide treatments to rapidly suppress grasshopper populations to a level below that which constitutes an economic infestation. This method is typically used when pest numbers exceed economic or ecological thresholds and other controls are unavailable or insufficient. Examples of chemical controls available to the program include ultra-low volume and bait insecticide formulations applied by all-terrain vehicles and aircraft.

The USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy leads the Federal Integrated Pest Management Coordinating Committee (FIPMCC) to facilitate information exchange among Federal and non-Federal researchers, educators, innovators and IPM practitioners. In 2018, the FIPMCC published a National IPM Road Map “to increase adoption, implementation and efficiency of effective, economical and safe pest management practices, and to develop new practices where needed.” ^[11] The National IPM Roadmap further states that IPM “uses knowledge of pest and host biology, as well as biological and environmental monitoring, to respond to pest problems with management tactics and technologies.” ^[12] Building on the priorities outlined in the 2018 Roadmap, the public IPM Enterprise later developed the National IPM Strategic Plan for 2025-2029, which translates the Roadmap's broad goals into more specific strategic objectives, actions and performance measures to guide IPM research, education, and implementation efforts in the coming years.^[13]

The APHIS grasshopper program implements IPM strategy guided by the principles of the USEPA. The USEPA describes IPM as “an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices.” ^[14] The USEPA further describes IPM as “a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and ( printed page 36789) controls.” ^[15] Key IPM techniques explicitly recognized by the USEPA, such as surveys, monitoring, population mapping, and treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive habitats, are essential parts of the APHIS program.^[16]

IPM first sets an action threshold, a level of infestation at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate pests will become an economic threat to agricultural producers. For APHIS, this threshold specifically uses the phrase “levels of economic infestation,” a phrase directly from the Plant Protection Act.^[17] While the Act itself does not define this phrase, APHIS recognizes that “levels of economic infestation” has been interpreted differently in past documents. For purposes of this PEIS, the phrase “levels of economic infestation” is the threshold at which grasshopper or Mormon cricket populations pose a demonstrable risk of significant economic harm to agricultural resources, rangelands, or other managed lands, based on monitoring data and professional judgment. The ratio of eight adult grasshoppers per square yard has been used as the minimum population at which suppression activities will be considered. This figure was derived by Parker (1939) ^[18] as the level of infestation at which grasshoppers generally begin to compete with livestock for available forage.

However, recognizing the significant advancements in pest management science and the dynamic nature of rangeland ecosystems since 1939, modern grasshopper and Mormon cricket management, including APHIS' approach, employs a more nuanced and contemporary assessment rather than relying solely on this historical estimate. Current practices focus on dynamic economic thresholds and consider a broader range of factors. Specifically, APHIS uses nymphal grasshopper counts collected during the spring to determine if suppression of a grasshopper population is warranted. Furthermore, other site-specific factors, such as grasshopper and plant species composition, the life-cycle stages of the grasshoppers present, and condition of the range, also affect whether economic injury could be caused by an outbreak. This comprehensive approach ensures decisions are based on current ecological conditions and economic realities.

Normally, suppression activities are not conducted unless the populations are two to three times greater than eight per square yard. However, APHIS is authorized by Congress to take preventive measures at lower levels of infestation to avoid such critical outbreaks. This threshold is not a fixed numeric value but a risk-based management concept that considers site-specific factors such as land use, vegetation, climatic conditions, historical outbreaks patterns, and the potential severity of damage.

When biological, cultural, and physical controls in an IPM-based rangeland management strategy do not prevent development of destructive grasshopper populations, APHIS uses chemical methods in a manner that is economically feasible and minimizes risks to human health, non-target organisms, and the environment. IPM programs monitor pests and seek to identify them accurately; this is done to assist decisionmakers in evaluating the control options available in light of the aforementioned action thresholds. For example, when an agricultural crop is at risk because of a grasshopper outbreak, under IPM, cultural methods, such as rotating between different crops, selecting pest-resistant varieties of crops, and planting pest-free rootstock, may be tried first by land management agencies and property owners. However, once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required, and it has further been determined that the preventive methods already employed by land management agencies and property owners, such as cultural control, are no longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate available chemical control methods for effectiveness and risk. For purposes of this PEIS, APHIS will define the program's IPM strategy as the selection, integration, and implementation of pest control tactics in a systems approach based on anticipated economic, environmental, and sociological consequences.

This PEIS focuses on actions taken in response to existing grasshopper outbreaks. It addresses measures used to control an outbreak and prevent it from becoming worse after it has already occurred. It does not include actions intended to prevent outbreaks from occurring in the first place. Preventive measures are already used by land management agencies and property owners as part of normal land management practices and are thus considered part of the environmental baseline for this PEIS. The implementation of such preventive efforts is not a prerequisite for APHIS to provide assistance. This analysis applies when a grasshopper outbreak occurs and assistance from APHIS is requested.

In the PEIS, APHIS will articulate which IPM tools it employs, plans to use, or may recommend land management agencies and property owners use. The PEIS will further examine the environmental effects of several proposed alternatives, described in detail below, involving varying ways in which APHIS may address grasshopper outbreaks. The PEIS will be used for program planning and decision-making and to inform the public about the environmental effects of APHIS' activities to address grasshopper outbreaks. APHIS will not implement site-specific actions as a direct result of the decision that will follow the final PEIS. Instead, APHIS will use the PEIS to provide analysis upon which site-specific environmental documents can rely if new grasshopper infestations are discovered in the affected states.

APHIS is requesting public comments to assist in identifying potential alternatives to address grasshopper outbreaks and environmental issues that should be examined in the PEIS. We are also requesting public comments on relevant information, studies, or analysis with respect to APHIS' proposed action.

APHIS will prepare the PEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended ^[19] and USDA's NEPA implementing regulations.^[20] Additional information regarding this proposal, including updates on the PEIS and Record of Decision, will be available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/​plant-pests-diseases/​ghmc.

In 2019, APHIS published a PEIS to assess the potential environmental effects of APHIS' Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program. This PEIS will replace the 2019 PEIS.

Proposed Action and Alternatives the PEIS Will Consider

APHIS developed four proposed program alternatives, two of which do not include use of chemical control ( i.e., insecticides). All four proposed alternatives employ the following IPM principles: surveying grasshopper populations to determine if the level of infestation has reached an action ( printed page 36790) threshold indicating the grasshoppers could cause economic or ecological harm, monitoring, and technical assistance wherein APHIS recommends or provides education on how landowners and land managers can implement cultural control and physical control methods. In evaluating the four proposed alternatives, as part of the environmental baseline, land management agencies and property owners are expected to have administered their rangeland resources to reduce the effects of grasshopper herbivory and are coming to APHIS for assistance because preventive methods were deemed no longer effective or available. This approach maintains the appropriate scope of responding to active outbreaks. The four proposed alternatives are discussed in detail below.

Alternative 1—No Action Alternative. This alternative is the current program as described in the preferred alternative of the 2019 EIS and Record of Decision (Alternative 3—Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates or Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs) with Adaptive Management Strategy). Under this alternative, based on the results of surveys, monitoring, and habitat assessments, APHIS would continue to address grasshopper outbreaks by using USEPA-registered chemical insecticides, namely, carbaryl, diflubenzuron, chlorantraniliprole, and malathion, at both conventional rates per label instructions and RAATs, applying one of the aforementioned insecticides once per treatment season within a treatment area as needed.

APHIS conducts surveys for grasshoppers to make critical management decisions in accordance with the IPM strategy used under the suppression program. Both nymphal and adult populations of grasshoppers may be surveyed on an annual basis in States where grasshopper outbreaks are common. In States where outbreaks are uncommon, surveys may be required when outbreaks occur. APHIS may conduct surveys on private as well as public rangelands.

When surveys and cooperator observations suggest a grasshopper outbreak is likely to cause economic and ecological harm, APHIS identifies, assesses, and delineates sensitive habitats within the proposed control area. During treatments, APHIS monitors applicators with visual observation and global positioning satellite (GPS)-enabled software to ensure no-spray buffers protect sensitive habitats. Environmental monitoring of chemical residues near and within treatment areas has been conducted under the suppression program for decades. APHIS also conducts post-treatment grasshopper surveys to assess the effectiveness of the control methods.

APHIS also uses population mapping to predict future outbreaks and determine the need for suppression treatments. This involves collecting and analyzing survey data, historical outbreak patterns, and environmental factors using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify areas at high risk for future outbreaks and to guide targeted suppression efforts.

As previously stated, under this proposed alternative, APHIS may apply one of four insecticides—carbaryl, diflubenzuron, chlorantraniliprole, or malathion—to treat grasshopper outbreaks. Carbaryl inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme that normally breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, at synaptic junctions in the insect nervous system. Inhibition of AChE results in the accumulation of acetylcholine in the nerve synapses, which leads to continual firing of nerve pulses, causing insect paralysis. Insect paralysis disrupts essential functions such as movement and respiration and leads to death.

Diflubenzuron is an insect growth regulator that kills grasshoppers by disrupting normal insect growth rather than nerve function. Diflubenzuron works by inhibiting the formation of chitin, a molecule necessary to the formation of an insect's exoskeleton. During molting, insects that are exposed to diflubenzuron cannot properly form a new exoskeleton, leading to failed molting, dehydration, physical deformities, and death. Diflubenzuron primarily affects immature stages and does not cause immediate mortality.

Chlorantraniliprole kills insects by disrupting normal muscle function. It affects the nervous system by activating ryanodine receptors in insect muscle cells, causing uncontrolled release of calcium. The uncontrolled release of calcium leads to sustained muscle contraction, paralysis, and an inability to move or feed. Death occurs as essential muscles, including those involved in respiration, can no longer function.

Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide that kills grasshoppers by disrupting their nervous system. It enters the insect through contact or ingestion and interferes with the normal breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is essential for nerve signal transmission. Acetylcholine builds up at nerve junctions, leading to continuous nerve stimulation, loss of muscle control, paralysis, and death. Grasshoppers typically die shortly after exposure due to failure of normal nerve and muscle function.

In conjunction with determining which insecticide is appropriate to use in a given situation, APHIS will also determine whether the insecticide should be applied at conventional rates or RAATs. Conventional rates refer to the maximum rate as specified on the insecticide label for the individual insecticide. Under the RAATs method, parallel swaths of insecticide-treated rangeland are alternated with untreated swaths. In addition, the rate of insecticide sprayed from the application vehicle is reduced to half the conventional treatment rate. RAAT applications directly suppress the grasshopper population within spray-treated swaths while conserving grasshopper predators and parasites in untreated swaths. The RAATs method reduces exposure of non-target species to insecticides when compared with full-coverage treatments at conventional treatment rates. The suppression rather than elimination of grasshopper populations using the RAATs methodology is in accordance with IPM principles of only applying enough insecticide to reduce pest populations below the economic injury level for that agricultural resource. Because the RAATs application method typically alternates treated and untreated swaths, and the insecticide is sprayed at lower rates, the volume of insecticide applied per protected acre of rangeland is less than half of full coverage at conventional label rate insecticide applications.

The approach of utilizing either conventional rates or RAATs allows APHIS to make site-specific suppression applications using a range of application rates to ensure adequate grasshopper suppression.

Under this alternative, APHIS would employ IPM principles such as surveys, monitoring, and population mapping to determine where and when grasshopper population outbreaks are occurring and what insecticide treatments will be most effective and economical to reduce harm to rangeland resources. APHIS would also continue employing avoidance of treatment in areas with documented occurrences of rare grasshopper species, key pollinator habitat, and other sensitive ecological areas. Additionally, APHIS would provide technical assistance to land management agencies and property owners upon request, consistent with IPM strategies. This assistance would include suggesting and providing education on chemical insecticide application methods and ( printed page 36791) rates as well as non-chemical grasshopper population suppression techniques such as grazing management, rangeland and species monitoring, habitat manipulation, mechanical controls, and treatment avoidance strategies.

The current program also includes adaptive management, which is the addition of other treatments, including biopesticides, that become available for managing grasshoppers. Before APHIS would add other treatment(s) that may become available in the future for managing grasshoppers to currently approved treatments, the treatment must be registered by USEPA for use on grasshoppers and APHIS must make a finding that the treatment poses no greater risks to human health and non-target species than the risks associated with currently approved treatments. In other words, if the potential environmental impacts of the proposed new treatment are similar to or less than those posed by current treatments used under the suppression program, APHIS would add them to its toolbox of available grasshopper suppression methods. For each treatment, APHIS would also provide the environmental analysis in a site-specific NEPA document, as appropriate.

The analysis required to make such a finding is extensive and includes, as appropriate, preparation of a human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA). We also compare the human health and ecological risks of a new treatment with those of current authorized treatments, publish in the Federal Register the preliminary findings with a 30-day public comment period, and issue a final determination also published in the Federal Register . This process reflects APHIS' established procedures for evaluating new treatments as described in the 2019 EIS. Any proposed new treatment that poses different and significant environmental impacts than those currently used in the program would require supplementation of the PEIS if APHIS wanted to add it to its toolbox of methods.

A lternative 2—Surveys, Monitoring, Population Mapping, and Technical Assistance Only Alternative. Under this alternative, APHIS would not fund or participate in any insecticide treatments to suppress grasshopper outbreaks. APHIS' activities would be limited to surveying, monitoring, and population mapping of grasshopper populations to identify if the level of infestation has reached an action threshold indicating the grasshoppers could cause economic or ecological harm and providing technical assistance. APHIS would carry out these activities as described under Alternative 1. Any grasshopper suppression treatments would be implemented by the applicable land management agencies, private groups, or individual landowners.

Alternative 3—Surveys, Monitoring, Population Mapping, Technical Assistance, and Biopesticides with Adaptive Management Alternative. This alternative would include all aspects of Alternative 2, but with the addition of APHIS application of biopesticide treatments to address grasshopper outbreaks if and when they become available. This alternative would also include treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive habitats as described under Alternative 1. Biopesticides are naturally occurring substances or microorganisms ( e.g., bacteria, fungi, viruses) that control pests through non-toxic mechanisms like infection or growth disruption. The biopesticides APHIS has studied include fungal ( i.e., Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium robertsii and Nosema locustae) and bacterial ( i.e., two species of Pseudomonus bacteria: P. syringae and P. fluorescens) pathogens for control of rangeland grasshoppers. However, to date, APHIS' experimental studies using the aforementioned biopesticides have not shown them to be economical or effective in suppressing rangeland grasshopper outbreaks in the United States.

Biopesticides are of interest because they infect the target insect pest but are not harmful to humans or livestock. However, some biopesticides may pose risks to certain non-target invertebrates. APHIS cooperators researched a domestic alternative to the nonindigenous Metarhizium acridum, used around the world for management of grasshopper (usually locust) populations, particularly in Australia and sub-Sahelian Africa, but also in Mexico and Brazil. Given the widespread and common nature of Metarhizium in the western United States, potential environmental impacts are expected to be minimal if it was approved for use in the United States. Although entomopathogenic fungi can reduce grasshopper populations, a substantial portion of the treated population are able to resist the infection through thermoregulation. While the experimental results thus far show low efficacy in field trials, using biopesticide-laced insect bait formulations remains a promising area of research.

While additional research, including field testing in the United States, and subsequent approvals would be necessary for any biopesticide to be used to treat grasshoppers in the United States, APHIS has chosen to analyze this alternative in case biopesticides become available for APHIS to consider adopting under its adaptive management strategy as described in Alternative 1. While some are USEPA-registered for grasshoppers, APHIS' widespread program adoption requires further specific field testing, efficacy validation across varied target pests ( e.g., grasshopper species, Mormon crickets) and environments, and comprehensive risk assessment. This ensures they meet program objectives and pose no greater risks than current treatments. APHIS is actively exploring their integration, including considering or conducting field trials.

Alternative 4—Combination of Alternatives 1 and 3 With Modifications—(Preferred Alternative). This alternative is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 3, but with some modifications. Like Alternatives 1 and 3, under this alternative APHIS would employ the IPM principles of surveying grasshopper populations, monitoring, population mapping, treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive habitats, and technical assistance. Additionally, like Alternative 1, APHIS would continue to address grasshopper outbreaks by using the USEPA-registered chemical insecticides carbaryl, diflubenzuron, and chlorantraniliprole, and would employ adaptive management to add other treatments that become available for managing grasshoppers. However, unlike Alternative 1, APHIS would only use RAATs to apply these insecticides and would no longer use malathion to suppress grasshopper outbreaks. This IPM strategy focuses on targeted and low-risk application methods. By no longer using conventional application rates for grasshopper outbreaks or malathion to address grasshopper outbreaks, APHIS aims to reduce potential risks to human health, non-target organisms, and the environment. Conventional rates are higher than necessary for effective suppression of grasshopper populations and can increase exposure to pollinators, wildlife, and nearby communities. Malathion, while effective, is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide with greater potential for non-target impacts. Advances in IPM, improved application technology, and the availability of reduced-risk pesticide application methods allow APHIS to achieve effective grasshopper suppression using lower application rates and adaptive management. This shift reflects a move toward more targeted, environmentally responsible ( printed page 36792) pest management practices consistent with current science and policy. Finally, like Alternative 3, APHIS would employ application of biopesticide treatments to address grasshopper outbreaks if and when they become available.

Summary of Substantive Issues and Potential Impacts

APHIS is assessing the potential consequences of implementing each of the action alternatives on the biological, physical, and sociocultural aspects of the affected environment. APHIS may identify additional reasonably foreseeable consequences during the preparation of the PEIS; any other reasonably foreseeable consequences that are identified will receive further examination and discussion in the PEIS. APHIS is requesting that the public comment on the following issues during the scoping period:

• Effects on human health and safety. The rangeland areas where treatments may occur are sparsely populated by isolated ranch units consisting mainly of cattle operations and “ranchettes” (homesteads generally five acres or less). Recreationists may use the rangelands for hiking, camping, bird watching, hunting, or other activities. Ranchers and sheepherders may work on the rangelands daily. Individuals with allergic or hypersensitive reactions to chemicals may live near or may utilize rangelands proposed for treatment with insecticides. Some rural schools and off-grid communities may be in rangeland where insecticide treatments could occur. The PEIS will contain detailed hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for the chemical formulations available to APHIS, including impacts to program workers and the public through all possible routes of exposure (dermal, oral, inhalation), using parameters designed to overestimate risk. Because the suppression program follows the precautions described on the pesticide labels, APHIS does not expect use of insecticides to affect human health and safety.

While the active ingredients in biopesticides are generally nonpathogenic to humans, immunocompromised and allergen-sensitive individuals could be affected. The PEIS will address the general categories of potential human health effects associated with biopesticide pathogens and their carrier matrices. Future, product-specific analyses would be conducted as part of the adaptive management strategy, once specific formulations are identified for potential program use. Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, population mapping, and treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas are not expected to cause any human health effects because program treatments are specifically avoided in these designated areas. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to cause human health effects because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods and making recommendations on methods to use. Moreover, APHIS would provide the same guidance that it would employ if it were to implement the method itself and, as such, that guidance already would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any human health effects.

• Effects on non-target species, including federally listed endangered and threatened species. Rangeland vertebrates include introduced livestock, pets, and native species including carnivores, large and small herbivores, and omnivores. Birds comprise a large portion of the vertebrate species complex, and they also include exotic and native species. Animals living in or passing through a grasshopper suppression program area may be wild, feral, or domesticated. Herbivorous vertebrate species compete with some species of grasshoppers for forage, while omnivorous and predacious species utilize grasshoppers and other insects as an important food source. Insects are the most common rangeland pollinators, but certain non-insects play a significant pollination role in specific ecosystems. Invertebrate pollinators include managed exotic species such as European honeybees and a great diversity of native species including many kinds of solitary and eusocial bees, wasps and ants, flies, hoverflies, bee-mimicking flies, many families of beetles, true bugs, moths, and butterflies, among others. Many species of herbivorous insects, including grasshoppers, contribute to organic material decomposition and nutrient cycling. Predacious invertebrates (e.g. arachnids, mantids, and dragonflies) help regulate the insect herbivores while also providing food for larger animals. Invertebrates are essential to rangeland ecosystem health and provide the most biodiversity in those ecosystems.

When using insecticides to suppress grasshopper outbreaks, APHIS does not treat near rangeland water resources or other sensitive environments identified by Federal, State or Tribal cooperators. APHIS chooses application methods, insecticides, and formulations to minimize effects on non-target species. The use of biopesticides being considered under the suppression program is not expected to have greater potential to cause significant impacts to non-target species populations because the program will adhere to the habitat avoidance procedures established for chemical insecticides.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. APHIS considers whether listed species, species proposed for listing, experimental populations, or critical habitat are present in proposed suppression areas before selecting a specific treatment method. APHIS completed a programmatic consultation with the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the suppression program (concurrence letter dated (August 12, 2010)). APHIS also completed a programmatic consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the suppression program. USFWS concurred with APHIS' determination that the grasshopper suppression program would have no effect or was not likely to adversely affect listed species and their critical habitat on March 21, 2024. During preparation of the PEIS, APHIS will confer with USFWS and NMFS to determine if re-initiation of consultation is necessary.

Before treatments are conducted, program managers confer with USFWS Field Offices and NMFS (where applicable) to determine if listed species are present in the grasshopper suppression area, and whether mitigations or protection measures beyond those consulted on in the biological assessments must be implemented to protect listed species or critical habitat. Because grasshopper program suppression treatments occur on a minute fraction of the western rangeland annually, do not occur near water resources, and are conducted in accordance with protective measures provided by USFWS, NMFS, and land management agencies, APHIS does not expect its grasshopper suppression activities to significantly impact non-target species populations.

Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, and population mapping are not expected to cause significant non-target species effects because the techniques either do not harm species or occur within such a minute portion of the habitat to be de ( printed page 36793) minimis. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas may either have no effect or benefit non-target species because if non-target species are located in ecologically sensitive areas, those areas are less likely to be treated. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas would prevent direct chemical impacts to non-target species; however, if severe grasshopper outbreaks lead to significant habitat degradation or reduced food sources in these untreated areas, indirect adverse effects on non-target species could still occur. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to affect non-target species because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods. Moreover, APHIS would provide guidance the Agency would use if it were to implement the method and that guidance would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any effects on non-target species.

• Effects on soil, vegetation, air, and water quality. Soil is the basic component of rangeland ecosystems and is associated with nearly all natural processes that occur within the ecosystem. The chemical and physical characteristics of a soil determine its ability to furnish plant nutrients, the rate and depth of water penetration, the amount of water the soil can hold, and its availability to plants. We will assess the potential impacts to soil resources from grasshopper outbreaks and from program use of chemical insecticides and biopesticides to suppress grasshopper populations. Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, and population mapping are not expected to affect rangeland soil because these activities primarily involve visual observation and data collection with minimal to no physical disturbance or chemical application to the soil. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas would prevent direct impacts from program activities to soil. However, if severe grasshopper outbreaks lead to excessive plant loss, indirect adverse effects such as soil drying or erosion could result. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas may either have no effect or benefit soil because soil in those areas would be less likely to be treated. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to affect soil because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods. Moreover, APHIS would provide guidance the Agency would use if it were to implement the method and that guidance would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any effects on rangeland soils.

The suppression of grasshopper populations is expected to reduce the total amount of herbivory and benefit terrestrial plants. Chemical insecticides and biopesticides are expected to have low potential toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial plants. Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, and population mapping are not expected to affect plants. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas may either have no effect or benefit terrestrial plants because plants in those areas would be less likely to be treated. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to affect plants because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods. Moreover, APHIS would provide guidance the Agency would use if it were to implement the method and that guidance would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any effects on plants.

The effects on air quality resulting from the use of chemical insecticides containing volatile components within and near the treatment areas will also be examined. The analysis will evaluate potential spray drift from applications by aircraft or ground-based vehicles. Air pollution is not likely because the program avoids meteorological conditions that favor drift, and the low volatility of the insecticides used for treatments. Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, and population mapping are not expected to affect air quality because these activities are observational and data-gathering, involving no emissions or physical alterations to the atmosphere. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas would prevent direct impacts from program activities to air quality; however, if severe grasshopper outbreaks lead to excessive plant loss and subsequent soil erosion, indirect adverse effects such as increased airborne dust could result. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas may either have no effect or benefit air quality because those areas would be less likely to be treated. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to affect air quality because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods. Moreover, APHIS would provide guidance the Agency would use if it were to implement the method and that guidance would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any effects on air quality. This means the recommended activities would have air quality impacts similar to those already assessed within the program's scope, thus avoiding new or unanalyzed effects.

The PEIS will examine the potential effects of program-applied chemical insecticides and their degradates on water resources and aquatic environments. These potential effects are not expected to be significant because APHIS observes broad no-spray buffers around streams and other bodies of water. The use of biopesticides being considered by APHIS is not expected to have greater potential to cause effects on water resources because APHIS will adhere to the habitat avoidance procedures established for chemical insecticides. Grasshopper surveys, monitoring, and population mapping are not expected to affect water quality because these activities are observational and data-gathering, involving no discharge into water bodies or physical disturbance of aquatic environments. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas would prevent direct impacts from program activities to water quality. However, if severe grasshopper outbreaks lead to excessive plant loss, indirect adverse effects such as increased soil erosion and sedimentation in water resources could occur. Treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas may either have no effect or benefit water quality because APHIS avoids treatments near bodies of water. Technical assistance provided to cooperators is not expected to affect water resources because APHIS would not be implementing any particular method; it would just be providing guidance on how to implement particular methods. Moreover, APHIS would provide guidance the Agency would use if it were to implement the method and that guidance would include standard operating procedures proven to minimize any effect on rangeland water resources.

• Effects on cultural and historic resources. Federal actions must seek to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative impacts to cultural and historic resources in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).^[21] Prior to conducting treatments that may occur near federally registered historic sites, APHIS will consult with State Historic Preservation ( printed page 36794) Officers about grasshopper suppression program activities that may occur. The officers would indicate whether the suppression program's proposed mitigations are sufficient to protect those sites and require additional mitigations if necessary. The NHPA implementing procedures in 36 CFR part 800 require Federal agencies to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with an opportunity to comment on their findings.

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” calls for agency communication and collaboration with Tribal officials when proposed Federal actions have potential Tribal implications. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 ^[22] secures the protection of archaeological resources and sites on public and Tribal lands. In accordance with these directives and 7 CFR 1b.7(d)(2)(i), APHIS is committed to involving Tribal Nations in the development of this PEIS. APHIS will alert Tribal Nations in writing of our plans to begin preparing the PEIS regarding our suppression activities related to grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations in the western United States. More specifically, APHIS will notify Tribes of this NOI, will actively seek their comments on the PEIS, and will otherwise inquire as to their desire for consultation throughout the PEIS development process. Prior to the treatment season, APHIS will notify Tribal land managers of the potential for grasshopper outbreaks on their lands. Prior to conducting treatments on or near Tribal lands, APHIS will consult with local Tribal representatives to fully inform the Tribes of possible actions APHIS may take to protect Tribal lands and rangeland resources from grasshopper outbreaks. Insecticide treatments typically do not occur at cultural sites, and drift from a suppression program treatment at such locations is not expected to adversely affect natural surfaces, such as rock formations and carvings because the chemical insecticides and biopesticides being considered for use are unlikely to stain nor cause increased weathering of the rock surface. APHIS would also confer with the appropriate Tribal authority to ensure that the timing and location of a planned suppression treatment does not coincide or conflict with cultural events or observances on Tribal lands. Because APHIS coordinates with Tribal nations and other historical or cultural site administrators, the agency does not expect to have significant impacts to these resources.

• Effects on economic resources. Rangelands are essential to the livelihoods of western livestock producers, providing forage for a variety of wildlife and domesticated animals. Rangelands are studied by scientists and visited by wilderness tourists. Economic values of rangelands also include energy production sites, both fossil and renewable, and recreation sites. Market and non-market values are associated with goods and services that are physically used (now or in the future), such as forage for livestock or opportunities for outdoor recreation (usually a non-market value, apart from off-road activities like pony trekking or all-terrain sports). Non-use values arise from goods that are never physically used. Non-use values, for example, include the concept of “existence value” (i.e., the value people place on simply knowing something, such as an unspoiled wilderness area, exists). Non-market and non-use values are difficult to estimate; therefore, most of the economic injury level estimates used by the grasshopper program in accordance with the IPM principles only consider market values and, in most cases, only the single market value for the commodity ( e.g., forage) being damaged. In the case of rangeland, there are a large suite of values, both market and non-market, and use and non-use, that can be affected by pests such as grasshoppers.

Areas with significant cultural value, subsistence resources, or recreational use often have market value and greater scenic and environmental non-market values. These areas might have remote recreational uses, special topographic characteristics, protected archeological sites, or species that are of special concern to land management agencies, Tribal Nations, residents and visitors, or other groups and individuals. If areas designated as Wilderness Areas, National Parks, or Monuments experience grasshopper outbreaks, they are not expected to be sources of requests for assistance from land managers for grasshopper treatments. Wilderness Study Areas typically are excluded from treatment because of ecological priorities of the land administrator or steward, often the Bureau of Land Management, and the grasshopper suppression program standard operating procedures ( i.e., no spray buffers). An additional area designation is Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which are areas within public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Such areas or other similar designations from various land management agencies would not be recommended for grasshopper suppression activities, and APHIS will attempt to determine any such special designations with the land manager prior to conducting grasshopper suppression treatments. APHIS believes the grasshopper suppression program activities will not adversely affect the economy in areas where they occur because surveys, monitoring, population mapping, treatment avoidance in ecologically sensitive areas, application of chemical insecticide or biopesticide treatments, and any actions taken by cooperating agencies based on the technical assistance provided by APHIS will occur over short timespans and will have negligible economic effects.

Comments that identify other alternatives or issues that could be considered for examination in the PEIS would be especially helpful. All comments received during the comment period on this NOI will be published on the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( https://www.regulations.gov) under the docket number in ADDRESSES above and carefully considered in developing the final scope of the PEIS.

Schedule for the Decision-Making Process

Following the review of comments on the NOI and completion of the PEIS, APHIS will issue a Stakeholder Registry notice and will post on its website the PEIS and Record of Decision. In addition, APHIS will provide notification to all agencies or persons consulted and all parties that submitted comments on the NOI, utilizing established communication channels consistent with 7 CFR 1b.8(d). APHIS expects to finalize the PEIS and ROD no later than August 2027 in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g) and 7 CFR 1b.7(k).

Cooperating and Participating Agencies

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(3) and 7 CFR 1b.9(m)(3), in September 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management Division of Forestry, Rangeland, and Vegetation Resources and the USDA's U.S. Forest Service were invited to cooperate or participate in the preparation of the PEIS due to their special expertise as land managers of land where grasshopper outbreaks may occur. On January 15, 2026, both agencies agreed ( printed page 36795) to officially serve as cooperating agencies with APHIS on the preparation of the PEIS.

Public Comments

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c) and7 CFR 1b.7(b)(1)(viii), this NOI requests public comment to help identify potential alternatives or other issues that could be considered, potential effects, and any relevant information, studies, or analyses that APHIS should consider in evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives on the quality of the human environment. “Human environment” under NEPA “means comprehensively the natural and physical environment and the relationship of present and future generations of Americans with that environment.” ^[23] “Effect” or “impact” under NEPA “means changes to the human environment from the proposed action or action alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives.” ^[24] To promote informed NEPA analysis and decision-making, comments should be as specific as possible and explain why the issues raised are important for consideration in the PEIS. Comments should include, where possible, copies of references and data sources supporting the information provided in the comment.

The comments received will be published on the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( https://www.regulations.gov).

91 FR 36787