Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program

The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the proposed program to suppress grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations, emphasizing the significant economic losses these pests cause to farmers and ranchers. They advocate for a program that includes surveying, monitoring, and the continued use of EPA-approved insecticides within an integrated pest management (IPM) framework, while specifically opposing Alternatives 2 and 3.

The Global Locust Initiative (GLI) at Arizona State University supports the proposed suppression program but recommends specific amendments to Alternative 4. They advocate for a formalized framework to register and adopt the specialist biopesticide Metarhizium acridum, requesting a clear distinction between generalist and specialist strains and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis comparing biopesticides to chemical pesticides.

New Mexico Wild, representing nearly 1,000 individual commenters, urges APHIS to adopt Alternative 2, which ends the use of chemical insecticides in the Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program. They argue that current practices pose risks to wildlife, water quality, and human health, and call for addressing root causes like overgrazing and providing better public notification.

CropLife America, a trade association representing pesticide developers and manufacturers, supports the APHIS notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement for the grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression program. They argue that the proposed alternatives are comprehensive and emphasize that registered pesticides have already undergone rigorous EPA review for safety and efficacy.

Christopher Lish, a private individual, opposes the proposed program because it relies too heavily on insecticides rather than integrated pest management. He argues that the program harms native species, lacks transparency regarding public exposure, and fails to protect the integrity of the ecosystem.

Charissa Callison, a private citizen and mother, opposes the proposed suppression program due to concerns regarding insecticide exposure and its harmful effects on pollinators, water quality, and biodiversity. She advocates for specific protections for wildlife and clear public notification if spraying is deemed necessary.

Ashton Robertson, a local land steward and environmental educator, opposes the current chemical-heavy approach of the Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program. The commenter urges APHIS to ban aerial spraying on public lands and instead prioritize ecological management and stricter safeguards for waterways and pollinators.

The commenter opposes the proposed grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression program, arguing that the problem stems from land mismanagement and cattle grazing rather than the insects themselves. They express concerns over the ecological damage caused by chemical treatments, the inadequacy of "market value" as a metric for public lands, and the potential health risks to rural populations.

An individual commenter opposes the use of widespread pesticides on public lands for the suppression program, advocating instead for non-chemical methods like biological controls. They also call for mandatory pesticide reporting, expanded water buffers, and robust public consultation with Tribes and conservationists.

The Wyoming Department of Agriculture opposes APHIS's preferred Alternative 4, arguing that it removes effective chemical insecticides and methods necessary for pest control. They advocate for a program that includes all management actions, including conventional treatments and various chemicals, to ensure local land managers have the best tools available for unique circumstances.