Mediterranean Fruit Fly 

Cooperative Eradication 

Program

San Diego County, California

Environmental Assessment 

August 2015

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service
Mediterranean Fruit Fly

Cooperative Eradication 

Program

San Diego County, California

Environmental Assessment 

August 2015

Agency Contact: 

John C. Stewart

National Fruit Fly Policy Manager

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400 

Raleigh, NC 27606
Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.) 

To File an Employment Complaint 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to 

request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. 

Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, 

by fax (202) 690–7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons With Disabilities 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–

8339 or (800) 845–6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or 

endorsement by USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the

standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned to report factually on available

data and to provide specific information.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by

appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and

other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. 

Follow recommended label practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. Need for the Proposal.............................................................. 1

II. Alternatives ........................................................................... 3

A. No Action ............................................................................. 3

B. Quarantine and Commodity Certification............................ 3

C. Eradication Using an IPM Approach 

(Preferred Alternative)........................................................ 4

1. Delimitation .................................................................... 5

2. Treatments ...................................................................... 5

III. Potential Environmental Consequences ................................... 7

A. No Action............................................................................ 7

B. Quarantine and Commodity Certification ............................ 7

C. Preferred Alternative ............................................................ 7

1. Affected Environment ..................................................... 8

2. Human Health ............................................................. 11

3. Other Aspects of the Human Environment .................. 13

4. Nontarget Species....................................................... 15

5. Environmental Quality ................................................. 19

6. Cumulative Impacts..................................................... 21

IV. Agencies Consulted .............................................................. 24

V. References Cited ...................................................................... 25

Appendix A. Medfly Quarantine in San Diego County, California, 

as of August 12, 2015

Appendix B. Outside-APHIS Spatial Data Resources Used to 

Prepare This Document
I. Need for the Proposal

 

The Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), is a 

major pest capable of devastating crops throughout many parts of the 

world. Because of its wide host range (over 250 species of fruits and 

vegetables) and its potential for rapidly expanding infestation, the Medfly 

represents a serious threat to U.S. agriculture. Medfly was detected in 

Hawaii in 1910, and subsequently became established there (NAPIS, 

2015). Although Medfly has been periodically introduced to the U.S. 

mainland since 1929 (APHIS, n.d.), successful eradication programs have 

prevented it from becoming an established pest in the conterminous 

United States.

Medfly establishment would be disastrous to agricultural production in

States where host plants are grown. The unchecked presence of Medfly 

on the U.S. mainland would result in the widespread destruction of crops

such as apricot, avocado, grapefruit, nectarine, orange, peach, and cherry. 

Commercial crops, as well as dooryard production of host fruits, would 

suffer if Medfly populations became established. Fruit infested by Medfly 

is unfit to eat because the larvae tunnel through the fleshy part of the fruit, 

damaging it, and subjecting it to decay from bacteria and fungi. 

On July 22, 2015, two adult male Medflies were collected from a McPhail 

trap on a citrus host in the city of La Mesa, San Diego County, California

(CDFA, 2015a). Delimitation and larval surveys outward from the 

detection site were initiated. The detections were sent for molecular lab 

sequencing and confirmed as wild Medfly on July 30, triggering

participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in a quarantine and control 

program for this outbreak. 

On July 31, a third male adult Medfly was collected from a Jackson trap in 

a citrus tree about half a mile east of the first detection (CDFA, 2015b). 

On August 4 another male adult Medfly was found in a trap placed the day 

before on a lemon tree in a neighborhood of Spring Valley; this find 

caused a southeasterly expansion of the proposed quarantine boundary 

(CDFA, 2015c).

APHIS and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) 

are proposing a cooperative program to eradicate the Medfly infestation 

and prevent the spread of Medfly to noninfested areas of the United States. 

APHIS’ authority for cooperation in the program is the Plant Protection 

Act (Title 4 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000), which 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out operations to eradicate 

insect pests, and to use emergency measures to prevent the dissemination 

1
of plant pests new to, or not widely distributed throughout, the 

United States. 

Working cooperatively with States and territories, APHIS identifies and 

eradicates Medfly infestations. APHIS has cooperated with the California, 

Florida, Puerto Rico, and Texas Departments of Agriculture on fruit fly 

eradication programs since 1984. To date, every fruit fly population 

targeted by APHIS’ cooperative programs was successfully eradicated. 

The State of California initiates Ceratitis spp. delimitation and eradication 

programs in locations where the types and number of detections are not yet 

triggering quarantine regulatory actions. Delimitation and eradication 

programs try to eliminate fruit fly infestations before reaching a quarantine 

threshold and imposing regulatory quarantines. Monitoring for Medfly 

continues throughout all susceptible counties of California.

Many Medfly-host plant species are grown in San Diego County and 

adjacent regions, which increases the potential environmental impact of 

the current infestations. Commercial production of three avocado varieties 

begins within 4.5 miles of the Medfly detections; persimmon trees are in 

commercial production about 15 miles from the Medfly detections

(APHIS, 2015). There are at least five commercial plant nurseries within 

5 miles of the Medfly detections. (To view the proposed program area1

,

see the map in appendix A.) 

APHIS and its cooperating partners have discussed and comprehensively 

analyzed alternatives for Medfly eradication since 1984. APHIS first 

evaluated the environmental impacts of fruit fly control technologies in the 

Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement—2001 (EIS1) (APHIS, 2001). APHIS reexamined its findings 

and introduced an additional tool for eradication in the Use of Genetically 

Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control 

Programs, Final Environmental Impact Statement—2008 (EIS2) (APHIS, 

2008). Both EIS1 and EIS2 consider fruit fly risks and mitigations at the 

programmatic level. This case-specific EA incorporates the findings of 

EIS1 and EIS2 by reference. 

This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental 

consequences of alternatives considered for Medfly eradication, and 

analyzes, from a site-specific perspective, environmental issues relevant to 

this particular program. The eradication measures being considered for 

this program were discussed and comprehensively analyzed within 

APHIS’ fruit fly chemical risk assessments (APHIS, 2014a, 2003, 1999, 

1998a, and 1998b). These documents are incorporated by reference and 

1 For the purposes of this document, “program area” refers to everywhere inside the quarantine boundary, 

and includes both eradication treatment and regulatory control zones.

2

 
summarized within this EA. Environmental documentation for APHIS 

fruit fly control programs may be viewed online via the following 

links: APHIS fruit fly control program environmental documentation

and APHIS GE control applications for plant health.

 

II. Alternatives

Alternatives considered for this proposed program include: (A) no Federal 

action, (B) quarantine and commodity certification, and (C) the preferred 

alternative, eradication using an integrated pest management (IPM) 

approach. Component techniques of alternative C include the use of 

regulatory controls, high density trapping, host larval survey, and chemical 

and biological control (sterile insect technique (SIT)) to facilitate the 

timely elimination of the current Medfly infestation. These alternatives 

and their component techniques were discussed and comprehensively 

analyzed within EIS1 and EIS2 (APHIS, 2001 and 2008), and are 

incorporated by reference and summarized within this EA. 

A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, there would be no Federal efforts to 

eradicate Medfly or restrict expansion of the Medfly population from the 

infested area. In the absence of a Federal effort, quarantine and control 

would be left to State and local government, grower groups, and 

individuals. Expansion of the infestation would be influenced by any

controls exerted over it, by the proximity of host plants, and by climatic

conditions. 

“No treatment” might be the only reasonable alternative for some sensitive

sites. In such cases, lack of treatment could lead to a continuing and 

expanding infestation. An expansion of the infestation would likely result 

in substantial economic losses to growers in the United States, as well as 

the loss of U.S. export agricultural markets. 

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would continue cooperative 

practices to support the CDFA detection trapping program and research. 

(For details about the California State program to control Medfly, please 

use the following link: CDFA Medfly project information.)

B. Quarantine and Commodity Certification

This alternative combines a Federal quarantine with commodity treatment 

and certification, as stipulated under Title 7 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) § 301.32. Regulated commodities harvested within the 

quarantine area would not be allowed to move unless treated with 

prescribed applications and certified for movement outside the area. For a 

3
large infestation, intensive quarantine enforcement activities could be 

necessary, including safeguarding of local fruit stands, mandatory baggage 

inspection at airports, and judicious use of road patrols and regulatory 

checks. The quarantine actions of this alternative are designed to reduce 

Medfly movement outside treated areas, and reduce human-mediated 

transport of Medfly in host plant materials to areas outside the quarantined 

area; however, the infestation could remain established within the 

quarantine boundaries. Any Medfly eradication efforts would be managed 

by, and wholly under the control of, CDFA.

Interstate movement of regulated commodities would require the issuance

of a certificate, or limited permit, contingent upon commodity treatment or 

the grower or shipper complying with specific conditions designed to 

minimize pest risk and prevent the spread of Medfly. Eradication methods 

that may be used in this alternative include (1) regulatory chemicals, 

(2) cold treatment, (3) vapor heat treatment, and (4) irradiation treatment. 

Regulatory chemical treatments may include fumigation with methyl 

bromide (MB), and bait spray with a mixture of protein hydrolysate (a 

food bait) and spinosad. (Refer to EIS1 (APHIS, 2001) for more detailed 

information about these chemicals and their uses.) Cold treatment, vapor 

heat treatment, or irradiation treatment of certain produce, as a 

requirement for certification and shipping, must be done in facilities that 

are inspected and approved by APHIS.

C. Eradication Using an IPM Approach (Preferred 

Alternative)

 

APHIS’ preferred alternative for the La Mesa Medfly program is 

eradication using an IPM approach. This alternative combines quarantine

and commodity certification with eradication treatments, and is designed 

to be biologically effective while minimizing impacts to the environment, 

public intrusiveness, and program operating costs (CDFA, 2015d). 

Successful eradication of a Medfly infestation in Los Angeles County, 

using a similar IPM strategy, was declared in August 2014 (APHIS, 

2014b).

CDFA (2014d) has determined there are no cultural options available to 

eradicate Medfly that allow CDFA to meet its statutory obligations. 

APHIS concurs with its assessment. Eradication efforts may therefore

include any or all of the following: 

 

• no action,

• regulatory quarantine treatment and movement control of host 

materials and regulated articles, 

4
• host survey for evidence of breeding Medfly,

• host removal,

• eradication chemical applications, 

 

• mass trapping to delimit the infestation and monitor post-treatment

Medfly populations, and

• sterile insect technique (SIT).

Adult Medflies can fly and be carried for long distances by the wind 

(UFL, 2010), making it possible for host-plant growing areas outside an 

eradication zone to become infested. The program area for the Medfly 

infestation includes those portions of San Diego County centered on 

Medfly detection sites (see map in appendix A). The current boundary 

may be expanded to include other properties if additional adult flies or life 

stages are found. 

APHIS’ cooperative programs to eradicate Medfly infestations in 

California use established procedures and treatments (APHIS, 2001, 2004 

and 2015; CDFA, 2015d) designed with the species’ life stages in mind:

Several types of traps—including Jackson sticky trimedlure traps, 

ChamPTM sticky trimedlure traps, and Multilure® traps using a 3-

component lure formulation—are used to delimit the infestation and to 

determine the efficacy of treatments. All monitoring traps will be serviced 

for a period equal to three Medfly life cycles beyond the date of the last 

fly detection. Fruit of host plants will be sampled for the presence of eggs 

and larvae in a 200-meter radius around each detection site.

Should evidence of a breeding Medfly population be confirmed, a 

targeted, ground-based foliar bait treatment will be applied. Host trees 

and plants within a 200-meter radius of the find site are treated with highly 

localized spray that consists of an organic formulation of the pesticide 

spinosad and protein hydrolysate, a food bait. Treatments are repeated 

every 1 to 2 weeks for one life cycle of the fly (typically 2 to 3 months, 

dependent on temperature).

Protein hydrolysate is a common attractant used in fruit fly treatments, 

increasing the efficacy of chemical applications, and reducing the area of 

pesticide treatments needed for control (Prokopy et al., 1992). Pest fruit 

flies are attracted to the protein hydrolysate, which can be derived from 

plants or yeast, where they then receive a lethal dose of the pesticide that 

is mixed with the attractant. 

1. Delimitation

2. Treatment

5
Evidence of a breeding population (immature life stages, mated female 

Medfly, or multiple adult captures within a certain distance and timeframe) will result in removal of host fruit from each detection site and 

from all properties within a 100-meter radius of each detection site.

SIT will be used to limit expansion of the Medfly infestation—the 

eradication area will receive a periodic release of sterilized male Medflies 

in order to disrupt the reproduction cycle and control the wild population. 

The release area currently proposed covers a 3.5-mile radius around each

find site. Releases will be repeated twice a week to achieve a minimum 

weekly release rate of 250,000 sterile Medflies per square mile, and will 

continue for two life cycles beyond the last Medfly detection date

(typically 4 to 6 months, dependant on temperature). 

A quarantine boundary will be established to ensure any host material that 

leaves the program area is free of Medfly. Host material may be treated in 

enclosed areas or containers by cold treatment, vapor heat treatment, 

irradiation, or fumigation with MB. Should the Medfly quarantine spread 

to federally protected historical sites, wilderness, or tribal lands, program 

treatments will be restricted to those approved for the type of site in 

question.

Growers will be able to move their harvested fruit out of the quarantined 

area, under a limited permit, to enclosed facilities for processing into juice 

or for packing, after the fruit receives APHIS-approved MB treatment in 

the field or at the packing shed. Growers of host fruits may also treat their 

production areas using approved program treatments (field and/or premise 

treatment) and, under compliance agreement, have crops certified for 

movement to packing sheds. 

Before taking action, program officials are to inform the public and 

impacted industry via press releases, meetings, and other forms of 

communication appropriate for the recipients. Residents whose property 

will be treated or whose fruit will be removed are to be notified at least 

48 hours in advance. Notification letters will be sent to trading partners as 

they are identified. Given the potential impacts to commercial production, 

grove owners, packing sheds, nurseries, vendors, and other industry 

operations handling Medfly host material will be notified of the Medfly 

quarantine location and treatment schedule.

For more detailed information regarding the alternatives considered for 

Medfly control and their component methods, refer to the previously 

mentioned fruit fly risk assessments (APHIS, 2014a, 2003, 1999, 1998a, 

and 1998b).

6
III. Potential Environmental 

Consequences

This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of alternatives 

considered for Medfly control. The site-specific characteristics of the 

Medfly program area were considered with respect to the preferred 

alternative’s potential to affect human health, nontarget species (including 

threatened and endangered species), and environmental quality. 

Potentially sensitive sites were identified, considered, and accommodated 

through special selection of eradication methods and use of specific 

mitigation measures. APHIS will conduct any necessary additional 

environmental analyses if Medfly detections lead to an expansion of the 

program boundary.

A. No Action

Lack of Federal action would place the burden of eradication on the State 

of California. It is reasonable to expect Medfly populations would 

continue to expand in size and area, leading to increased quarantine 

efforts. Any failure of those efforts could lead to the establishment of this 

pest within the conterminous United States. If eradication attempts are 

unsuccessful, APHIS expects substantial economic losses to growers in 

the United States. Crop loss is likely to lead to commodity scarcity, 

higher costs for U.S. consumers, and the temporary or permanent loss of 

valuable U.S. export markets.

B. Quarantine and Commodity Certification

The quarantine actions of this alternative are designed to reduce the 

human-mediated movement of Medfly by preventing the transportation of 

host-plant materials beyond the quarantine boundary. A resident Medfly 

population would be expected to remain within the quarantine boundary. 

Any failure in quarantine actions could lead to Medfly establishment 

outside the program area. The commodity certification requirement would 

create a necessary but new layer of ongoing governmental presence in the 

marketplace. This situation could create inspection jobs, however, would 

restrict trade until the produce was inspected and certified for sale. Host 

plants would likely cease being grown for domestic use as landowners 

shifted to non-Medfly host plants. 

 

C. Preferred Alternative

This section considers to what extent implementation of the preferred 

alternative might affect the human environment. It begins with a brief 

description of the physical aspects of the region and its residents, both 

7
within and near the proposed program area The preferred alternative, 

eradication using an IPM approach, may employ any or a combination of 

the following measures: 

• no action,

• regulatory quarantine treatment and movement control of host 

materials and regulated articles, 

• host survey for evidence of breeding Med flies,

• host removal,

• eradication chemical applications (foliar bait spray),

• mass trapping using pheromone lures or food bait as an attractant,

and

• SIT.

Pheromone lures present little or no risk to human health or to the general

environment, based on their low toxicity in animal testing, high target 

specificity, and low exposure to humans and the environment (EPA, 

2011; NAFTA, 2003). Review of the treatment protocols by APHIS 

indicates the chemical formulations used as pheromone lures in Medfly 

program traps are unlikely to result adverse environmental or human 

health risks (APHIS, 2014a, 2003, 1999, 1998a and 1998b). Therefore, 

the discussion in this section will focus on the other eradication measures 

of the preferred alternative.

a. Land Characteristics and Demographics 

San Diego County covers approximately 4,207 square miles and had an 

estimated population of 3,263,431 in 2014. Numerous hills and mountain 

ranges cross the county. The city of La Mesa lies in a hilly region to the 

east of one of California’s major cities, San Diego. La Mesa occupies 

about 9 square miles in the southwestern portion of the county, and 

reported a population of 58,769 in 2014. The Census Designated Place of 

Spring Valley lies about 4 miles from La Mesa; it occupies an area of 

about 7 square miles and reported a population of 28, 205 in 2010. Spring 

Valley is the largest unincorporated community in San Diego County, and 

relies on the county for public services and governance (USCB, 2015; La 

Mesa, 2015; SVCC, 2015).

The State of California continues to experience extreme drought that is 

broken to a limited extent by storms bearing unusually heavy rainfall. The

1. Affected 

Environment

8
La Mesa region has a semi-arid, steppe climate with an average low 

temperature in winter of 47 oF, and an average high temperature in summer 

of 98 oF. Total annual precipitation historically averages 13.8 inches, 

accumulating chiefly between November and March (La Mesa, 2015; 

Kauffman, 2003). 

Land use in the immediate program area is suburban and rural residential. 

Schools, municipal parks, biking and hiking trails, golf courses, and other 

public and private recreational facilities also occur within or near the 

program area. Medfly-host vegetation in the program area occurs on both 

private and public property. Major transportation routes passing through 

the program area include Interstate 8 and California Highways 54, 67, 94 

and 125. Although the current infestation is in a highly developed location, 

there are numerous potentially-sensitive sites located within 15 miles of the 

Medfly detections. (For more information see tables 1 and 2.)

b. Water Resources

The La Mesa region obtains electric power, irrigation and drinking water 

from various local and imported sources including the Colorado River, 

the State Water Project, and local streams and reservoirs (WEF, 2014). 

Water located beneath the program area or that drains off it may enter the 

San Diego watershed designated as HUC8 18070304 (see appendix B for 

data source). APHIS Medfly program treatments are designed to prevent 

contamination and degradation of water quality in program area 

watersheds.

Severe drought conditions since 2012 led to unusual surface and ground 

water loss in California. Both short-term (i.e., less than 6 months’ 

duration) and long-term adverse impacts are predicted for California’s 

agriculture, ecology, and hydrology (Heim, 2015). (See figure 2 for a 

map of drought intensity.) 

The State-implemented water conservation programs and continues to 

seek additional ways to reduce water use. The Governor declared a 

drought State of Emergency in January 2014. On April 1, 2015, the State 

Water Resource Control Board (SWB) was ordered to implement 

mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce 

potable urban water usage by 25 percent statewide. Cities with higher per 

capita use are facing mandatory water use reductions up to 36 percent 

based on their usage in 2013. The SWB required these areas to achieve 

proportionally greater reductions than those with lower use, to help reduce 

statewide water consumption by 25 percent (LA County, 2015).

9
Table 1. Distance from Center of Detections to Certain Land Sites.*

Designated Land Use Distance Rounded Off to Nearest Tenth of a Mile

Nearest Airports

• El Centro Naval Air Facility, 7.3

• Montgomery Field, 9.0

• Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, 6.42

• San Diego International, 11.4

• North Island Naval Air Station, 11.6

Mexico • U.S.- Mexico border, 18.0

• City of Tijuana, 21.0

City, State and 

Federal Lands

• 4 city parks within proposed treatment area

• Coronado Naval Amphibious Base, 11.1

• Cleveland National Forest, 11.9

• San Diego Naval Submarine Base, 12.3

• Barona Rancheria, 12.9

• San Diego Naval Training Center, 14.5

Nearest Historic Sites • 1 within the proposed treatment area

5 registered sites, <6.0

Nearest International 

Seaport • San Diego Harbor, 9.4

Nearest Native 

American 

Reservation

• Jamul Indian Village, 9.0

• Sycuan Indian Reservation, 9.4

• Capitan Grande Indian Reservation, 14.9

Organic Production

and 

Farmers Markets

• 1 organic farm within proposed treatment area

• 2 organic farms, <6.0

• 1 farmers market within proposed treatment area

Schools and 

Academic 

Institutions 

• 13 schools within proposed treatment area

• 143 schools and institutions, <6.0

 * See appendix B for data sources.

 In 1985, California enacted legislation to protect the potability of its 

ground water; potential contaminants are identified and pesticide use 

restrictions are implemented for vulnerable areas (State of California, 

2013). Ongoing surveys of California’s waters continue to show 

substantial pollutant and toxicity levels; the percentage increases, 

however, may reflect more thorough site assessment rather than increasing 

pesticide discharge and runoff (EPA, 2012). 

The Medfly eradication program calls for highly localized chemical 

applications in designated properties and no-spray buffers around all 

sensitive areas, including all water bodies. This method of application is 

designed to minimize the potential for introduction of program chemicals 

to local water resources.

10
Table 2. Distance from Center of Detections to Certain Water Resources.*

Type of 

Resource Distance Rounded Off to Nearest Tenth of a Mile

Wetlands • About 6 acres within proposed treatment area 

Nearest Access 

to Pacific 

Ocean

• San Diego Bay, 9.1

Water Bodies 

within 6 miles

• 4 within proposed treatment area

o Mount Helix Reservoir, 0.8

o Grossmount Reservoir, 1.3

o Lake Murray, 2.7

o Forester Creek, 3.0

• 4 reservoirs, <6.0

• 2 lakes, <6.0

• 1 river, <6.0

• 1 pond, <6.0

Impaired 

Waters within 

15 miles

• 2 segments, <6.0

• 11 segments, <15.0

 * See appendix B for data sources.

 

Figure 2. Drought status in California as of July 28, 2015. (Heim, 2015) 

 

The three major factors influencing the human health risk associated with 

pesticide use include the fate of the pesticides in the environment, their 

toxicity to humans, and their exposure to humans. The principal concerns 

for human health are related to the potential program uses of chemical 

pesticides, including spinosad protein bait and MB (as a fumigant). 

Spinosad is toxic to specific invertebrate species but is considered to be 

nontoxic to humans and other animals. Limited data exist regarding the 

2. Human 

Health

11
toxicity of the protein hydrolysate; the available data suggests low acute 

toxicity to human health.

Exposure to program pesticides can vary, depending upon the pesticide 

and the use pattern. The Medfly eradication program will employ groundbased targeted applications of spinosad with protein bait. Commercial 

applications, should they become necessary, will be applied to properties 

owned by commercial growers and producers where exposure to the 

general public is unlikely. 

If the spinosad protein bait application is restricted to target surfaces and 

made in accordance with EPA label instructions, effects to human health 

and the environment are expected to be incrementally negligible. The use 

of protein hydrolysate as an attractant in the Medfly program is also 

expected to present a low risk to human health. The attractant has low 

toxicity and its ground-based, targeted method of application results in a 

low probability of exposure and risk to workers and the general public. 

Should treatment by MB fumigation be indicated, adherence to EPA label 

restrictions and application in enclosed areas or containers will protect 

applicators and the general public from risk of exposure to the fumigant 

(APHIS, 2007 and 2002).

The analyses and data of EIS1 and EIS2 and the associated human health 

risk assessments indicate exposures to pesticides from normal program 

operations are not likely to result in substantial adverse human health 

effects. (Refer to EIS1 and EIS2 (APHIS, 2001 and 2008) and the human 

health risk assessments (APHIS, 2014a, 1999 and 1998a) for more 

detailed information relative to human health risk.).

Another mitigation measure designed to minimize exposure of humans 

to program pesticides is the requirement for public notification. 

Information concerning the Medfly eradication project will be shared via 

press releases and media announcements to the general public. Either 

the county agricultural commissioner or public information officer will 

serve as the primary contact to the media. Any resident with property to 

be treated will be contacted directly or notified in writing at least 

48 hours prior to treatment. Following the treatment, notices will be left 

with homeowners detailing precautions to take and safe intervals of time 

that should elapse before harvesting fruit on the property. Treatments 

are repeated at 7 to14 day intervals for one life cycle of the fly (typically 

2 to 3 months, sometimes longer dependent on temperature) (CDFA, 

2014d). 

APHIS recognizes a small portion of the population may have greater than 

usual sensitivity to certain chemicals, and program treatments may pose 

higher risk for these individuals. Special communication strategies to 

12
mitigate this risk are discussed in detail in appendix C of EIS1 (APHIS, 

2001).

Trap placement and chemical applications may be rescheduled if strong 

winds or rainfall is forecast for the program area. Site inspections will 

continue to ensure existing program treatments are not likely to affect 

humans. The destruction or relocation of traps and treatments due to weather 

events is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to the human environment, 

because the potential pesticide toxicity is reduced by dilution during the 

storm’s water and air movement.

Of the three alternatives considered, a well-coordinated eradication program 

using IPM technologies results in the least use of chemical pesticides and 

minimizes their potential to adversely affect human health. The no action 

alternative is not expected to eliminate Medfly as readily or as effectively as 

the preferred alternative. Over a protracted period of no action, there would 

likely be broader and more widespread use of pesticides by homeowners and 

commercial growers, with correspondingly greater potential for adverse

impacts to human health. 

APHIS summarizes its findings on potential environmental impacts of 

implementing the action alternatives on historic sites, minority and/or lowincome communities, and tribal interactions in the proposed quarantine 

program area in this section.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) § 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consider 

the impact on properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR §§ 63 and 800). APHIS 

determined its fruit fly eradication programs are undertakings with no 

potential to affect historic properties, and is requesting concurrence with 

this finding from the State Historic Preservation Office for Medfly in San 

Diego County. There are approximately 125 federally registered historic 

sites in San Diego County. Of those for which addresses are available, the 

federally listed historic places generally are buildings with associated 

plantings that may or may not include potential host plants.

The privately owned Rosecroft Estate is located within 15 miles of the 

current quarantine area. Its world-renowned collection of Begonia species 

(Family Begoniaceae: Order Cucurbitales) are extremely unlikely to 

become infested because cucurbits are considered to be poor hosts for 

Medfly (Thomas et al., 2010). Other federally listed historic places in San 

Diego County with notable horticultural aspects (including Anza Borrego, 

the Fages-De Anza Trail, Felicita County Park, and Table Mountrain 

District) are all more than 15 miles from the current quarantine zone. 

3. Other Aspects 

of the Human 

Environment

13
In general, APHIS’ fruit fly eradication programs are compatible with the 

preservation of historic sites because control activities are inconspicuously 

integrated into the site, do not disturb the ground, and do not affect 

human-made structures. APHIS restricts program treatments and 

activities to an as-needed basis, and also can modify normal program 

activities at historically significant locations to reduce pesticide release, if 

necessary. APHIS will not conduct aerial chemical applications; spraying 

will be ground-based, directly targeting foliage. This may include hand 

spraying with a backpack sprayer. In this program, APHIS intends to use 

aerial SIT, surveillance trapping or bait treatments and, when necessary, 

fruit stripping by hand. If APHIS discovers any archaeological resources, 

the appropriate individuals will be notified. 

Federal agencies identify and address disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its proposed activities, as 

described in Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations. Using 2010 Census Bureau estimates for La Mesa in San 

Diego County, less than 8 percent of the population self-identify as Black, 

fewer than 6 percent report being Asian, and less than 21 percent report 

being Hispanic. While 22 percent of the population self-identify as not 

speaking English at home, more than 91 percent graduated high school, 

and fewer than 13 percent are reported as living in poverty (USCB, 2015). 

Based on the relatively high educational level and low diversity of the 

population, APHIS does not find it is necessary to provide advance notice 

of program activities and potential exposure hazards in a variety of 

languages. Because the preferred method of bait/pesticide application is 

to use small ground-based sprayers that target foliage above the height 

humans can reach unassisted, minority and low-income segments of the 

population are not likely to be disproportionately adversely affected by the 

bait/pesticide treatments or their methods of application.

 

Federal agencies comply with Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The 

preferred alternative does not pose any disproportionate adverse effects to 

children because maintenance of traps and any pesticide applications 

would not occur when children are present in the immediate area. The 

intermittent presence of children at shelters, playgrounds, parks and picnic 

areas, religious centers, public/private campgrounds and trailer parks, 

athletic fields, bus depots, and outdoor community facilities means they 

are likely to frequent locations where fruit fly baits are in use; however, 

the placement of bait traps is likely to be far above their reach. Measuring 

from the center of the core treatment area, APHIS estimates there may be 

as many as 156 schools within the current quarantine zone, but only 

13 schools are located within the treatment area. Where possible, bait 

stations will not be placed on school property. A school’s surrounding 

landscape plants may have fruit removed by hand-picking. If any 

14
pesticide applications are deemed essential, then a bait or backpack 

sprayer would be used instead of aerial spraying. Any exposure of 

children to applied products is negligible based on the program’s 

application methods and the product formulations. 

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. Using the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act Online Databases (NPS, 2015; 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.), 

APHIS finds there are three Federal reservations (Jamul Indian Village, 

Sycuan Indian Reservation, and Capitan Grande Indian Reservation) 

within 15 miles of the treatment area. In addition, the program area 

contains ceded land from the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians 

of the Campo Indian Reservation. APHIS notified the tribal governments 

at the reservations of the program activities and will initiate consultation,

if necessary.

Individual tribal members living within the quarantine zone will not be 

disproportionately affected in comparison to other individuals in the area 

because eradication treatments are applied to host foliage above the 

unassisted reach of most humans, and foliar canopy spraying is highly 

targeted. The proposed action will not disturb the ground, so it is unlikely 

to affect Native American sites or artifacts. For these reasons, APHIS 

does not expect any tribal members to be directly affected by program 

activities. 

APHIS considered the potential environmental impacts of implementing 

the action alternatives on minority and/or low-income communities, tribal 

interactions, and historical and culturally sensitive sites in the program 

area. A lack of Federal action could result in adverse economic and health 

impacts on affected producers and consumers, such as decreased harvests, 

higher consumer prices, loss of local employment, reduced nutritional 

options, loss of market share, compromised mental and physical health, 

loss of property, and so on. These indirect impacts are expected to occur,

to a lesser extent, under the quarantine and commodity certification 

alternative. Adverse effects are not anticipated as a result of carrying out 

the preferred alternative’s surveillance activities, trapping, SIT, or 

program ground-based chemical applications.

 

The principal concerns for nontarget species, including threatened and 

endangered species, relate to potential harm from the use of program 

pesticides to eradicate Medfly populations. Paralleling human health risk, 

the risk to nontarget species is related to the pesticides’ fate in the 

environment, their toxicity, and exposure to nontarget species. APHIS’ 

Medfly programs are designed to prevent the introduction of program 

chemicals into nontarget areas. 

4. Nontarget 

Species

15
All of the pesticides considered in this EA are highly toxic to 

invertebrates, even though the likelihood of exposure (and any ensuing 

impacts) varies among the pesticides and with the specified use pattern. 

Of the three alternatives considered, a well-coordinated Medfly 

eradication program using IPM technologies would result in the least use 

of chemical pesticides, overall, with minimal adverse impacts to nontarget 

species. The no action alternative and quarantine and commodity 

certification alternative are less likely to be effective at eliminating 

Medfly, and would be expected to result in broader and more widespread 

use of pesticides by homeowners and commercial growers, with a 

correspondingly greater potential for adverse impacts. 

Trap placement and chemical applications may be rescheduled if strong 

winds and rain storms are forecast for the program area. Site inspections will 

continue and remedial actions will be undertaken, as necessary, to ensure 

existing program treatments are not likely to affect nontarget organisms. The 

destruction or relocation of traps and treatments due to weather events is 

unlikely to result in adverse impacts to animal species and their habitats, as 

the potential toxicity should be greatly reduced by dilution of the program 

materials in water and air.

The eradication program will apply a targeted, ground-based foliar bait 

treatment if evidence of a breeding Medfly population is detected. For 

this, host trees and plants within a 200-meter radius of the Medfly find site 

are treated with a highly localized spray that consists of an organic 

formulation of the pesticide spinosad combined with a protein hydrolysate 

food bait.

Protein hydrolysate is a common attractant used in fruit fly treatments, 

increasing the efficacy of chemical applications and reducing the area of 

pesticide treatments needed for control (Prokopy et al., 1992; Dowell, 

2015). Medfly are attracted to the protein hydrolysate where they then 

receive a lethal dose of the pesticide (spinosad) that is mixed with the 

attractant. The attractant is expected to have minimal impacts to 

environmental quality based on its use pattern and rapid degradation. The 

protein is not expected to result in impacts to nontarget species, and the 

method of application is designed to limit exposure and risk to honey 

bees.

The pesticide spinosad has low to moderate toxicity to wild mammals and 

birds. Spinosad toxicity to fish is moderate, while aquatic invertebrates 

are more sensitive in acute and chronic exposures. Risks to nontarget fish 

and wildlife are anticipated to be negligible based on the proposed use 

pattern that would result in a low potential for exposure to most taxa. A 

favorable environmental fate profile and low toxicity to most nontarget 

organisms further reduces the risk to terrestrial and aquatic animals 

(APHIS, 2014a).

16
Toxicity to terrestrial invertebrates is variable for spinosad. Although 

spinosad is considered highly toxic to honey bees (similar to other native 

bees), the toxicity of the pesticide is reduced significantly after drying. 

Lepidoptera, such as butterflies and moths, appear to be less sensitive to 

spinosad compared to bees (APHIS, 2014a). Risk to pollinators and other 

beneficial arthropods that may be sensitive to spinosad will be reduced by 

the method of application and use of an attractant that is specific to fruit 

flies. In addition spinosad label restrictions specific to pollinators will 

provide further protection for pollinators. An example of these restrictions 

for one of the spinosad formulations includes no applications to trees 

when they are flowering.

For the fumigant MB, the sealed methods for its application are designed 

to protect nontarget species by preventing their exposure to the pesticide 

(APHIS, 2007 and 2002). Potential cumulative impacts of MB released to 

the global environment are considered in section 6 of this chapter.

Sites near the program area that might require special consideration, 

should the program area expand, include irrigation canals, coastal 

wetlands, and salt lakes of potential ecological importance. Program 

chemical applications will not be permitted at these sites or within refuges 

or other protected areas. Fruit survey and surveillance trapping will 

continue, and fruit stripping by hand will be undertaken if Medfly 

detections occur at these types of locations. 

a. Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712) 

established a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to 

pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, 

offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, 

cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be 

transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive 

for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any 

manner, any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds, directs Federal agencies taking actions with a measurable 

negative effect on migratory bird populations to develop and implement a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) that promotes the conservation of migratory bird 

populations. On August 2, 2012, APHIS and FWS signed an MOU to 

facilitate the implementation of this Executive order.

This southern region of California, which is part of the Pacific Flyway, is 

an important migration corridor providing suitable habitat for many bird 

species. Approximately 29 species of concern reportedly occur within the 

17
vicinity of the treatment area. However, APHIS evaluated the proposed 

Medfly program in terms of potential impact on migratory avian species; 

given the extent of urbanization within the treatment area and the methods 

of application, implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected 

to have any adverse effect on migratory birds or their flight corridors. The 

proposed program would not involve removal or disturbance of any trees, 

shrubs, or other vegetation on the project site that could be used by birds. 

In addition, birds would not be exposed to program treatments because of 

the targeted nature of the applications.

b. Endangered Species Act

 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ESA’s implementing 

regulations require Federal agencies to consult with FWS and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered 

species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. `

APHIS reviewed the program area and proposed treatment activities for 

potential co-occurrence of federally listed species and critical habitat to 

determine if any proposed program treatments may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. No federally listed species or critical habitat occur within 

the treatment area. Additionally, no species proposed for listing or critical 

habitat proposed for designation occur within the treatment area. In a May 

19, 2015 report, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 

notes the historic occurrence of least Bell’s vireo within the quarantine 

area, but the most recent observation of the bird in this area was made in 

1922. It is therefore presumed extirpated from the area. (See appendix B 

for CNDDB data source). In the same report, the CNDDB indicates an 

occurrence of San Diego thornmint. However, the plant was last found in 

the area in 1945 and is presumed extirpated. The proposed treatment area 

occurs within a suburban housing development, unlikely to support natural 

occurrence of the endangered plant species endemic to the coastal sage 

scrub, chaparral, and native grasslands of San Diego County (FWS, 2009). 

Therefore, APHIS did not identify any potential co-occurrence of listed 

species or critical habitat within the program area. Because the current 

program activities are limited to developed residential areas, APHIS 

determined there is no potential for effects to listed species or critical 

habitat. Should the program area expand or further outbreaks be detected, 

APHIS, in cooperation with CDFA, will consult with FWS and other 

appropriate agencies, as necessary. A complete administrative record of 

this review is available upon request. (Refer to EIS1 and EIS2 (APHIS, 

2001 and 2008) and the supporting nontarget risk assessments (APHIS, 

2014a, 2003 and 1998b) for more information on risks to all classes of 

nontarget species.)

18
5. Environmental 

Quality

The principal environmental quality concerns are for the protection of air 

quality, water quality, and the minimization of the potential for 

environmental contamination. In relation to preserving environmental 

quality, program pesticides remain the major concern for the public and 

the program. Although program pesticide use is limited, especially in 

comparison to other agricultural pesticide use, the proposed action would 

result in a controlled release of chemicals into the environment. The fate

of those chemicals varies with respect to the environmental component 

(air, water, or other substrate) and its characteristics (temperature, pH, 

dilution, etc.). The environmental fates of spinosad and MB are outlined 

below. (Refer to EIS1 and EIS2 (APHIS, 2001 and 2008) and the risk 

assessments (APHIS, 2014a, 2003, 1999, 1998a and 1998b) for a more 

detailed consideration of program pesticides' environmental fates.) 

 

Attractant ingredients, such as pheromone lures and protein hydrolysate

food bait, have minimal affect on environmental quality, based on EPAapproved use patterns and the ingredients’ rapid degradation. Use of these 

attractants in Medfly program treatments is not expected to result in 

impacts to environmental quality beyond those described for the below 

chemicals (EPA, 2011; NAFTA, 2003; Prokopy et al., 1992).

• Spinosad adsorbs strongly to soil particles and is unlikely to leach to 

great depths. Dissipation half-lives for spinosad in the field may last 

0.3 to 0.5 day. It is photodegraded quickly on soil exposed to sunlight, 

but the degradation rate is decreased at longer exposure times. 

Spinosad is quickly metabolized by soil micro-organisms under 

aerobic conditions, and has a half-life of 9.4 to 17.3 days. Because 

natural water bodies and rain are generally not of basic pH, spinosad 

will not hydrolyze in them or on moist plant surfaces. Aqueous 

photolysis is rapid in natural sunlight (half-life of less than 1.0 to 

1.6 days), and is the primary route of degradation in aquatic systems 

exposed to sunlight. Under anaerobic conditions, the degradation rate 

is slower, between 161 and 250 days. Spinosad has a half-life of 2.0 to 

5.3 days on foliar surfaces. After initial photodegradation, residues are 

available for metabolism by plant biochemical processes. Effects from 

residues of individual treatments are no longer detectable in 

environmental substrates within a few weeks of application (Kollman, 

2003).

• Methyl bromide (MB) fumigation will not be used as an eradication 

treatment, but may be employed as a regulatory treatment. MB 

volatilizes into air from soil and water, and is known to contribute to 

stratospheric ozone depletion. The volatilization half-life for MB from 

surface water ranges from 3.1 hours to 5 days. The degradation halflife of MB in water ranges from 20 to 38 days, depending on 

19
6. Cumulative 

Impacts

temperature and pH. Volatilization of MB from surface soil is rapid, 

with a half-life ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 day. The degradation half-life 

of MB in soil ranges from 31 to 55 days. MB has a low affinity to 

bind to soils, however, is not considered a major contaminant of 

ground water (NPIC, 2000). The small quantities used to treat for 

Medfly disperse when fumigation chambers are vented. (See section 6 

of this chapter regarding MB’s potential cumulative impacts to the 

environment.)

Urban and agricultural runoff may flow directly into local waters, picking 

up trash, dirt, chemicals, and other contaminants along the way. If 

treatment is indicated in close proximity to a body of water where 

pesticides might be directly discharged into the water, CDFA will analyze 

the environmental setting, and establish and follow site-specific best 

management practices. The prescribed method of spray application 

directly to host plants is designed to minimize drift and runoff. Mitigation 

measures will be applied to protect marine and freshwater resources. 

Personnel will maintain a minimum distance of 98 feet (30 meters) from 

surface water. Personnel applying pesticides will adhere to label 

directions, State and Federal laws, and recommendations of the 

environmental compliance staff associated with the program. Water body 

contact is not anticipated due to the targeted application measures and the 

environmental fate of the pesticides used in Ceratitis spp. cooperative 

eradication programs. 

The alternatives were compared with respect to their potential to affect 

environmental quality. Risk to environmental quality is considered 

minimal. Again, a well-coordinated eradication program using IPM 

technologies would result in the least use of chemical pesticides overall, 

with minimal adverse impacts on environmental quality. The no action 

alternative and the quarantine and commodity certification alternative 

would likely result in broader and more widespread use of pesticides by 

homeowners and commercial growers, with correspondingly greater 

potential for adverse impacts.

The proposed program area was examined to identify characteristics 

that would tend to influence the effects of program operations. 

Potentially sensitive areas were identified, considered, and 

accommodated, as necessary, through special selection of control 

methods and use of specific mitigation measures. Allowances were

made for the special site-specific characteristics that would require a

departure from the standard operating procedures. The approaches used 

to mitigate for adverse impacts to bodies of water are described in EIS1

(APHIS, 2001).

This section considers the potential of the alternatives to cause cumulative 

impacts on the human environment. Not taking Federal action is expected 

20
to result in the cumulative impacts that arise from tolerating uncontrolled 

Medfly infestations in the United States. Federal quarantine restrictions 

and commodity certification requirements would place the burden of 

control efforts and expense on producers already engaged in complying 

with other quarantine and commodity certification requirements. Either of

these alternatives may increase the time it takes for commodities to reach 

their intended markets, or may prevent them from reaching consumers at 

all, which may contribute to consumer shortages and negative public 

perception of the affected industry. 

APHIS considered implementation of the preferred alternative in the 

context of, and in conjunction with, other pest insect eradication and 

quarantine projects in the La Mesa program area (such as light brown 

apple moth and glassy-winged sharpshooter eradication efforts). These 

programs use pesticides with different chemistries. They target different 

pests, and are applied at different times. The combination of these 

different pesticide chemistries, targets for application, and application 

timings suggest limited interacting or multiple exposures that are not 

likely to create significant cumulative impacts in the human environment. 

Current and future in-State Medfly programs could potentially merge into 

one larger program area. When Medfly eradication programs are 

combined with trapping and eradication actions across California counties, 

APHIS expects a beneficial cumulative impact on the environment from 

reduced Medfly populations causing damage to fruit combined with 

overall fewer chemical treatments. Trapping and surveys for Medfly 

continue under the California fruit fly detection and monitoring program, 

and sterile Medflies continue to be released over high-risk regions as a 

preventive measure (CDFA, 2015e). 

At present, no Medfly treatment areas overlap one another, and none 

overlaps the proposed La Mesa treatment area. Use of program pesticides 

in a Medfly program that overlap with another Ceratitis spp. program are 

monitored and adjusted, where necessary, to minimize environmental 

impacts. Due to the passage of time and the prevailing weather conditions 

in southern California during 2015, no chemical residues are believed to 

remain from previous Medfly programs that could result in additive or 

synergistic chemical effects with previous program chemical applications.

No significant environmental impacts are expected to result from proper 

implementation of this Medfly eradication and control program. The 

differences in pesticide chemistries, targets for application, affected 

species and resources, and application timing between the Medfly program 

and other pest control programs in California are not likely to create 

significant cumulative impacts in the human environment. No synergistic 

or cumulative impacts from pesticide applications are expected with the 

following active control programs (CDFA, 2015f)—

21
• Asian citrus psyllid in 16 counties, including San Diego County

• glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce’s Disease—Statewide.

Care should be taken, however, when multiple pest species in the same 

area are targeted for treatment using the same chemical. Spinosad, for 

example, has other labeled food and non-food uses and is currently used in 

a variety of pest control efforts, including the control of termites and 

European grapevine moth (APHIS, 2014a). Implementation of a Medfly 

eradication program could lead to an increase in spinosad use, and the 

possible overlap of APHIS and non-APHIS program treatments. The 

Medfly treatment schedule will be adjusted in locations where another 

CDFA or APHIS program may have scheduled similar treatments to avoid 

additive chemical impacts.

Additional programs in place at the time of preparation of this EA which 

may employ spinosad treatments (CDFA, 2015f) and could combine with 

Medfly spinosad treatments to have an additive impact have been designed 

to target the following pests—

• Mexican fruit fly in Los Angeles County;

 

• Oriental fruit fly in Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties;

 

• European grapevine moth in 31 California counties, including San 

Diego County; and

 

• light brown apple moth in portions of many California counties, 

including San Diego County.

It is uncertain how pesticides may be used by private entities in the Medfly 

program area. In terms of Federal and California State program activity, 

there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated as a consequence of 

implementing the preferred alternative or its component treatment 

measures. The preferred alternative is designed for pesticide applications 

to avoid overlapping treatment areas, and to prevent nontarget exposure 

until pesticide residues are degraded. 

APHIS determined uses of MB for fruit fly quarantine treatments pose 

negligible potential for cumulative impacts to the environment. For 

information on potential depletion of the ozone layer related to MB 

released into the atmosphere, see the Rule for the Importation of 

Unmanufactured Wood Articles from Mexico, with Consideration for 

Cumulative Impact of Methyl Bromide Use, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (APHIS, 2002) and subsequent analyses, such as the Importation 

22
of Solid Wood Packing Material, Supplement to the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (APHIS, 2007).

There were no residual impacts from previous Federal and non-Federal 

actions targeting fruit fly infestations in the State of California, and there 

are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that could result in incremental 

increases in environmental effects. Based on APHIS’ review of the context 

and intensity of the existing, ongoing, and potential future treatments, there 

will be no cumulative impacts to the human environment resulting from 

this Medfly cooperative eradication program.

As discussed previously, additional actions may be implemented in this 

program, including additional quarantines and regulatory treatments. The 

anticipated use of these treatments is considered to pose minimal risk to 

the human environment, as determined in EIS1 and EIS2 (APHIS, 2001 

and 2008), and the nontarget species and human health risk assessments 

(APHIS, 2014a, 2003, 1999, 1998a, and 1998b).

23
IV. Agencies Consulted

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services

Environmental Policy and Compliance

1220 N Street, Suite 221

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services

Pest Detection/Emergency Projects

1220 N Street, Room 315

Sacramento, CA 95814

State Historic Preservation Officer 

California State Office of Historic Preservation 

1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400 

Raleigh, NC 27606

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Policy and Program Development 

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services 

4700 River Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737

24
V. References Cited

APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015a. Plant Health and 

Pest Prevention Services. Pest and damage record. PDR Number 

SDAP06286316. Date of collection: July 22, 2015.

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015b. Plant Health and 

Pest Prevention Services. Pest and damage record. PDR Number 

SDAP06285543. Date of collection: July 31, 2015.

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015c. Plant Health and 

Pest Prevention Services. Pest and damage record. PDR Number 

SDAP06434978. Date of collection: August 4, 2015.

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015d. Official Notice 

for the City of La Mesa/Community of Spring Valley. Amendment to 

the Notice of Treatment for the Mediterranean Fruit Fly. Signed by 

Karen Ross on August 10, 2015.

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015fe Mediterranean 

Fruit Fly Preventive Release Program. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PDEP/prpinfo/index.html

[2015, Aug. 3].

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015f. Pest exclusion: 

Interior program. Quarantines in California. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/InteriorExclusion/quaranti

ne.html [2015, Aug. 3].

CDFA—See California Department of Food and Agriculture

Dowell, R.V., 2015. Attraction of non-target insects to three male fruit fly 

lures in California. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 91 (1): 1-19. 

EIS1—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 2001 

EIS2—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 2008 

EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

25
Extension Toxicology Network, 1996. Extension Toxicology Network of 

Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, 

the University of California at Davis, and the Institute for 

Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Pesticide 

information profiles: Naled. (1996, June–last update). [Online]. 

Available: http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/naled.htm [2015, Jul. 10].

Extoxnet—See Extension Toxicology Network

Heim, R., 2015. U.S. Drought Monitor. July 28, 2015 (Released 

Thursday, Jul. 30, 2015). Valid 8 a.m. EDT. [Online]. 

Available: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ [2015, Aug. 2].

Kauffman, E., 2003. Climate and Topography. California Department of 

Fish and Game’s Atlas of the Biodiversity of California, pp. 12-15. 

Kollman, W.S., 2003. Environmental fate of spinosad. California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation, Environmental Monitoring 

Branch. 

LA County—See Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County, 2015. Department of Public Works. Los Angeles 

County Waterworks Districts. Drought emergency frequently asked 

questions (FAQs). 

NAFTA—See North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working 

Group on Pesticides

NAPIS—See National Agricultural Pest Information System

National Agricultural Pest Information System, 2015. Pest tracker: 

Exotic pest reporting. Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), Ceratitis 

capitata. [Online]. 

Available: http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/pest.php?code=IOBMADA 

[2015, Aug. 2].

National Pesticide Information Center, 2000. Methyl bromide. Technical 

fact sheet. 

North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group on 

Pesticides, 2003. Pheromones: risk assessment and decision making. 

Slide presentation by S.K. Reilly. Last modified 2/3/2003. 

NPIC—See National Pesticide Information Center

NPS—See U.S. National Park Service

26
Prokopy, R.J., Papaj, D.R., Hendrichs, J., and Wong, T.T.Y., 1992. 

Behavioral responses of Ceratitis capitata flies to bait spray droplets 

and natural food. Entomologia Experimentalis_et_Applicata 64: 247-

257, 1992.

Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce, 2015. Live and work in Spring 

Valley. [Online.] 

Available: http://www.springvalleychamber.org/index.php?option=co

m_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=26 [2015, Aug.14].

State of California, 2013. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Ground 

water protection program: Regulations. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/grndwtr/gwp_regs.htm 

[2015, Jul. 31]. 

SVCC—See Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce

Thomas, M.C., Heppner, J.B., Woodruff, R.E., Weems, H.V., Steck, G.J. 

and T.R. Fasulo. 2010. Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, 

Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and 

Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating, EENY-214 (IN371) 

(originally published in 2001 as DPI Entomology Circulars 4, 230 and 

273). [Online]. Available: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in371 [2015, Aug. 

7].

UFL—See University of Florida

University of Florida, 2010. Mediterranean fruit fly—Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Publication EENY–214. 

[Online].

Available: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/fruit/mediterranean_fru

it_fly.htm [2015, Jul. 31]. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. Quickfacts Beta. Statistics for Spring Valley 

CDP, San Diego County and the City of La Mesa. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06073

,0640004 [2015, Aug. 5].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2015. 96 hour report: La Mesa (San Diego County). 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata). August 4, 2015 at 4:57

PM.

27
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2014a. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for 

STATICTM Spinosad ME Bait Applications. March 2014. Riverdale, 

MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2014b. For Information and Action. DA-2014-48. October 

28, 2014. Subject: Removal of Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Ceratitis 

capitata) Quarantine Area in the Los Angeles area of Los Angeles 

County, California. SPRO directive issued by USDA APHIS, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine: Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2008. Use of genetically engineered fruit fly and pink 

bollworm in APHIS plant pest control programs. Final environmental 

impact statement—October 2008. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2007. Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material. 

Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement—October 

2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2003. Spinosad Bait Spray Applications. Nontarget Risk 

Assessment. October 2003. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2002. Rule for the Importation of Unmanufactured Wood 

Articles From Mexico, With Consideration for Cumulative Impact of 

Methyl Bromide Use. Final Environmental Impact Statement—

September 2002. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2001. Fruit fly cooperative control program, final 

environmental impact statement—2001. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 1999. Spinosad bait spray applications. Human health risk 

assessment, March 1999. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 1998a. Human health risk assessment for fruit fly cooperative 

control programs. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 1998b. Nontarget species risk assessment for fruit fly 

cooperative control programs. Riverdale, MD.

28
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, n.d. Hungry pests: the threat. Mediterranean Fruit Fly. 

[Online]. Available: http://www.hungrypests.com/thethreat/mediterranean-fruit-fly.php [2015, Jul. 31].

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2009. 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego thornmint) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Carlsbad, CA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. California impaired waters. 

Summary of California’s 303(d) listing pollutant trends. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/impairedwaters/trends.html [2015, Jul. 8].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. 4-(or 5-)Chloro-2-

methylcyclohexane-carboxylic acid, 1, 1-dimethyl ester (112603) fact 

sheet. Issued: 6/01. Last modified: 3/11. 

U.S. National Park Service. 2015. National NAGPRA Online Databases. 

[Online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/onlinedb/index.htm 

[2015, Aug. 1].

USCB—See U.S. Census Bureau. 

USDA—See U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS—See U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Water Education Foundation, 20014. Where does my water come from? 

San Diego: La Mesa. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.watereducation.org/san-diego-1 [2015, Aug. 

2].

WEF—See Water Education Foundation

29
Appendix A. Medfly Quarantine in San Diego County, 

California, as of August 12, 2015.

Source: USDA APHIS PPD
Appendix B. Outside-APHIS Spatial Data Resources Used 

to Prepare this Document

The following resources were used by USDA-APHIS-PPD on 31 July 2015.

 

Web-Based Mapping Application for Environmental Assessments

• NepaAssist: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx

For Information on—

• Bing Maps Road: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgisonline/bing-maps.html

• Boundaries: http://epamap9.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NEPAssist/Boundaries/MapServ

er

• Historic Sites: http://www.nps.gov/nr/

• Native American Areas: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/

• Nonattainment 

Areas: http://geoplatform2.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/PM_Designations_Mapping/Nonatt

ainment_Areas/MapServer

• Organic Farms: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

• Places: http://epamap9.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NEPAssist/Places/MapServer

• Threatened and Endangered Species: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/

• Transportation: http://epamap9.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NEPAssist/Transportation/M

apServer

• Water: http://epamap9.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NEPAssist/Water/MapServer