Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

United States
Department of
Agriculture Fruit Fly Cooperative
Control Program
Marketing and
Regulatory
Programs
Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement
2001
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Fruit Fly Cooperative
Marketing and
Regulatory
Control Program
Programs
Animal and
Plant Health
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Inspection
Service
2001
In cooperation with:
United States
Department of Agency Contact:
Agriculture, Harold T. Smith
Agricultural
Research Service Senior Project Leader, Environmental Services
Policy and Program Development
United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Environmental U.S. Department of Agriculture
Protection
Agency 4700 River Road, Unit 149
Riverdale, MD 20737
California
Department of
Food and
Agriculture
Florida
Department of
Agriculture and
Consumer The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all
Services its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
Texas marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Department of Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
Agriculture USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Washington To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

State Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,
Department SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD).
of Agriculture USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the
standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely
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 or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied
properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended
practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
I. Introduction
A. The Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Fruit Fly Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Scope and Focus of the Environmental Impact Statement . . 2
D. Programmatic Analysis and Site-Specific Review . . . . . . . . . 8
II. Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
III. Alternatives
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Alternatives Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Alternatives In Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Nonchemical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Integrated Program (Preferred Alternative) . . . . . . . . . . 19
D. Control Components Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
E. Control Components In Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Nonchemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. Chemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IV. Affected Environment

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1. Environmental Characteristics of the Potential
Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. Ecoregions of the Potential Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B. Environmental Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. The Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. The Human Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3. Nontarget Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
V. Environmental Consequences
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1. General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2. Risk Assessment Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B. The Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
1. Nonchemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2. Chemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C. The Human Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1. Nonchemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2. Chemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3. Principal Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Table of Contents i.
D. Nontarget Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
1. Nonchemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
2. Chemical Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
E. Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
F. Unavoidable Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
VI. Risk Reduction Strategies

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
B. Standard Program Protective Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
C. Options for Further Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
1. Exclusion Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
2. Detection and Prevention Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
3. Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
4. Communication Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
VII. Monitoring
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
B. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
C. Efficacy Monitoring (Quality Control Monitoring) . . . . . . . . . 251
VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
B. APHIS Environmental Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
C. National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
D. Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
E. Executive Order 12898—Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . 254
F. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks . . . . . . . . . 255
G. Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
H. Miscellaneous Federal Environmental Statutes . . . . . . . . . 255
I. State Environmental Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Appendices
A. Public Comment on the Draft EIS

B. Site-specific Procedures
C. Emergency Response Communication Plan – Fruit Flies
D. Endangered and Threatened Species
E. Preparers
F. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation
G. Distribution List
ii. Table of Contents

H. References
I. Acronyms and Glossary
J. Index
Tables
1–1 Federal and State Organizations Cooperating in Development

of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program EIS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1–2 Fruit Flies Subject to Control Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3–1 Alternatives and Component Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3–2 Alternatives Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3–3 Control Methods Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3–4 Organisms Reviewed for Use as Potential Biocontrol

Agents of the Medfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4–1 Land Resources and Characteristics

California Central Valley and Coastal Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Southwestern Basin and Range Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Lower Rio Grande Valley Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Southern and Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Mississippi Delta Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Floridian Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Marine Pacific Forest Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4–8 Demographics of Potential Medfly Program Areas

by Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4–9 Representative Cultural Resources of Potential

Fruit Fly Program Areas by Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table of Contents iii.

4–10 Representative Visual Resources of Potential
Program Areas by Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4–11 Biological Resources

California Central Valley and Coastal Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Southwestern Basin and Range Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Lower Rio Grande Valley Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Mississippi Delta Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Floridian Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Marine Pacific Forest Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5–1 Toxicity Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5–2 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

Individuals from Aerial Application of Malathion Bait . . . . . . . 163

Individuals from Ground Application of Malathion Bait . . . . . . 171

Individuals from Aerial Application of Spinosad Bait . . . . . . . 179

Individuals from Ground Application of Spinosad Bait . . . . . . 185
5–6 Estimates of Percentage Mortality From Exposure

to Aerial Application of SureDye Bait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Individuals From Ground Application of SureDye Bait . . . . . . 199

Individuals From Chlorpyrifos Soil Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
iv. Table of Contents

Iindividuals From Diazinon Soil Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Individuals From Fenthion Soil Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
6–1 Potential Risk Reduction Activities At A Glance . . . . . . . . . . . 236
6–2 Standard Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6–3 Recommended Program Mitigative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
D–1 Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–1
Figures
1–1 The Mexican fruit fly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1–2 The larva of the Medfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1–3 The Jackson trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2–1 Citrus exhibiting fruit fly damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3–1 Detector dogs are trained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3–2 Release of sterile Medflies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3–3 The Steiner trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3–4 Helicopters used to apply bait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3–5 Some aerial applications are made at night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3–6 Ground applications of malathion bait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3–7 Sticky panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4–1 Principal Ecoregions of Fruit Fly Cooperative

Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6–1 X-ray machines are used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7–1 Monitoring samples are tagged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7–2 Quantitative analysis in the laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Table of Contents v.
(This page is intentionally left blank.)
vi. Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Many fruit fly species are serious pests of agriculture throughout the
world and represent a threat to the agriculture and ecology of the
United States. In particular, six genera of fruit flies–Anastrepha,
Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Dacus, Rhagoletis, and Toxotrypana–represent a
major threat to United States resources. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), in cooperation with other Federal and State organizations, is
proposing a national program (a broad strategy) to respond to the threat
of these invasive alien pest species. APHIS has prepared this
environmental impact statement (EIS) of the Fruit Fly Cooperative
Control Program in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality’s
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
APHIS and its cooperators analyzed a range of alternatives (no action, a

nonchemical program, and an integrated program) and their component
methods in this EIS. The alternatives are broad in scope and reflect the
major choices that must be made for the program. The alternatives’
associated components (exclusion, detection and prevention, and control)
are the specific techniques used in insect control or eradication. They are
limited in scope and may vary in their applicability to different fruit fly
species. This EIS focuses principally on the potential environmental
effects of the control measures, but maintains a secondary focus on the
identification of strategies for the reduction of risk in fruit fly programs.
Each alternative (including no action) has the potential for adverse

environmental consequences. Those consequences are related principally
to the use or the nonuse of control methods. The no action alternative’s
substantial indirect adverse impacts would be the result of an infested
agricultural environment, and increasing and uncoordinated use of
pesticides by the States and the private sector. The nonchemical program
alternative also could have substantial indirect adverse impacts if it were
implemented for all species of fruit flies, but it could be applied
efficiently for some species. The integrated program alternative would
offer the greatest flexibility for responding to fruit fly pests and would
have the least indirect (and long-range) adverse impacts, but it could have
greater direct adverse impacts.
The preferred alternative, an integrated program, offers the greatest

flexibility in responding to fruit fly pest outbreaks. With an integrated
Executive Summary vii.

program, nonchemical and chemical controls would be available to
program managers, based upon the exigencies of the outbreak.
Nonchemical methods, including sterile insect technique (SIT), can be
used in coordination with chemical methods in emergency eradication
programs, or may be used as the principal method in some suppression
programs. The preferred alternative, thus, accommodates eradication or
suppression programs, and allows the use of nonchemical controls,
chemical controls, or both.
The geographical scope of the program was based on factors such as

climate, host availability, avenues of introduction, and past introductions.
One or more of the fruit fly species named in this EIS has the potential to
be introduced into or infest areas in each of the United States. The scope
of this EIS, therefore, is the entire United States. However, past
experience and knowledge suggests that certain coastal States (especially
California, Florida, Texas, and Washington) are at greater risk. This EIS
examined seven ecoregions that included those States. Those ecoregions,
adapted from several classification systems in use, included: California
Central Valley and Coastal, Southwestern Basin and Range, Lower Rio
Grande Valley, Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain, Mississippi Delta,
Floridian, and Marine Pacific Forest. The physical environment,
biological resources, human population, cultural, and visual resources
were all discussed in relation to those ecoregions.
This EIS examined comprehensively the environmental consequences

associated with the programs’ use of control methods (especially
chemical control methods). Contemporary risk assessment methodology
and computer modeling were used for qualitative and quantitative
determination of environmental risk. Human health and nontarget
species risk assessments were completed separately and are incorporated
by reference in this EIS. Although this EIS focuses on the chemical
control methods, it analyzes effects of both chemical and nonchemical
control methods on the physical environment, human health and safety,
socioeconomics, cultural and visual resources, and biological resources.
The effects of the control methods are analyzed individually; cumulative
impacts of program and nonprogram controls are also analyzed.
Standard operational procedures and program mitigative measures serve

to negate or reduce environmental impacts of fruit fly control programs.
Standard operational procedures are routine procedures required of the
programs and their employees to safeguard human health and the natural
environment; they are generic in nature and may be substantially the
same as those developed for other APHIS cooperative pest control
programs.
viii. Executive Summary

Program mitigative measures are measures developed for the purpose of
avoiding, reducing, or rectifying environmental impact; they were
developed specifically for fruit fly control programs. In addition, this EIS
identifies optional risk reduction strategies that may substantially reduce
risk to humans and the natural environment, but that may not be
universally applicable for all fruit fly species.
APHIS and its cooperators will monitor programs to determine the

environmental consequences and the efficacy of their program operations.
Site-specific monitoring plans will be developed and followed for
individual programs. Those plans may vary, depending on the site-
specific characteristics of the program area and on issues that may arise
for individual programs. Procedures for efficacy monitoring and
procedures for handling accidental spills are outlined in guidelines,
policies, and manuals of APHIS and its cooperators.
In the planning and implementation of program actions, APHIS and its

cooperators comply with a variety of environmental laws and policies.
This EIS has been prepared specifically to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Endangered Species
Act of 1973 also provides for biological assessment of potentially
affected endangered and threatened species in a process that is separate
from, yet parallel in many respects to, that of this EIS. APHIS will rely
on its cooperators to identify applicable State environmental regulations,
take the lead for their procedures, and facilitate full compliance with
State laws.
In conclusion, APHIS determined that each alternative has potential for

adverse environmental consequences. The preferred alternative (the
integrated program) would use exclusion, detection and prevention, and
control methods to achieve program objectives. It would rely on
nonchemical and/or chemical control methods, based upon the site-
specific characteristics of the program areas. The integrated program
appears to offer the best combination of short-term risk and long-term
benefit to agricultural resources and the environment, when compared to
no action or a nonchemical program. In general, standard operational
procedures and recommended mitigative measures will negate or reduce
environmental risks; optional risk reduction methods may further reduce
risk for specific conditions.
Executive Summary ix.

x. Executive Summary
I. Introduction
A. The Proposed Action
There are many fruit fly species which are serious pests of agriculture
throughout the world. Six genera of fruit flies in particular–Anastrepha,
Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Dacus, Rhagoletis, and Toxotrypana–represent a
major threat to the agricultural resources of the United States. Because of
their wide host ranges, their abilities to become established or more
widespread, their potential economic impacts, and their potential
ecological impacts (direct and indirect), those species have been the
subject of strict quarantines and comprehensive control programs.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) has cooperated with several State
departments of agriculture in eradication programs for exotic fruit fly
species. In many instances, those programs have taken the form of
emergency actions that were expensive, complex, and sometimes
controversial. Fruit fly programs may have a number of characteristics in
common, including: their recurrent nature, their broad scope, their shared
(although not universally shared) control strategies, and their potential
environmental impacts.
APHIS now proposes to conduct a cooperative national program to

combat invasive and destructive fruit fly pests. APHIS, in cooperation
with other government agencies (refer to table 1–1), has prepared this
programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze, in a
combined and holistic fashion, that proposed program. Alternatives and
components of this proposed program are analyzed within this EIS,
which focuses principally on the potential environmental impacts of
control methods. In addition, the EIS maintains a secondary focus on the
identification of strategies for the reduction of risk within cooperative
fruit fly control programs.
Table 1–1. Federal and State Organizations Cooperating in Development
of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program EIS
Federal
USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Lead Agency)
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State
California Department of Food and Agriculture
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Texas Department of Agriculture
Washington State Department of Agriculture
I. Introduction 1
B. Fruit Fly Species of Concern
There are at least 80 species of fruit fly pests belonging to the dipteran
genera Anastrepha, Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Dacus, Rhagoletis, and
Toxotrypana that are of concern to agricultural officials. Table 1–2 lists
those species, their representative ranges, and their principle hosts. The
list contains tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate species of fruit flies.
All 50 States are subject to repeated introductions of one or more of these
species, and the Southern States are threatened by multiple species.
Figure 1–1. The Mexican fruit fly is one of many damaging

fruit fly pests of agriculture. (Photo credit USDA,
APHIS)
C. Scope and Focus of the Environmental Impact

Statement
The geographical scope of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

and of this EIS is based on factors relating to climate, host availability,
potential avenues of introduction, and past introductions. APHIS
officials have determined that one or more fruit fly species has the
potential to be introduced into or infest areas in each of the 50 States.
The geographical scope of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program,
therefore, is the entire United States.
2 I. Introduction
Table I–2. Fruit Flies Subject to Control Action
Scientific Name Common Name Representative Ranges Principle Host(s)
Anastrepha spp.
Anastrepha Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Peru, Common guava, hog
antunesi Venezuela plum
Anastrepha Brazil Common guava
bistrigata
Anastrepha distincta Inga fruit fly Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Mango, star-apple
Panama, Brazil, Guyana, Columbia,
Peru, Venezuela
Anastrepha South American fruit Central America, South America Citrus, common guava,
fraterculus fly apple, mango, pear,
biotype: Mexican peach, tropical fruits &
South American nuts
Anastrepha grandis South American Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cucumber, pumpkin,
cucurbit fruit fly Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela watermelon
Anastrepha Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Star-apple, Sapotaceae
leptozona Bolivia, Belize, Guyana, Venezuela
Anastrepha ludens Mexican fruit fly Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Citrus, mango, peach,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, apple, avocado
Nicaragua, Texas
Anastrepha macrura Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Sapotaceae
Venezuela
Anastrepha obliqua West Indian fruit fly, Central and South America, West Mango, citrus, pear,
Antillean fruit fly Indies tropical fruits & nuts
Anastrepha ornata Ecuador Common guava, pear
Anastrepha Argentina, Brazil, Peru Passion fruit, mango
pseudoparallela
Anastrepha Sapote fruit fly, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Citrus, apple, avocado,
serpentina Serpentine fruit fly Panama, South America, Dominica, tropical fruits
Trinidad
Anastrepha Brazil Common guava
sororcula
Anastrepha striata Guava fruit fly Central and South America, Trinidad Common guava, mango,
citrus, avocado, tropical
fruits
Anastrepha Caribbean fruit fly, Florida, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Citrus, apple, guava,
suspensa Carib fly Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, loquat, Suriname cherry,
Jamaica tropical fruits & nuts
Bactrocera spp.
Bactrocera Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand Syzygium spp., tropical
albistrigata almond
Bactrocera aquilonis Australia Apple, mango, avocado,
citrus, peach, tropical
fruits
Bactrocera Papua New Guinea Cucumber, pumpkin,
atrisetosa tomato, watermelon
I. Introduction 3
Table I–2, continued.

Bactrocera Carambola fruit fly French Guiana, Suriname, Brazil, Carambola, mango, chili
carambolae Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand pepper, banana, tropical
fruit
Bactrocera caryeae Southern India Citrus, common guava,
mango
Bactrocera caudata Oriental Asia Pumpkin, cucumber,
gourds
Bactrocera correcta Guava fruit fly India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Citrus, mango, common
Thailand guava
Bactrocera cucumis Cucumber fruit fly Australia Cucurbits, tomato,
papaya
Bactrocera Melon fly, melon New Guinea area, Oriental Asia Cucurbit crops, avocado,
cucurbitae fruit fly papaya, peach, citrus
Bactrocera New Caledonia, Vanuatu Citrus
curvipennis
Bactrocera New Britain Pumpkin, cucurbits
decipiens
Bactrocera Japan, Taiwan Pumpkin, cucurbits
depressa
Bactrocera distincta American and Western Samoa, Fiji, Breadfruit, star-apple
Tonga
Bactrocera diversa China, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand Cucurbits, pumpkin,
gourd
Bactrocera dorsalis Oriental fruit fly Guam, Hawaii, Bhutan, China, India, Apple, mango, pear,
Myanmar, Thailand peach, banana, papaya,
tomato, citrus, tropical
fruits
Bactrocera facialis Tonga Avocado, citrus, mango,
peach, pepper, tomato,
tropical fruit
Bactrocera Queensland, New Guinea area, Common guava, tropical
frauenfeldi South Pacific almond, mango
Bactrocera jarvisi Australia Common guava, mango,
pear, peach, papaya,
citrus, banana
Bactrocera kirki South Pacific Citrus, mango, peach,
pineapple, peppers,
tropical fruit
Bactrocera Solanum fruit fly China, India, Laos, Malaysia, Solanaceous crops,
latifons Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, eggplant, tomato
Thailand, Hawaii
Bactrocera Cook Islands Citrus, mango, common
melanota guava
Bactrocera minax Chinese citrus fly Bhutan, China, India Citrus
Bactrocera musae Banana fruit fly Australia, New Guinea area Banana, common guava
4 I. Introduction
Bactrocera Australia, Papua New Guinea Apple, citrus, mango,
neohumeralis peach, raspberry, plum,
tomato, tropical fruit
Bactrocera Philippines Mango
occipitalis
Bactrocera oleae Olive fruit fly Mediterranean Africa Olive
Bactrocera papayae Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Guava, mango, citrus,
Singapore starfruit
Bactrocera Fijian fruit fly Fiji, Niue Island, Tonga Avocado, cocoa citrus,
passiflorae mango, papaya
Bactrocera Philippines Papaya, mango, other
philippiensis tropical fruit
Bactrocera psidi New Caledonia Citrus, common guava,
mango
Bactrocera North Thailand Guava, peach
pyrifoliae
Bactrocera tau Oriental Asia Cucurbits
Bactrocera trivialis Torres Strait Islands, Indonesia, Common guava, peach,
Papua New Guinea pepper, citrus
Bactrocera tryoni Queensland fruit fly Australia Apple, avocado, berries,
grape, citrus, papaya,
peach, pear, pepper,
tomato, tropical fruit
Bactrocera Japanese orange fly China, Japan Citrus
tsuneonis
Bactrocera Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam Peach, mango
tuberculata
Bactrocera umbrosa New Guinea area, Oriental Asia, Breadfruit
South Pacific
Bactrocera South Pacific Bell pepper, papaya,

xanthodes pineapple, tomato,
watermelon, common
guava
Bactrocera zonata Peach fruit fly India, Indonesia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Peach, apple, papaya,
Thailand, Vietnam citrus, common guava
Ceratitis spp.
Ceratitis anonae Africa Mango, coffee, tropical
almond, avocado, guava
Ceratitis capitata Mediterranean fruit Africa, Australia, Mediterranean Tropical and temperate
fly Europe, Middle East, Central and fruits and nuts
South America, Hawaii
Ceratitis catoarii Mascarene fruit fly Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles Avocado, peppers,
mango, peach, tomato,
other tropical fruits
I. Introduction 5
Ceratitis colae Cameroun, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Cola
Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Zaire
Ceratitis cosyra Mango fruit fly, Africa Mango, sour orange
Marula fruit fly, guava, avocado, peaches
Marula fly
Ceratitis malgassa Madagascan fruit fly Madagascar Citrus, common guava
Ceratitis pedestris Strychnos fruit fly Angola, South Africa, Zambia, Tomato
Zimbabwe
Ceratitis punctata Africa Cocoa, tropical fruits
Ceratitis quinaria Five spotted fruit fly, Africa, Yemen Apricot, citrus, guava,
Rhodesian fruit fly, peach
Zimbabwean fruit fly
Ceratitis rosa Natal fruit fly, Natal Africa Apple, common guava,
fly pear, papaya, mango,
peach, citrus, grape
Ceratitis rubivora Blackberry fruit fly Cameroun, Kenya, Malawi, South Rubus spp.
Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Dacus spp.
Dacus axanus Australia, New Guinea area Cucurbits
Dacus bivittatus Pumpkin fly, greater Central and southern Africa Melons, cucumber,
pumpkin fly, two- squash, pumpkin
spotted pumpkin fly
Dacus ciliatus Ethiopian fruit fly, Africa, Middle East, Indian Ocean, Melons, cucumber,
lesser pumpkin fly, Oriental Asia squash, pumpkin
cucurbit fly
Dacus demmerezi Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion Cucumber, pumpkin,
watermelon
Dacus frontalis Africa, Cape Verde Islands, Saudi Cucumber, pumpkin,
Arabia, Yemen, Arab Republic melons
Dacus lownsburyii Angola, South Africa, Zimbabwe Cucurbits
Dacus punctatifrons Central and southern Africa Cucurbits
Dacus smiroides Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia Cucurbits
Dacus New Guinea area Cucumber, pumpkin
solomonensis
Dacus telfaireae Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Cucurbits
Dacus vertebratus Jointed pumpkin fly, Africa, Madagascar, Saudi Arabia, Melons, cucumber,
melon fly Yemen, Arab Republic squash
Rhagoletis spp.
Rhagoletis cerasi European cherry Europe Cherries
fruit fly
Rhagoletis conversa Chile Solanaceous crops
Rhagoletis Peru Tomato
lycopersella
6 I. Introduction
Rhagoletis nova Chile Pepino
Rhagoletis Apple maggot fly Eastern and Western U.S. Apple, sour cherry,
pomonella peach
Rhagoletis tomatis Chile, S Peru Tomato
Toxotrypana sp.
Toxotrypana Papaya fruit fly Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Papaya
curvicauda Panama, Brazil, Columbia, West
Indies
This list is based on current available information and does not identify all fruit fly species present in, or of concern to, the United
States. Regulatory decisions for a specific commodity will be based on a complete risk analysis that considers the commodity or
host (species and variety), known pests and their distribution, origin of host material, and all other factors affecting risk.
The organizational scope of the EIS includes the analysis of all

reasonable alternatives for the program, with component technologies.
Refer to chapter 3, Alternatives, for a discussion of alternatives,
component technologies, and associated impacts. Issues identified at the
outset by APHIS for comprehensive consideration within the EIS
included: improving risk reduction strategies, emergency communication
strategies, selection of program control components, exploitation of new
or evolving technologies, environmental justice considerations, (refer to
section 8.E), and environmental monitoring.
APHIS conducted scoping for the EIS between the period January 1,
1998, to March 31, 1998. A draft EIS was prepared and submitted to the
public for comment on July 30, 1999 (refer to appendix A). Comments
received during scoping and on the draft were considered fully by APHIS
in the planning of the EIS. Issues and concerns identified by the public
included: potential human health impacts, chemical hypersensitivity, and
potential pollution. The comments received from the public helped
APHIS to determine the principal focus of the EIS and to refine the
discussion that was contained in the draft. From the history of past
programs and the results of the scoping process, APHIS and its
cooperators recognize fully the public’s concern about the potential
impacts of program chemicals on human health, biological resources, and
the physical environment.
I. Introduction 7
Figure 1–2. The larva of the Medfly is a slender, cream-
colored maggot. (Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
D. Programmatic Analysis and Site-specific Review
This EIS is a broad, programmatic analysis of the alternatives for fruit fly
programs that collectively make up the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control
Program. It focuses on available program control methods and their
potential environmental consequences, and is not intended to serve as an
encyclopedic compendium of information about specific fruit fly
programs. Instead, it provides an overview of the programs and
incorporates by reference detailed information that may be found in
documents like the “Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program, Final
Environmental Impact Statement—1993,” and “Oriental Fruit Fly
Regulatory Program, Environmental Assessment, November 1991.”
In addition to providing a broad overview, this EIS also conveys the

specific procedures which APHIS will follow prior to implementation of
a program, to ensure that site-specific characteristics of the program area
are considered. For example, prior to implementing a program, APHIS
will consider site-specific characteristics such as: (1) unique and
sensitive aspects of the proposed program area; (2) applicable
environmental documentation, including the programmatic EIS; and
(3) applicable new developments in environmental science or control
technologies. To the extent possible, when separate Federal and State
8 I. Introduction
site-specific environmental reviews are prepared, they will be
coordinated. Such site-specific environmental reviews will summarize
and incorporate by reference all programmatic analyses contained in the
EIS.
Site-specific review of the program areas will consider such things as:
land usage patterns (including agricultural cropping), unique or sensitive
areas, water bodies and their drainage, endangered and threatened
species, human population density, cultural factors, and unique human
health issues (such as homeless people, people with special medical
conditions, or ethnic groups that require special notification procedures).
APHIS will review existing environmental documentation, including the
EIS, risk analyses, biological assessments, and any site-specific tiered
environmental assessments, to ensure that program procedures and
protective measures are appropriate. Also, after the publication of the
EIS, APHIS will consider new developments in environmental science
(new findings or requirements related to potential risk to humans or other
nontarget species) and in scientifically and operationally proven control
technologies (new, more efficacious, and more environmentally sound
controls).
The site-specific review will be appropriate, based upon the

circumstances, issues, and timeframe of need for the program. Generally,
the site-specific assessment prepared for a program will be adequate to
analyze and disclose new and important information relative to a
particular program area. In cases where major changes are apparent, a
supplement to this EIS or a new EIS may be required. Specific
procedures for site-specific evaluation are included within this EIS (see
appendix B).
I. Introduction 9
Figure 1–3. The cardboard Jackson trap is one type
of trap used to detect and delimit fruit fly
infestations. (Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
10 I. Introduction
II. Purpose and Need
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), as lead agency in cooperation with other Federal and
State organizations (refer back to table 1–1 for list), is evaluating the
potential environmental effects of a broad cooperative program for the
control of various fruit fly species that could be introduced to areas of the
United States. This program is necessary because of the destructive
potential of these exotic pests and the serious threat they represent to
U.S. agriculture. Refer back to table 1–2 for a list of the fruit fly species,
their representative ranges, and their principle hosts.
Figure 2–1. Citrus exhibiting characteristic fruit fly

larval feeding damage. (Photo credit
USDA, APHIS)
APHIS’ authority for cooperation in the program is based upon

Title IV–Plant Protection Act, Public Law 106–224, 114 Stat. 438–455,
which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to take measures to prevent
the dissemination of a plant pest that is new to or not known to be widely
prevalent or distributed within or throughout the United States.
APHIS and its cooperators have responded to invasive pest species

introductions several times in the past, combining forces for the exclusion,
detection, and eradication of harmful fruit fly pests. Many of those
programs used common strategies or methods, although species
II. Purpose and Need 11

differences and site-specific environmental characteristics made it
impossible to use the same strategies and methods for all fruit fly species.
This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes in a broad way the

potential environmental consequences of activities and methods for the
exclusion, detection, and control (eradication or suppression) of specified
exotic fruit fly species. It evaluates, in programmatic fashion, a single
program that now integrates program components that once existed (and
were analyzed previously) as separate fruit fly eradication programs. This
EIS focuses, in particular, on strategies to reduce risk in such programs.
It examines previously available and new technologies that can be used
against fruit fly pests, and also considers the potential environmental
impacts of no action. This EIS is not a decision document, but it will be
used in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make
decisions. It fulfills the need to inform decision makers and the public of
potential environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives which would
avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
environment.
12 II. Purpose and Need

III. Alternatives
A. Introduction
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its
cooperators have analyzed a range of alternatives and their associated
components in this environmental impact statement (EIS). The analyzed
alternatives are broad in scope, reflecting the overall need for a program
objective that will accommodate emergency responses to any of a large
number of potentially damaging fruit fly species. Although our previous
analysis of Medfly programs required us to choose between suppression
or eradication alternatives, a number of factors (e.g., the wide range of
fruit fly species considered in this EIS, the pests’ varying potentials for
damage, and the characteristics of future outbreaks) make it highly likely
that APHIS and its cooperators will be involved in both suppression and
eradication programs for fruit flies in the future.
The alternatives for fruit fly programs have been framed in a way that
facilitates the identification of issues and the choices that are to be
made—especially the choices involving the inclusion or exclusion of
chemical pesticide components. The alternatives considered in this EIS,
therefore, include (1) no action, (2) a nonchemical program, and (3) an
integrated program (the preferred alternative). The alternatives and
associated components are reasonable, but vary with regard to their
practicality or feasibility based on environmental, scientific, regulatory,
economic, and logistical perspectives. They may vary considerably with
regard to their effectiveness, capability to attain program objectives, and
immediate applicability for large-scale programs. Refer to table 3–1 for a
summary listing of the alternatives and their components.
B. Alternatives Evaluated
Analysis has determined that there are potential environmental

consequences for each of the alternatives, including the no action
alternative. Environmental consequences would result from the
program’s activities and capabilities to exclude, detect, protect from, or
control fruit flies. The inability to prevent or control large infestations
would result in risk to the environment, our agricultural products, and our
economy. Environmental consequences may also result from the
program and nonprogram use of control methods against fruit flies
(especially the chemical control methods). The environmental
consequences of future fruit fly programs may be predicted generally, but
cannot be predicted with absolute confidence or be quantified because of
III. Alternatives 13
Table 3–1. Alternatives’ Component Methods
No Action Nonchemical Integrated
Exclusion
Quarantines
Federal/State Cooperation O X X
Inspection
Inspection Teams O X X
X-ray Technology O X X
Canine Teams O X X
Computer Tracking O X X
Detection and Prevention
Detection
Detection Trapping O X X
Delimitation Trapping O X X
Prevention
Pathway Studies O X X
Prevention Initiatives O X X
Sterile Insect Technique O X X
Control
Nonchemical Control Methods

Sterile Insect Technique O X X
Physical Control O X X
Cultural Control O X X
Biological Control* O O O
Biotechnological Control* O O O
Cold Treatment O X X
Irradiation Treatment O X X
Vapor Heat Treatment O X X
Chemical Control Methods
Aerially-applied Baits O O X
Ground-applied Baits O O X
Soil Treatments O O X
Fumigants O O X
Mass Trapping O X X
Pesticide Devices O O X
*Method under development; not approved for use.
the uncertainties regarding the areas, the extent of the infestations, the
future availability of control methods, and the implementation of various
mitigative methods.
The relative environmental consequences of each alternative (see

table 3–2, Alternatives Evaluated) were determined from individual
analyses of their components (subjectively for the nonchemical
components, qualitatively and quantitatively for the chemical
components). The scale of potential consequences appears below
table 3–2.
14 III. Alternatives
Table 3–2. Alternatives Evaluated
Relative Consequences (See Scale Below)
No Action Nonchemical Integrated
Exclusion
Quarantines
Federal/State Cooperation N/A 1 1
Inspection
Inspection Teams N/A 1 1
X-ray Technology N/A 1 1
Canine Teams N/A 1 1
Computer Tracking N/A 0 0
Detection and Prevention
Detection
Detection Trapping N/A 1 1
Delimitation Trapping N/A 1 1
Prevention
Pathway Studies N/A 0 0
Prevention Initiatives N/A 1 1
Sterile Insect Technique N/A 1 1
Control
Nonchemical Control Methods
Sterile Insect Technique N/A 1 1
Physical Control N/A 1 1
Cultural Control N/A 1 1
Biological Control N/A U U
Biotechnological Control N/A U U
Cold Treatment N/A 1 1
Irradiation Treatment N/A 1 1
Vapor Heat Treatment N/A 1 1
Chemical Control Methods
Aerially-applied Baits N/A N/A 2
Ground-applied Baits N/A N/A 1
Soil Treatments N/A N/A 2
Fumigants N/A N/A 1
Mass Trapping N/A 1 1
Pesticide Devices N/A N/A 1
Summary Evaluation 2 2* 2*
(The summary evaluations for the no action and nonchemical alternatives are based on the
anticipated, uncoordinated, nonprogram use of pesticides.)
Scale:
0 = None No anticipated environmental consequences.

1 = Minimal Minimal or minor environmental consequences; determination based on initially
low intrinsic effects or on reduction of effects to minimal levels by means of
programmatic standard operational procedures.
2 = Higher Higher relative potential for environmental consequences than above category.
* Denotes capable of being reduced to minimal levels through application of
programmatic standard operational procedures, mitigative measures, and/or
site-specific protection measures.
N/A = Not Applicable Federal action not a part of this alternative.
U = Unknown Unknown potential for environmental consequences; control technology may

be in an early stage of development, not enough details are known about
potential environmental consequences, or more detailed information about
control methods and patterns of use are required.
C. Alternatives in Detail
1. No Action The no action alternative would be characterized as no APHIS

cooperation to control (suppress, eradicate, or otherwise manage)
outbreaks of invasive alien fruit fly pests. Any control efforts would be
left up to State or local governments, growers or grower groups, and
individual citizens. There is no way of predicting whether any of those
groups would have the resources or the authorities to take the actions
required to exclude or control alien fruit fly pests.
The most probable outcome of the no action alternative would be that

many exotic species of fruit flies would be able to establish a permanent
foothold and expand their ranges within the United States. The
restrictions on movement of local produce by State authorities from these
infestations would result in domestic market losses to growers within the
affected areas. The exotic fruit flies could eventually spread to all areas
of the United States having suitable hosts and climate. This would result
in widespread destruction of commercial food crops and home garden
products. Because of the threats the pests would constitute to the
agricultural systems of foreign countries, certain countries would restrict
or prohibit the entry of host produce from the United States, thereby
eliminating many current (and potential future) U.S. export markets.
In the absence of government efforts to control exotic fruit fly pests,

losses and damage to private and commercial crops would provoke
independent control efforts. Lacking the resources or capability to use
sophisticated program techniques, such as detection trapping, sterile
insect technique, and regulatory controls, the growers or homeowners
could be expected to rely predominantly on chemical pesticides. Those
efforts could result in continually increasing, uncoordinated, and less-
controlled use of pesticides.
The severity of environmental consequences to human health, nontarget

species, and the physical environment would depend upon the area of the
application and the characteristics of the pesticides used. Where people
are present, they might be uninformed of the times and areas of
applications, and therefore would be unable to take the precautions
necessary to avoid exposures. Public exposure to various pesticides used
privately or commercially at differing application rates may pose
increased risks of synergistic or cumulative effects from the interaction of
the pesticides. In general, the potential for environmental consequences
from no action would be expected to exceed that from a cooperative
control program using approved program pesticides according to APHIS
risk reduction strategies (see chapter 6).
2. Non- APHIS could participate in a nonchemical program (one that uses only
chemical nonchemical control measures) to suppress (reduce populations to below
Program an economic threshold), eradicate (eliminate a pest from an area), or
otherwise manage fruit fly pests. Under this alternative, APHIS and its
cooperators would need to review all available data about fruit fly pest
species and their occurrences, determine the most appropriate objective,
and select a course of action using only nonchemical components as
described in depth later in this chapter. A suppression (management)
program’s potential for success might depend upon such factors as (1) the
infestation’s distance to the pests’ home range, (2) the availability (or
nonavailability) of hosts during the growing season, and (3) the
availability of an effective regulatory protocol (to contain the infestation
while still permitting commerce). APHIS’ choice of nonchemical
program components for an individual program would depend upon site-
specific circumstances, the biology and vulnerability of the pest species,
and the resources that could be brought to bear on the problem.
APHIS’ level of involvement for a nonchemical program would be

dependent upon a number of factors, including the availability of control
technology, the nature of the infestation, the technological and logistical
capabilities of State cooperators, and the availability of resources.
(APHIS obtains much of its resources for emergency eradication
programs through emergency funding; funding for prevention activities
and suppression programs could become extremely limited.) Regulatory
efforts would be maintained; grower groups and individuals would be
encouraged and required to comply with regulations designed to reduce
the potential spread of pest species.
APHIS’ exact role and its dedication of resources in the implementation

of a nonchemical program would depend upon the pest species and the
nature of the outbreak. For many species of exotic fruit flies effective
nonchemical control or eradication techniques do not exist, and therefore
the nonchemical option does not apply to them. APHIS’ authority to take
action in a nonchemical program is based upon Title IV–Plant Protection
Act, Public Law 106–224, 114 Stat. 438–455, which authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to take measures to hold, seize, quarantine, treat,
and destroy plant pests that are new to or not known to be widely
prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States. APHIS
and its cooperators prefer to eradicate exotic fruit fly pest outbreaks while
they are small in size, thereby reducing risk of spread and resultant
serious impacts to agriculture and the environment. APHIS currently
Figure 3–1. Detector dogs are trained to find smuggled
fruit at airports, seaports, and land border
ports. (Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
cooperates, however, in a Mexican fruit fly suppression program in the

Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. (The Mexican fruit fly is found over
a wide area of Mexico and also in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.) This
program is predominantly a nonchemical suppression program using
sterile insect technology, but includes some chemical regulatory
commodity treatments.
In most other cases, although the direct environmental consequences of a

nonchemical program would be expected to be minimal, the indirect
environmental consequences would be expected to be substantial. The
probable result of implementation of a nonchemical program would be
similar to that of no action: without effective chemical control methods,
many exotic species of fruit flies would be able to gain a permanent
foothold and expand their ranges within the United States, and other
countries would restrict or prohibit the entry of host produce from the
United States. Growers and homeowners could be expected to use
greater quantities of whatever pesticides are available to control their
fruit fly pests with increasing environmental consequences.
As with no action, the severity of environmental consequences to human

health, nontarget species, and the physical environment would depend
upon resultant nongovernmental use of pesticides and those pesticides’
characteristics. The public would be uninformed of the times and areas
of applications, and therefore be unable to take the precautions required
to avoid exposures. Public exposure to various pesticides used privately
or commercially at differing application rates poses increased risks of
synergistic or cumulative effects from the interaction of the pesticides.
Finally, the potential for environmental consequences from a
nonchemical program would be expected to be less than that of no action
(because of the effect of cooperative programs which would help to
mitigate pest impacts), but more than that of a properly controlled
integrated program (because of an integrated program’s capability of
responding quickly and more effectively to pest outbreaks).
3. Integrated An integrated program would be characterized by cooperative integrated

Program efforts to control (suppress, eradicate, or otherwise manage) invasive
(Preferred exotic fruit fly pests. It would utilize principles of integrated pest
Alternative) management (IPM), defined by the Council on Environmental Quality in
1972 as “. . . the selection, integration, and implementation of pest
control actions on the basis of predicted economic, ecological, and
sociological consequences” (CEQ, 1972).
Such a program would use (singly, or in combination) exclusion,

detection and prevention, and control (nonchemical and chemical)
components. The selection of those components would take into
consideration several factors, including economic (the cost and the cost
effectiveness of various methods in both the short- and long-term),
ecological (the impact on nontarget organisms and the environment), and
sociological (the acceptability of various integrated control methods to
cooperators, or the potential effects on land use).
In an integrated program, program managers would vary their use of

control methods so as to protect human health, nontarget species
(including endangered and threatened species), sensitive areas, and other
components of the environment within the potential program area. They
also would utilize specific protection measures and/or mitigation
methods in combination with their selection of those control methods, to
maximize efficacy and minimize environmental risk. Provided that the
potential environmental effects of the program components have been
analyzed and that necessary protective measures are employed, maximum
flexibility can be afforded the program manager for the selection of
control methods to fit the situation.
For an integrated program, the range of environmental consequences to
human health, nontarget species, and the physical environment would
depend upon the control methods used. However, integrated programs
(especially eradication programs), under careful program supervision,
which use chemical pesticides as control tactics, are expected to have less
adverse impacts than no action or nonchemical programs which would be
expected to result in continually escalating private uses of pesticides (as
pest infestations spread). Eradication has an end point; private use has no
end point and would result in much greater use of pesticides over the
long-term. In addition, the protective measures, mitigative methods, and
public information activities under a government managed integrated
program would also be expected to reduce the severity of adverse
environmental consequences. For example, members of the public would
be informed of the times and areas of applications, and therefore would
be able to take, at their discretion, the precautions required to minimize
and/or avoid exposure.
Figure 3–2. Release of sterile Medflies from the back

of a truck in a suburban neighborhood.
(Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
D. Control Components Evaluated
The control methods examined within this EIS vary extensively with
respect to their potential environmental consequences. The nonchemical
methods, used exclusively, have relatively minimal direct environmental
impacts but relatively severe indirect environmental impacts (based on
their predicted failure to establish control and resultant uncoordinated use
of pesticides. The chemical methods have relatively greater direct
environmental impacts, but because of their expected use patterns, their
net indirect impacts are less severe. From the risk assessments and the
subjective evaluations done for this EIS, a broad categorization of the
potential environmental effects of the control methods was developed
(refer to table 3–3 on the next page).
E. Control Components in Detail
1. Non- a. Sterile Insect Technique

chemical
Control Sterile insect technique (SIT) involves the release of sterilized fruit flies
Methods into infested areas where they mate with the feral fruit flies, producing
only infertile eggs. SIT has been used successfully and/or developed as a
control method for the Medfly, Mexican fruit fly, Caribbean fruit fly
(Carib fly), and the melon fly. SIT may be used as a component of an
overall detection and prevention strategy, or it may be used as a
component of suppression or eradication programs. In practice, if the
sterile insects are released often enough and in sufficient numbers, a feral
population will decline and can eventually be eradicated. SIT has been
proven effective against low-level Medfly and Mexican fruit fly
populations where high overflooding ratios are possible to achieve.
There has also been success in use of SIT as an area-wide prevention
effort at certain locations in California and Florida. SIT has not been an
effective eradication tool in production areas because of inadequate
overflooding ratios and losses from grower applications of insecticides.
Chemical bait sprays, such as those that include malathion, are

considered necessary in eradication programs to eliminate gravid female
fruit flies and reduce the population density to a low level before SIT is
employed. Increasing the ratio of sterile male fruit flies to feral male fruit
flies improves the effectiveness of the technique. Current data indicate
that sterile female fruit flies do not contribute to the suppression of the
target pest and that releases of predominantly male flies work much
better. This is the force driving the change to predominantly male release
programs against the Medfly and the effort to develop genetic sexing
Table 3–3. Control Methods Evaluated
Human Health & Safety
Environmental Effects
Physical Environment
Biological Resources
Potential Consequences
Cumulative Effects
0 = None
1 = Minimal
Unavoidable
2 = Higher
U = Unknown
Nonchemical Control Methods 1 1 1 1 1

Sterile Insect Technique 1 1 1
Physical Control 1 1 1
Cultural Control 1 0 1
Biological Control U U U
Biotechnological Control U U U
Cold Treatment 1 1 1
Irradiation Treatment 1 1 1
Vapor Heat Treatment 1 1 1
Chemical Control Methods 1 2 2 2 2
Aerially Applied Baits
Malathion 1 1 2
Spinosad* 1 1 2
SureDye** 1 1 2
Ground Applied Baits
Malathion 1 1 1
Spinosad 1 1 1
SureDye* 1 1 1
Soil Treatments
Chlorpyrifos 1 2 2
Diazinon 1 1 2
Fenthion 1 2 2
Fumigants
Methyl Bromide U 1 1
Mass Trapping 1 0 1
* Presently applied aerially only in rural areas.
** Not approved and labeled at this time; undergoing testing.
strains for other fruit flies under mass production. Used in integrated
programs, SIT also affords continuing effectiveness on adults that emerge
from the ground where they were not affected by earlier chemical bait
sprays.
Sterile fruit flies are reared under sanitary laboratory conditions. At some
stage in their life cycle, often the pupal stage, the fruit flies are subjected
to chemosterilents, irradiated with gamma rays, or subjected to radiation
from electron beams to make them sterile. The sterilized insects are then
packaged in containers for shipping and later released into the
environment by means of aircraft or ground vehicles. Generally, APHIS
will not permit the rearing of specific fruit fly species within areas that
are not regulated for the same pest species. Sterile Medflies are produced
at the rearing facilities in Waimanolo, Hawaii; Honolulu, Hawaii; San
Miguel Petapa, Guatemala; and Metapa de Dominguez, Mexico. Sterile
Mexican fruit flies are produced at the rearing facility in Mission, Texas.
Safety guidelines are followed by the sterile insect laboratories in all

steps of sterile insect production. Irradiation equipment is checked on a
regular basis and no problems associated with its use under APHIS
permits have been known to occur. The irradiated insects are not
radioactive and pose no risk to the environment.
SIT can be a very effective control method. In combination with

carefully coordinated malathion-based bait spray applications, SIT has
been a principal tactic used in most recent successful Medfly
eradications. However, SIT alone was attempted for Medfly eradication
in the fall of 1980 in Santa Clara County, California; there, sole reliance
on SIT was unsuccessful because the feral population was too high and
the necessary release ratio of sterile to feral fruit flies could not be
maintained. As a result, the Medfly population and the infested area
expanded, requiring use of alternative control methods over a larger area,
including aerial application of malathion bait spray.
b. Physical Control
Physical control involves physical actions taken to eliminate fruit fly

hosts or host produce. Fruit stripping and host elimination are two
principal physical control methods. Fruit stripping is employed when
fruit fly larvae are found. The physical elimination of fruit fly hosts,
when possible and appropriate, may be especially helpful in the
elimination of small, isolated infestations.
Figure 3–3. The Steiner trap (made of plastic) is
often used to monitor the effectiveness
of the sterile insect technique. (Photo
credit USDA, APHIS)
Typically, in Medfly programs, when trapping and subsequent fruit

cutting determine that a property is infested, all host fruits on the property
and those properties immediately adjacent are stripped promptly and
disposed of according to APHIS protocols. With fruit stripping, only the
actual host material (the fruit) is removed, causing little or no detrimental
effect to the health of the plant. The area stripped of host fruit normally
includes all properties within 200 meters (656 feet) of the confirmed
larval site. The host fruit may be destroyed by burial, incineration, or a
combination of both methods at an approved landfill or refuse site. The
legal and logistical aspects of collecting and disposing of the fruit are a
limitation to its operational use. For example, the size of the infested
area and the ability to gain access to residential properties may limit the
method’s effectiveness.
Extensive fruit stripping, however, may have a drawback. In the

1980–81 California Medfly program, extensive fruit stripping was
believed by many experts to have stimulated dispersal of gravid females
thereby making eradication more difficult.
Although the goal of host elimination is the same as fruit stripping, its
methods and effects differ substantially. In a moderate scenario, host
elimination might mean the removal of only a few plants from an urban
environment. In a more extreme scenario, host elimination could involve
the destruction of numerous wild host plants (native or escaped exotic
species). This could result in potential for adverse environmental effects
from removal and/or destruction of entire plants (especially trees and
woody shrubs) in natural areas. Control of fruit flies in commercial
plantings may require a method other than host elimination, if large
perennial plantings are involved. Except in very limited circumstances,
host elimination is unacceptable because of environmental
considerations, time and resource constraints.
c. Cultural Control
Cultural control reduces pest populations through manipulation of

agricultural practices. In general, agricultural practices are modified to
make the crop environment as unfavorable as possible for the insect pest.
Cultural control methods frequently include: clean culture, special
timing, trap cropping, use of resistant varieties, crop rotation, varying
plant locations, and manipulation of alternate hosts. Several of these
methods (but not all) may have applicability for control of fruit flies and
are discussed here. However, cultural control methods are considered to
be of limited effectiveness and most useful as complementary control
methods for fruit flies.
Clean culture, or careful and complete harvesting combined with

destruction of infested and unmarketable fruit fly host crops, can be
important in reducing fruit fly populations. Collecting and burying host
fruit left after harvest, destroying damaged fruit, and removing unwanted
or wild alternate hosts in and around fields are often recommended for
suppressing fruit fly infestations. Collecting and destroying potential
host fruit eliminates the fruit fly host stages in the fruit as well as the host
fruit which is a possible source of continued infestation.
Special timing could be employed in some geographical regions by
scheduling the planting of early-season or short-season fruit and
vegetable crops so that fruit ripening does not coincide with peak fruit fly
activity, or by harvesting the fruit before it reaches a stage of ripeness
highly susceptible to fruit fly attack. Although this technique
theoretically could reduce fruit fly populations, it is not likely to do so for
a variety of reasons. First, the development of most fruit flies generally
coincides with the development (growth) of their host crops. Also, it is
doubtful that enough control could be exercised over commercial
agricultural practices to make the technique effective or worthwhile.
Finally, the presence of multiple hosts in many areas that are susceptible
to fruit fly infestations limits the applicability of this method.
Trap cropping involves the planting of a crop that is favored by the pest
in order to attract and concentrate the pest in a limited area where the pest
can be destroyed by chemical or cultural methods. For other insect pests,
trap cropping often involves planting a small plot of the favored host crop
earlier than the main crop so that overwintered life stages of the pest will
be concentrated and destroyed by pesticides or by plowing the crop under
before the main crop is infested. It is unlikely that this method could be
applicable to most fruit fly programs because of the perennial nature of
many host species, the availability of multiple host species in the program
areas, and the lack of data on effectiveness of trap crops in attracting fruit
flies from distant areas.
Resistant varieties may be of some future benefit in helping to prevent

fruit fly infestations. Some reduction in risk of fruit fly infestations could
be achieved through public response to a public information program
designed to illustrate the value of and recommend the selection of plant
varieties that are nonhosts or are partially resistant to fruit flies.
Mechanisms that serve as a basis for host plant resistance to the Medfly
have been demonstrated in some host plants (Greany et al., 1983; Eskafi,
1988). However, there are so many hosts and secondary hosts of fruit fly
pest species that this technique may be of limited value for eradication
programs. Also, as with special timing, it is not likely that sufficient
control could be exercised over the commercial agricultural industry or
homeowners to make this control method worthwhile. It is not likely that
industry would restrict its selection of varieties on the basis of a potential
threat.
Crop rotation and varying the locations of plantings have little

applicability to fruit fly programs. Perennials (like oranges, grapefruit,
and apples) cannot be moved around or rotated, and even if annual host
crops were rotated it probably would not prevent fruit fly pests from
finding suitable hosts in the surrounding area.
d. Biological Control
Biological control (or biocontrol) is a pest control strategy making use of

living natural enemies, antagonists or competitors, and other self-
replicating biotic entities. Biological control differs from natural control
of pest organisms in that human intervention is involved in the
dissemination of the pest’s enemies (parasites, predators, and pathogens).
APHIS and its cooperators have successfully utilized biological control

agents in several insect and weed pest control programs. APHIS believes
that biological control, appropriately applied and monitored, is an
environmentally safe and desirable form of long-term management of
pest species. APHIS further believes that biological control is preferable
when applicable, but recognizes its limited application to emergency
eradication programs. Whenever possible, biological control should
replace chemical control as the base strategy for integrated pest
management (Melland, 1992).
However, biological control is neither a panacea nor a solution for all

pest problems. There is no data that show that biological control of any
fruit fly species has been important in reducing and maintaining the pest
species below economically damaging levels. Although a number of
organisms have been investigated as potential biological control agents
against fruit fly species like the Medfly (see table 3–4), biological control
has not been utilized for any eradication programs. There are a number
of reasons for this, including unproven efficacy and lack of immediate
results for large scale emergency eradication programs.
The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and APHIS have been

working on biological control for Medfly and other fruit fly species
populations in Hawaii and Guatemala. In recent tests, one biological
control agent, a hymenopteran parasitoid, Diachasmimorpha tryoni
(Cameron), was released from the air into Guatemalan coffee plantations
that contained Medflies. The results of those air releases were studied
with regard to factors such as mortality, flight-ability, and parasitization
rate of the biological control agent. Improvements in release technology
resulting from such research could enhance the use of biological control
agents in suppression programs in places like Hawaii and Guatemala,
ultimately contributing to eradication of fruit fly pests there, and thereby
reducing risk of spread to the continental United States. Researchers are
Table 3–4. Organisms Reviewed for Use as Potential Biocontrol Agents of
the Medfly
Targeted Medfly
Name Type of Organism Life Stage
Parasite
Steinernema carpocapsae Nematode Larvae, pupae,
(formerly S. feltiae) and adults
Parasitoids
Diachasmimorpha tryoni (formerly Braconid wasp Larvae, pupae
Biosteres tryoni)
Psyttalia humulis Braconid wasp Larvae
D. longicaudatus (formerly Braconid wasp Larvae, pupae
Biosteres longicaudatus)
Testrastichus giffardianus Eulophid wasp Larvae
Pathogens
Bacillus thuringiensis Bacteria Adults
Picornavirus (V) Virus Adults
Reovirus (I) Virus Adults
Predators
Iridomyrmex humilis Argentine Ant1 Larvae
Solenopsis geminata Fire Ant1 Larvae
Pheidole magacephala Bigheaded Ant1 Larvae
Zygoptera Zygopteran damselfly Adults
Mantidae Praying Mantis Adults
Staphylinidae Staphylinid beetle Larvae
Vespidae Vespid wasp Adults
1
Potential biocontrol agents that are themselves pests and, therefore, unacceptable for use in
this program.
currently working in Guatemala with five additional biological control

agents that they hope to introduce or use in mass releases.
If biological control of a fruit fly species could be demonstrated to be

efficacious and reliable, a number of advantages might be associated with
its use in a control program. It could be self-perpetuating under
conditions where populations of the host or an alternate host remain and
where climatic conditions allow the agent to overwinter. Even under
conditions that would not allow a self-perpetuating population of
biological control agents, inundative releases might still be of value in
reducing fruit fly populations. The greatest value of biological control
agents may be in situations where immediate results or containment of
the pest population are not the overriding concerns.
In spite of its advantages, biological control has major limitations which

influence its suitability for control programs, including: lack of
immediate results; potential lack of effectiveness; logistical difficulties;
and incomplete or unavailable information about rearing techniques,
natural dispersal, and effects on nontarget species.
Biological control’s results are achieved over a protracted timeframe.
Since most potential biological control agents parasitize or prey on
immature fruit fly life stages, the extant adult pest population would be
able to continue to reproduce and move or be carried to other areas to
spread the infestation. This characteristic would be undesirable for
eradication programs where the objective is to destroy the pest population
before it can reproduce further and fly, be carried, or be blown out of the
area.
Also, biological control agents normally are not capable of achieving

total elimination of a pest species, but instead reduce pest populations by
varying percentages. They may reduce a pest population to lower levels
(to the point where the pests become difficult for them to find), thereby
diminishing the economic impact of the pest, but they seldom are capable
of killing all of the pest population. If that were to happen, the biological
control agent would destroy itself in the process; natural mechanisms
usually prevent this. In addition, the consumer tolerance for infested fruit
is very low (less than one larva per fruit), so even a minimal population
of a fruit fly pest would be undesirable. Thus, the nature of most fruit fly
eradication programs (which require early detection and elimination of
the populations while they are still small) tends to rule out biological
control as an option for eradication.
Although not of use in emergency eradication programs, biological

control has potential for fruit fly suppression programs, especially in the
role of a complementary control, where it may reduce or help to reduce
fruit fly populations so that other control methods can be more effective.
Although optimally used as a complementary control method, biological
control alone may offer promise for some suppression programs,
depending upon the degree of fruit fly control that would be acceptable.
Biological control methods are rarely compatible with chemical control
methods.
Augmentative biological control can be difficult to apply on a large-scale

basis for eradication. It can be difficult, expensive, and labor-intensive to
rear large quantities of biological control agents. Often the agents’ life
cycles (long generation times and few offspring) complicate rearing
operations. The agents may need to be reared and/or distributed on the
pest host, thereby complicating rearing logistics and requiring special
containment and safeguarding. Biological control organisms are often
fragile, requiring protection and careful handling prior to release. Also,
the method might require massive releases of exotic organisms into the
environment of the United States; the potential impacts of such releases,
especially on nontarget species, are largely unknown.
Finally, because biological control technology for control of fruit flies has
not been refined and is not available to the extent that it can be integrated
into the Cooperative Fruit Fly Control Program, it is not possible to
evaluate the method’s environmental impacts comprehensively or with a
great degree of precision.
e. Biotechnological Control
Biotechnological control would involve the use of genetic engineering

techniques to control fruit fly pests. Currently, there are four primary
areas of genetic engineering that show promise for control of insect pests:
(1) bio-engineering of crop plants (insertion of specific genes into the
plants to improve plant characteristics such as pest resistance),
(2) improvement of insect-infecting viruses, (3) production of genetic
mutations of the pest (thereby affecting its reproductive capabilities) by
radiation or other means, and (4) gene probe techniques to screen for
insecticidal properties in microorganisms.
Biotechnology is being developed for use against fruit flies, but has not
been used extensively because of a number of constraints: (1) the
technology is still relatively undeveloped; (2) some control mechanisms
(bioengineered fruit fly host plants such as citrus are not yet available
and, even if they become available, replacement of stands would require
years) (Moore and Cline, 1989) have not been developed; (3) insect-
infecting viruses have not been proven effective, nor are they available
commercially for fruit fly control; (4) screening done for new strains of
bacteria against fruit flies is only the first step in basic research and
development of insect-infecting microorganisms; and (5) the information
relative to the environmental impacts of bioengineered organisms is
incomplete and unavailable.
One biotechnological control method that has been developed and is in

the early implementation phase is the use of a temperature sensitive lethal
(TSL) strain of the Medfly in SIT programs. The International Atomic
Energy Agency has worked with a recessive mutant TSL gene that causes
death in the insect at temperatures above about 29 NC. Females are
homozygous for the mutant gene and, therefore, temperature sensitive.
The males are heterozygous for the gene and are not temperature
sensitive. By putting the Medfly eggs in a water bath at around the
threshhold temperature, the females are killed and the males survive. The
TSL-sexing method is of benefit in SIT programs for a variety of reasons:
(1) it avoids ovipositional “sting” damage from sterile females; (2) it
avoids detrimental (wasted) matings between sterile males and females;
(3) it reduces SIT production costs by eliminating females in the egg
stage; (4) it uses a relatively stable strain under mass rearing conditions;
and (5) it improves the overall efficiency of SIT. Development of the
TSL technology continues to take place. Operational releases have been
made in Guatemala, California, and Florida.
Based upon the single example provided above, the potential impacts of
biotechnological control appear to be minimal (equivalent to the impacts
generated by use of the SIT method). Other biotechnological controls,
however, are undeveloped and unavailable for program implementation
at this time. In general, detailed information relative to the
environmental impacts of those other forms of biotechnological control
are unavailable. No substantial body of scientific evidence relative to
evaluating the impacts of this control method exists, nor can it be
summarized within this document.
f. Cold Treatment
Cold treatment involves the refrigeration of produce over an extended

period of time, according to treatment schedules established in the Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual (USDA, APHIS).
Cold treatment is used to kill fruit flies in regulated articles as a
prerequisite for movement of those articles out of quarantined areas.
Cold treatment is preferable to fumigation for commodities that are
known to be damaged by methyl bromide. Cold treatment may also be
combined with methyl bromide fumigation as an authorized regulatory
treatment for some commodities.
All cold treatments are conducted in approved facilities under strict

supervision. The facilities must be within the quarantine area and the
cold treatments must be completed before commodities are moved from
the quarantine area. The regulatory cold treatments are commodity-
specific and are described in detail in the PPQ treatment manual.
A number of constraints (duration of treatments, approval for facilities,

availability of facilities, and logistical and budgetary problems for
producers) tend to limit the use of this treatment. In addition, some
commodities are not compatible with cold treatments and would tend to
be destroyed if such treatments were employed.
g. Irradiation Treatment
Irradiation treatment is a method that has been used to sterilize or kill

certain species of fruit flies. The treatment may be used as a condition of
entry into the United States for some fruit products, or it may be applied
to certain articles to allow their movement outside of the regulated area.
As with other regulatory treatments, there are constraints associated with
irradiation treatments. Treatments for bulk shipments may be logistically
difficult to accomplish and may not be as cost-effective as those smaller
shipments.
Irradiation treatments must be conducted in an approved facility and the

treatments are conducted in accordance with strict safety guidelines. The
irradiation equipment releases radiation to the regulated commodity, but
the treated commodity does not retain any radioactivity from the
exposure.
Irradiation equipment at approved facilities is checked on a regular basis

by the USDA Radiation Safety Staff in accordance with standards set by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No problems have been associated
with the use of irradiation equipment under APHIS permits. Equipment
design and shielding ensure negligible risks to workers at these facilities.
The facility must be within the quarantine area and the irradiation
treatment must be completed prior to moving the commodity from the
quarantine area. This treatment is presently used for some fruits from
Hawaii. However, some commodities are not compatible with irradiation
treatment and would tend to be destroyed if such treatments were
employed. Irradiation treatment probably would not be used much as a
control method because the facilities would be lacking in most quarantine
areas and effective treatments that do not damage the regulated articles
have not been developed for most commodities.
h. Vapor Heat Treatment
Vapor heat (steam) treatment is another regulatory control method used

to kill fruit flies in regulated articles to allow movement of the regulated
articles outside of the regulated area. As with cold treatments, there are a
number of constraints associated with vapor heat treatment. Treatments
for bulk shipments may be logistically difficult to accomplish and may
not be as cost effective as those for smaller shipments. Program vapor
heat treatments must be conducted in an approved facility and are strictly
supervised. The facility must be within the quarantine area and the vapor
heat treatment must be completed prior to moving the commodity from
the quarantine area. These treatments are described in detail in the PPQ
Treatment Manual (USDA, APHIS). This treatment can be used only for
certain heat tolerant commodities. Vapor heat treatment probably would
not be used very much as a control method because of the lack of
facilities in quarantine areas.
2. Chemical Several chemical pesticide formulations have proven effective as controls
Control for various fruit fly species. This section describes the potential uses of
Methods the chemicals which have been used or recommended for use in fruit fly
control programs. Because much of the concern over fruit fly control
programs relates to their use of chemical pesticides, this EIS (especially
chapter 5, Environmental Consequences) focuses on their potential
effects.
All chemical pesticides used by APHIS in cooperative fruit fly control or

eradication programs are evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Agency
(EPA). APHIS’ research and testing of new and safer pesticides may
result in proposals for their inclusion in those cooperative programs.
Their use in those programs is predicated on approval by APHIS (based
on efficacy, logistical, and environmental considerations) and the
acquisition of a pesticide registration or quarantine exemption.
Therefore, the chemical pesticides used in cooperative control or
eradication programs have all been evaluated, but may be in various
stages of the pesticide registration process. The chemicals are used
under: a regular registration (7 U.S.C. 136a); a registration for special
local needs (7 U.S.C. 136v), also known as a section 24c; or an
emergency exemption (7 U.S.C. 136p), also known as a section 18. Uses
of some of these formulations for fruit fly control programs may be
considered “minor uses” by the pesticide manufacturers who haven’t
sought regular registrations because the high costs of those regular
registrations are not justified by the volume of sales that are projected. In
addition, most species of fruit flies are nonnative, invasive species which
are not routinely registered by manufacturers as a pest covered on labels
for control applications in the United States. The introduction of
invasive species to the United States is not consistent enough for a
manufacturer to justify advance registration for formulations of pesticides
known to be effective against nonnative pests. When these species are
detected, the only available pesticides must often be accessed through
emergency exemptions. Also, because of differing State pesticide
registration requirements, not all of the proposed chemicals are registered
in the same way for each program State, and some chemicals may not be
registered and therefore are unavailable for use in certain program States.
Recent research has shown that two pesticides, spinosad and SureDye,
may serve as substitutes for malathion in aerial and ground bait
formulations. Spinosad is registered for use with EPA and has tolerances
for many crops. One formulation is now registered for use against fruit
flies. Spinosad has been used successfully in some recent fruit fly
eradication programs and is planned for use in eradication programs in
the future. Research of spinosad is continuing to determine optimal
formulations for effective control of several fruit fly species. SureDye is
not currently registered and would need to be registered before it can be
used in any control programs in the United States, unless EPA waives the
registration requirements. Additional field testing is being done with
SureDye to further determine its suitability and parameters for use in
APHIS programs.
There has also been research of soil treatment chemicals to provide

potential substitutes if use of the current soil drench pesticides is
restricted or prohibited. This has become more important with tighter
regulation of organophosphate insecticides (including the soil drench
pesticides) under the Food Quality Protection Act. Current research has
shown that imidacloprid may be effective as a soil drench insecticide.
Program development of this compound and other potential substitutes is
ongoing. Should any of these compounds be effective and available for
program use, potential risks will be assessed in site-specific analysis.
Some other pesticides which are not considered in this EIS are registered
for use against fruit flies. However, research indicates they are unsuitable
for various reasons, including: (1) unacceptably high toxicity to
environmental components, (2) lack of efficacy against targeted species,
(3) lack of residual effect, (4) lack of thorough field testing, or (5) lack of
suitability in large-scale programs.
The chemical control methods target various life stages of the fruit flies.
For example, malathion, spinosad, and SureDye bait sprays target the
adult fruit fly stages, while diazinon soil drenches target the larval and
emerging adult stages. The selection of chemical control methods (as
with nonchemical control methods) would be predicated on the
circumstances and urgency of need, and any substitution of chemical
control method would be predicated on the chemical’s substantiated
efficacy as a replacement. The availability of chemical control methods
is subject to change, based on: (1) new information relative to
environmental consequences, (2) planned phase-outs of some chemicals,
(3) new limitations placed on their usages, and (4) the availability of
newer replacement controls.
Figure 3–4. Helicopters are used to aerially apply
malathion bait in some control programs.
a. Aerial Bait Applications
(1) Aerial Malathion Bait
Aerial malathion bait may be used for primary control purposes (to
suppress or eradicate fruit flies) or as a regulatory treatment (to establish
freedom from fruit fly pests, so that commodities may be shipped out of
regulated areas). It remains one of the most effective control tools
against exotic fruit fly pests.
Aerial malathion bait consists of malathion mixed with a protein
hydrolysate bait for adult fruit flies. The bait acts as an attractant and
feeding stimulant to the fruit flies, which feed on it and ingest the
toxicant. The use of a bait to attract fruit flies improves efficacy to the
extent that the amount of malathion required is very low compared to
labeled rates for most other uses. Bait applications substantially reduce
the wild fruit fly populations. The method is especially effective when
combined with SIT, for those species for which an effective SIT
technology has been developed.
Full foliar coverage bait spray of host trees and other plants immediately
reduces fruit fly populations by 90% or more and reduces subsequent
reproduction. This decreases fruit fly numbers in the succeeding
generation and reduces the risk that gravid female fruit flies will move to
uninfested areas. In this manner, the malathion bait applications reduce
wild fruit fly populations to a level of infestation where mating thresholds
are not achieved or where continued releases of sterile fruit flies can be
effective in reducing the rest of the emerging pest population.
Typical Medfly programs may use weekly aerial applications of

malathion bait spray followed by the use of SIT in a 9 mi2 area around
each Medfly find, for a time span of one to two life cycles. Also, the
speed at which sterile flies become available is often the factor that
determines the number of pesticide sprays used before the initiation of
sterile fly releases. The number of treatments varies depending upon the
ambient temperatures and pest’s life-cycle characteristics. Infestations
that are heavy or widespread may require additional applications to lower
populations to levels where release of sterile insects will be effective.
Additional Medfly finds could indicate an expanding infestation,
resulting in the need for aerial malathion bait application to areas
surrounding the originally designated treatment area. Containment and
reduction of Medfly populations are both critical factors for eradication.
Aerial malathion bait also may be used as a regulatory control method to

establish freedom of nursery or orchard premises from living fruit fly
stages, as a condition for movement of produce. To accomplish this, the
establishment undergoes a series of treatments at intervals, designed to
provide continued freedom from fruit flies during the quarantine period.
Bait spray applications normally are limited to locations producing

regulated commodities within the quarantined area, but located outside
the infested core area. Treatments must start at a sufficient time, at least
30 days, before harvest (to span the interval that normally would include
the completion of egg, larval, and pupal development), then continue
throughout the harvest period. The required preharvest treatment makes
this option useful for only those commodities remaining in the field for
more than 30 days after an area is quarantined.
(2) Aerial Spinosad Bait
Spinosad bait is a formulation of naturally produced bacterial compounds

(spinosyns) and bait. The optimal formulation for use against different
fruit fly species is still being developed to ensure efficacy and suitability
to program applications. Spinosad is being used as a substitute for aerial
malathion bait formulations in rural areas.
Spinosad has been used successfully in recent fruit fly eradication

programs. If spinosad remains available for use, it may serve as an
alternative to malathion in aerial bait formulations for primary control or
for regulatory treatments. Aerial applications are currently restricted to
use in orchards and croplands. Aerial applications may not be applied to
fruit fly infestations in residential areas. Refer to the previous discussion
on aerial malathion bait for further insight into how spinosad might be
used in aerial bait applications.
Figure 3–5. Some aerial applications are made at night

to minimize exposure of area residents.
(3) Aerial SureDye Bait
SureDye bait spray is a formulation of xanthene dye and bait that is still
being tested and developed for use against various fruit fly species.
SureDye bait is being examined by the program as a substitute for
malathion in both aerial and ground bait formulations.
If SureDye is approved, becomes available, and can be integrated

successfully into fruit fly control programs, it would be used in place of
malathion in bait formulations, either for primary control or as a
regulatory treatment. Refer to the preceding discussion of aerial
malathion bait for further insight into how SureDye might be used in
aerial bait sprays.
b. Ground Bait Applications
(1) Ground Malathion Bait
Ground malathion bait also may be used for primary control purposes (to
suppress or eradicate fruit flies) or as a regulatory treatment (to establish
freedom from fruit fly pests so that commodities may be shipped out of
regulated areas). Ground malathion bait applications use the same
material as the aerial malathion bait, but the applications are applied from
ground equipment such as backpack or pump-up sprayers, or truck-
mounted mist blowers and hydraulic sprayers. Ground malathion bait is
intended to reduce the wild fruit fly populations to levels below mating
thresholds or to levels where SIT becomes effective. The combination of
bait with malathion in the formulation substantially decreases the amount
of malathion needed for area-wide control. Ground applications are
preferable for small or isolated areas of host plants, locations adjacent to
sensitive sites or water (where drift from aerial applications is of special
concern), and sites where aerial applications would be either less precise
or unsafe.
Generally, the spray is applied at close range to hosts in an area

expanding outward from a fruit fly detection until the designated area is
treated. This greatly reduces the potential for the fruit flies to spread.
Depending on the species of fruit fly targeted, the malathion bait may be
applied either as a full cover foliar spray or as a bait spot treatment
(squirting a small amount on a portion of the host plant). Because of the
uncertainty of how the applications would be made in a particular
situation, this EIS evaluated the full coverage method which uses more
material. Bait spot applications that use substantially less material would
further reduce the potential for environmental consequences.
In recent Medfly programs, EPA has restricted the amount of pesticide
used by ground or air to no more than 2.4 fluid ounces of malathion per
acre. Thus, ground sprays cannot legally use more malathion per acre
than air sprays. There are practical limitations to using ground sprays
over large areas that prevent treatments from being repeated in a
timeframe that will guarantee the destruction of overlapping pest
generations.
Although ground applications may provide better control of pesticide

deposition than aerial applications and result in greater public acceptance,
they are more labor-intensive, they generally do not provide complete
coverage with control materials, they increase exposure to applicators,
and they may not be practical or even feasible in some areas (because of
uneven terrain, presence of dangerous animals, or lack of access). If
there is insufficient coverage of the epicenter of a fruit fly infestation,
then there would be risk of a gravid female fruit fly locating a suitable
host for oviposition without ever being attracted to the malathion bait
spray. Thus, insufficient coverage could lead to establishment and
further spread of the fruit flies.
(2) Ground Spinosad Bait
Spinosad also has been used as a substitute for malathion in ground bait
formulations for recent fruit fly eradication programs. Research and
development of optimal formulations of spinosad for control of different
fruit fly species are continuing. If spinosad remains available for use, it
may serve as an alternative to malathion in bait applications for primary
control or for regulatory treatments. Refer to the previous discussion on
ground malathion bait for further insight into how spinosad might be
used in ground bait applications.
(3) Ground SureDye Bait
SureDye is being examined by the program as a substitute for malathion

in both aerial and ground bait formulations. If SureDye can be integrated
successfully into the program, it could be used as a substitute for
malathion in ground bait applications, either for primary control or as a
regulatory treatment. Refer to the preceding discussion of ground
malathion bait for more information about the probable use patterns.
Figure 3–6. Ground applications of malathion bait
precisely target fruit fly hosts. (Photo
credit USDA, APHIS)
c. Soil Treatment
Diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and fenthion are soil drench chemicals that are
approved for fruit fly control programs; refer to chapter 5 (Environmental
Consequences) for more information about these chemicals.
Imidacloprid is being investigated as an alternative soil drench chemical
at this time. At the site of an infestation, soil treatment with diazinon,
chlorpyrifos, or fenthion is used to kill fruit fly larvae entering the soil
and new fruit fly adults emerging from the soil.
For suppression and eradication purposes, soil treatment is best used as a

complementary control method, in combination with pesticide bait
formulations, fruit stripping, and/or other methods. Typically, one
treatment (but up to three, in the case of an infestation of long duration)
may be made, applied directly to the soil within the drip line of host
plants within the immediate vicinity of a fruit fly larval detection.
Because of the nature of the chemicals and/or the method of delivery,
there is no potential for drift.
Soil treatment also may be used as a regulatory treatment method to kill

fruit flies in the soil so that regulated nursery stock or soil may be moved
from a quarantined area. Used in combination with fruit stripping, soil
treatment establishes freedom from the pests and provides the capability
to certify the nursery stock for movement. Applications are limited to the
soils of regulated nursery stock grown within the quarantined area.
Generally no more than three applications are made.
d. Fumigation
(1) Methyl Bromide
Methyl bromide is an efficacious, broad spectrum pesticide that is widely

used as a fumigant to control insects, nematodes, fungi, rodents, and
weed seed. It is characterized by rapid dissipation following treatment
with proper aeration, nonflammable and nonexplosive properties, and
stability in gaseous form to relatively low temperatures (down to 4 ºC
(39 ºF)).
Methyl bromide fumigation is used as a regulatory control method to kill

fruit flies in regulated articles and allow the movement of those regulated
articles from within a quarantine area to locations outside quarantine
boundaries. Methyl bromide fumigations comply with the pesticide label
and with all Federal, State, and local regulations. All fumigations are
done under strict supervision within the quarantine area. Methyl bromide
fumigation also may be combined with cold treatment to fulfill
requirements for certifying some commodities free of fruit fly.
e. Mass Trapping
Mass trapping reduces fruit fly populations by attracting fruit flies to

traps where they become stuck or are exposed to a minute amount of
pesticide, and die before they have the opportunity to mate. The fruit
flies are attracted to a bait at the traps (conventional fruit fly traps, sticky
panels, fiberboard squares, wicks, or bait spots on telephone poles or
roadside trees), where they become stuck with a sticky substance or are
killed with a minute amount of pesticide (naled or malathion). Mass
trapping has potential for many species of fruit flies but is not effective
for all species.
The sticky panels employed for fruit fly control use a synthetic lure
(trimedlure, ceralure, or cuelure) applied directly to the panels or to wicks
attached to the panels. For the Medfly, the baits attract the male
Medflies, hence the method has also been called male annihilation.
Large numbers of panels must be placed within and surrounding the
infestation area for the method to be effective. Mass trapping, in
combination with other actions, can be used to lower the population of
fruit flies to levels where eradication can be achieved through the
combined use of other control methods, often including SIT.
Male annihilation can be used effectively and simultaneously against

multiple fruit fly species when a powerful attractant is available that
works on all of those species. For example, several species of
Bactrocera (including Oriental and peach fruit flies) are attracted well to
the parapheromone methyl eugenol.
Instead of traps or panels, some species of fruit flies may also be trapped
and killed using cordelitos or fiberboard squares. Cordelitos are 30-mm
long wicks that contain cuelure and naled. The fiberboard squares are
wood chips approximately 20 cm2 in size that contain cuelure and naled.
Each may be applied aerially in rural or agricultural areas. Cordelitos
have been used to eliminate some melon fly populations.
The use of panels and lures to control fruit flies is a relatively recent
development that is still being tested and improved. It has been used
against the melon fly. Tests conducted with the panels indicate that few
nontarget arthropods are attracted by the panels. Placement of the panels
in host trees out of reach of the public makes it unlikely that the public
would be exposed to the lures or sticky panels. The low toxicity of the
lures and sticky chemical result in negligible risk to humans, livestock, or
pets as a consequence of any expected exposure.
There are some limits to the use of mass trapping. The approach is costly
and labor-intensive. It may require placement and servicing of 1,000 or
more panels or traps per square mile within the infestation area.
Effectiveness is reduced if they are dislodged and inadvertently destroyed
by the public, livestock, or pets. Panels and traps are believed most
effective when new infestations are detected and integrated controls are
used, but are believed ineffective for large populations where the fruit
flies have mated prior to being trapped by the panels. Finally, the lures
(natural and synthetic) have not proven equally effective on all species of
fruit flies.
Figure 3–7. Sticky panels are one technique used in
mass trapping. (Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
A. Introduction
The Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program has the potential to affect the
environments of future program areas. The environments are complex
and diverse, with characteristics and components that can influence the
implementation of future fruit fly programs. Factors considered by
program planners include the physical environment, human population,
biological resources, cultural resources, and visual resources.
The geographical scope of the program is based on factors related to host

range, climate, potential avenues of introduction, and past introductions.
Parts of the potential program area share common characteristics,
especially with regard to physical character and biological resources. The
overall geographical scope of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program
includes all 50 States of the United States, but the likelihood of
introduction for different species of fruit flies varies considerably by
location and species.
For purposes of discussing the affected environment, this environmental

impact statement (EIS) considers seven ecological regions (ecoregions).
Although these ecoregions do not include all potential program areas, the
ecoregions do include those sites most likely to have introductions of
various fruit fly species. The physical and biological components of
these ecoregions are developed within this chapter. Such an organization
facilitates a broad perspective of the environment, as required for a
programmatic EIS, while allowing a focus on essential aspects of the
environment that may be affected.
1. Environ- Although future fruit fly control programs may occur within any of the
mental 50 United States, past fruit fly introductions suggest that future programs
Character- will probably involve areas where human activity occurs. Such areas
istics of the may be urban, suburban, or agricultural in character, and characterized by
Potential considerable modification of natural features and processes. The
Program majority of the introductions are, however, known to occur in or near
Area residential areas. Most of these introductions can be traced to accidental
or intentional (smuggling) human interventions, where there is a large
volume of movement of international travelers and commodities, such as
in proximity to ports of entry.
IV. Affected Environment 45

In urban and suburban areas, topography and vegetation have been
modified to accommodate buildings and transportation corridors.
Landscaping has changed vegetation patterns and species composition.
Runoff has increased because of channelized water courses and
impervious cover material, which may exceed 40 percent of the area
(McBride and Reid, 1988). Losses of habitat and urban pesticide
treatments (such as for mosquitoes by health departments) have altered
populations of pest species and other insects.
Land in agricultural production is usually intensely managed and

monotypic. Orchards, for example, generally contain a single crop
species planted in uniform, evenly spaced rows, often with a single
species of ground cover between the crops. Physical alteration,
fertilization, irrigation, routine use of a variety of pesticides, and other
agricultural practices have altered the structure and function of the natural
environment. Fertilizers and herbicides have altered geochemical cycles
in both urban and agricultural areas (Brady et al., 1979).
Urban, suburban, and agricultural lands may include (or may be

interspersed with) natural areas such as parks, forests, lakes, and refuges.
Often the transition between the natural areas and the other lands is not
distinct.
The physical and biological characteristics of the area, the agricultural

practices, and the changes that are brought about by human activity all
influence the environmental consequences of a fruit fly program.
2. Ecoregions The geographic area most at risk for future programs falls within the
of the boundaries of seven ecoregions. Refer to figure 4–1 for a general map of
Potential the seven ecoregions and the States included in each. The ecoregions
Program have been adapted from several classification systems now in use
Area (USDA, SCS, 1981; Omernik, 1986; Bailey, 1980; Kuchler, 1964; and
Brown et al., 1977).
California Central Valley and Coastal ecoregion includes southern

coastal and south central valley areas of California. For the purposes of
this EIS, the Sierra Nevada range (usually considered part of this
ecoregion) has been omitted because it is an area unlikely to continuously
support fruit fly populations.
Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion spans potential program

areas in Arizona and southeastern California.
46 IV. Affected Environment

Figure 4–1. Principle Ecoregions of Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

47
Lower Rio Grande Valley ecoregion in Texas is bounded on the east by
the gulf coastal plain and on the south by the Rio Grande River. It marks
the southern terminus of the central Texas plains and includes potential
program areas in southern Texas.
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion is a low-lying area

bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the rolling hills of the southeastern
plains, the Gulf of Mexico, and the southwestern plains. It includes
potential program areas within Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
South Carolina, and Texas.
Mississippi Delta ecoregion includes potential program areas in the

Mississippi River Delta areas of Louisiana and Mississippi.
Floridian ecoregion includes most of peninsular Florida. Potential

program areas are found throughout the State.
Marine Pacific Forest ecoregion includes potential program areas in the

State of Washington and adjacent areas of Oregon. The program areas
are primarily east of the Cascades in the Columbia River Basin. For the
purposes of this EIS, the mountainous areas of the Cascades (usually
considered part of this ecoregion) have been omitted because these areas
are unlikely to continuously support fruit fly populations.
B. Environmental Components
1. The A general description of the physical environment of the potential

Physical program areas (climate, land resources, water resources and quality, and
Environ- air quality) follows. More detailed information on the physical
ment characteristics of the area may be found in tables 4–1 through 4–7, for
each ecoregion, according to major land resources subregions.
a. Climate
The climate of the potential program areas varies considerably. The cool,
wet marine climate of the Pacific Northwest differs from the warm
Mediterranean climate of southern California. The hot climate of the
southwestern desert and lower Rio Grande Valley contrasts with the
cooler climate of the mountains and foothills of the West.

Table 4–1. Land Resources and Characteristics
California Central Valley and Coastal Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Annual Precipitation Temperature
Representative
---------- ----------
Elevation/ Freshwater Introduction
Rainfall Distribution Freeze-free
Subregion Land Use Topography Resources Soils Sites
Period
Central Farming (including dairy), Sea level to 600 m 300 to 750 mm 15 °C (59 °F) Moderate rainfall and Alkaline to acid Cities: Oakland
California crops (wine grapes, (1,969 ft), mostly (12 to 30 in) ---------------------- local streamflow pH, sandy and San Jose
Coastal Valleys strawberries, and other fruits; less than 300 m ---------------------------- 210 to 300 days (inadequate for needs), gravelly loams
cut flowers; small grains; (984 ft) Precipitation very low San Lorenzo River to clay
hay), pasture, ranches, urban mid-spring to mid-
development, wildlife habitats, autumn
salt ponds, recreation
Central Farming and ranching (80%), Sea level to 800 m 300 to 1,025 mm 16 °C (61 °F) Low to moderate Acid to alkaline City of San Luis
California Federal property, open (2,625 ft) up to (12 to 40 in) ---------------------- rainfall; moderate pH, sandy loam Obispo
Coastal Range woodland, forests, urban 1,500 m (4,922 ft) ---------------------------- 120 to 270 days streamflow; Nacimiento to clay
areas in some mountains Precipitation evenly and San Antonio
distributed throughout Reservoirs; Salinas
fall, winter, and spring; River
low in summer
California Farming (including asparagus, Below sea level to 325 to 375 mm 16 °C (61 °F) Sloughs and Moderately City of Stockton
Delta sugar beets, potatoes, corn, slightly above sea (13 to 15 inches) ---------------------- waterways, alkaline to
grain, hay), fruit trees, level ---------------------------- 270 days Sacramento River strongly acid
recreation, wildlife habitat, Dry summers pH, silty clay to
pasture clay
Sacramento Farming (fruits, nuts, citrus, Sea level to 125 to 625 mm 18 °C (64 °F); Low rainfall; small Slightly acid to City of
and San grapes, melons, tomatoes, 200 m (656 ft) (5 to 25 inches) 13 °C (55 °F) in streamflow; irrigation moderately Sacramento
Joaquin cotton, hay, grain, rice), ---------------------------- northern area from State and Federal alkaline pH,
Valleys pasture Dry summers, ---------------------- water systems; sandy loam to
rainy winters 230 to 350 days California Aqueduct; clay, some
and groundwater. saline soils.
Canals: Friant-Kern,
Delta-Mendota; Lakes:
Tulare, Buena Vista;
Rivers: San Joaquin,
Kern
49
50
Table 4–1, continued.
Avg. Annual
Temperature
Annual Precipitation Representative
----------
Elevation/ ---------- Freshwater Introduction
Freeze-free
Subregion Land Use Topography Rainfall Distribution Resources Soils Sites
Period
Sierra Nevada Ranching (75%), farming (5%) 200 to 500 m 350 to 900 mm 16 °C (61 °F) Moderate rainfall, Neutral to
Foothills (fruit, nuts, grapes), (656 to 1,641 ft), (14 to 35 inches) ---------------------- intermittent streamflow; moderately acid
brushland, open forest up to 1,200 m ---------------------------- 200 to 320 days storage or local pH, sandy or
(3,937 ft) on Dry summers, moist watershed; and sandy clay loam
mountain peaks winters groundwater. with some rocky
or cobbly sandy
loam
Southern 25% Federal property, Sea level to 600 m 250 to 625 mm 17 °C (63 °F) Low rainfall, intermittent Neutral to Cities:
California 20% urban, 33% brushland, (1,969 ft) (10 to 25 inches) ---------------------- streamflow. Colorado strongly acid pH Anaheim,
Coastal Plain 10 to 20% cropland ---------------------------- 250 to 365 days River Aqueduct, Los Los Angeles,
(subtropical and deciduous Dry summers, fog Angeles Aqueduct, and Riverside,
fruits, grain, truck crops, provides moisture along California Aqueduct. San Diego.
grapes, hay), pasture, dairy the coast Rivers: San Diego and Ports: Los
farming, flower seed Santa Margarita. Angeles and San
production Diego.
Southern 40% Federal property, 600 to 2,400 m 400 to 1,025 mm 16 °C (61 °F) Moderate rainfall, deep Neutral to City of Los
California 5% urban, farming (fruit, (1,969 to 7,874 ft), (16 to 40 inches) ---------------------- sand and gravel moderately Angeles
Mountains grain, hay, citrus, vegetables, up to 3,000 m ---------------------------- 100 to 200 days deposits in valleys yield alkaline pH,
flowers), range, pasture (9,843 ft) peaks Dry summers, some (250 days in water, Colorado River sandy loams to
snow in winter western area) Aqueduct. Rivers: Los clay.
Angeles and Santa
Ana.
Source: Land Resource Regions and Major Land Areas of the United States (Agriculture Handbook 296)
Southwestern Basin and Range Ecoregion

Avg. Annual
Representative
---------- ----------
Period
Sonoran Basin 80% Federal property, 100 m (328 ft) 50 to 250 mm 20 °C (68 °F), Large springs, wells. Neutral to
and Range 20% local government below sea level to (2 to 10 in) in valleys, as low as 10 °C Rivers: Gila and alkaline pH,
property, recreation, range, 1,200 m (3,937 ft) up to 625 mm (25 in) on (50 °F) in Colorado loamy sand to
wildlife habitat, irrigated crops above sea level, mountain slopes mountains cobbly or
(vegetables, fruits, nuts, up to 3,400 m ---------------------------- ---------------------- gravelly sandy
citrus, grapes, cotton, small (11,155 ft) in Even precipitation 240 to 320 days loam
grains, grain sorghum, hay, mountains distributed through-
pasture) out the year
Imperial Valley Farming (irrigated crops -- 50 m (165 ft) 50 to 100 mm 23 °C (73 °F) Wells, Imperial Alkaline pH, Yuma
and Associated citrus, dates, grapes, sugar below sea level (2 to 4 in) ---------------------- Reservoir. sand to silty
Areas beets, vegetables, small to 200 m 280 to 350 days Rivers: Gila and clay loam,
grains, flaxseed, hay, tame (656 ft) above Colorado some stony
pasture grasses), ranching, sea level
recreation, wildlife habitat,
urban development
Central Arizona Farming (irrigated crops-- 300 to 1,100 m 125 to 300 mm 20 °C (68 °F) Deep wells, Lake Akaline pH; Phoenix
Basin and cotton, alfalfa, barley, other (984 to 3,609 ft) (5 to 12 in) ---------------------- Pleasant. Rivers: sandy loam to
Range small grains, lettuce, carrots, ---------------------------- 250 to 300 days Agua Fria, Gila, clay, some
cabbage, cauliflower, other Most precipitation and Santa Cruz gravelly
vegetables, melons, citrus), July through
ranching, wildlife habitat, September, and
urbanization December through
March
Southeastern Community development, 800 to 1,400 m 275 to 375 mm 15 °C (59 °F) Groundwater, Moderately Tucson
Arizona Basin range, recreation, wildlife (2,625 to 4,593 ft) (11 to 15 in) ---------------------- artesian flows. alkaline pH,
and Range habitat, irrigated crops ---------------------------- 150 to 250 days Rivers: sandy loam to
(cotton, corn, alfalfa, small Most precipitation Santa Cruz and gravelly clay
grains, lettuce, and other July through San Pedro loam
crops) September
51
52
Lower Rio Grande Valley Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Representative
---------- ----------
Period
Rio Grande Ranching (beef cattle), wildlife Sea level to 300 m 425 to 700 mm 23 °C (73 °F) Rainfall, deep wells and Moderately Cities of
Valley habitats, crops (cotton, grain (984 ft), mostly (17 to 28 in) ---------------------- ponds, various oxbow alkaline to Brownsville and
sorghum, onions, cabbage, less than 100 m ---------------------------- 300 to 330 days lakes, Falcon slightly acid pH, Harlingen
citrus, and other fruits, warm (328 ft) Maximum precipitation Reservoir, Rio Grande sandy loam to
and cool season vegetables, is during the growing River clay loam
melons, sugarcane) season
Rio Grande Ranching (beef cattle), wildlife 25 m (82 ft) to 425 to 650 mm 22 °C (72 °F) Rainfall, deep wells and Moderately
Plain habitats, crops (grain 200 m (656 ft) (17 to 26 in) ---------------------- ponds, Rio Grande alkaline to
sorghum, cotton, and small ---------------------------- 260 to 325 days River slightly acid pH,
grains for grazing) Maximum precipitation sand to sandy
is during the growing clay loam, some
season gravelly
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Representative
---------- ----------
Period
Gulf Coastal Ranching, urban, recreation, Sea level to 3 m 750 to 1,400 mm 22 °C (72 °F) Rainfall, streams, Alkaline pH, Port of
Saline Prairies rice, grain sorghum, wildlife (10 ft), occasional (30 to 55 in) ---------------------- ponds, Rio Grande clay to sand Brownsville
refuges coastal dunes to ---------------------------- 250 to 330 days River (often saline)
8 m (26 ft) Evenly distributed
throughout year
Gulf Coastal Farming (rice, row crops, Sea level to 50 m 625 to 1,400 mm 21 °C (70 °F) Rainfall, perennial Neutral to City and Port of
Prairies cotton, and hay); range or (164 ft) 25 to 55 in) ---------------------- streams, groundwater, alkaline pH, clay Houston
pasture; forestry; urban ---------------------------- 280 to 320 days San Jacinto River
Slightly higher in winter
Western Gulf Forestry (75%) (used for 25 to 100 m 1,175 to 1,400 mm 20 °C (70 °F) Rainfall, perennial Acid pH, sand
Coastal lumbering), rice, pasture, row (82 to 328 ft) (46 to 55 in) ---------------------- streams, ground water, to loam, high
Flatwoods crops, urban ---------------------------- 260 to 280 days Lake Houston, San water tables
Slightly higher in winter Jacinto River
Eastern Gulf Forestry (used for lumbering), Sea level to 1,325 to 1,625 mm 20 °C (70 °F); Rainfall, perennial Acid pH, sandy, Cities: Mobile,
Coastal State and national forests, 25 m (82 ft) (52 to 64 in) ---------------------- streams, groundwater coastal soils: Biloxi, Gulfport.
Flatwoods 4% crop, 4% pasture ---------------------------- 270 to 290 days (may be affected by sandy to Ports: Mobil and
Maximum in summer salt). Rivers: Dog, organic Gulfport
Escatawpa, Fowl,
Middle, Spanish,
Tchoutacabouffa,
Tensaw, Wolf
Southern 69% woodland, row crops, 25 to 200 m 1,025 to 2,525 mm 18 °C (64 °F) Rainfall, perennial Acid pH, loamy
Coastal Plain melons, vegetables, cereals, (82 to 656 ft) (40 to 99 in) ---------------------- streams, groundwater, or sandy (often
range, pasture, urban ---------------------------- 200 to 280 days reservoirs clay subsoil)
development Maximum in winter and
spring
Atlantic Forestry (70%), wildlife 25 to 50 m 1,025 to 1,400 mm 17 °C (63 °F) Rainfall, perennial Acid pH, sand City and Port of
Coastal refuges, vegetables, fruits, (82 to 164 ft) (40 to 55 in) ---------------------- streams, groundwater. to clay, organic Savannah
Flatwoods cereals, row crops, peanuts ---------------------------- 200 to 280 days Rivers: Ogeechee, soils
Maximum in summer Vernon, Savannah.
53
54
Avg. Annual
Annual Precipitation Temperature Representative
Elevation/ ---------- ---------- Freshwater Introduction
Subregion Land Use Topography Rainfall Distribution Freeze-free Resources Soils Sites
Period
Tidewater Area Forestry (70%), wildlife Sea level to 1,150 to 1,275 mm 19 °C (66 °F) Rainfall, perennial Acid pH, some City and Port of
refuges, pasture, recreation, 25 m (82 ft) (45 to 50 in) ---------------------- streams, groundwater. organic soils, Charleston
row crops, tobacco, ---------------------------- 200 to 300 days Rivers: Ashley, Cooper, soils often wet
vegetables Maximum in summer Coosaw, Edisto, Stono,
Wando, Broad
Mississippi Delta Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Temperature
Annual Precipitation Representative
----------
Elevation/ ---------- Freshwater Introduction
Freeze-free
Subregion Land Use Topography Rainfall Distribution Resources Soils Site
Period
Gulf Coastal Marsh vegetation for wildlife Sea level to 2 m 1,224 to 1,650 mm (48 21 °C (70 °F) Rivers, lakes, bayous, Alkaline pH, City and Port of
Marsh habitat; pasture, rice (7 ft), salt dome to 65 in) ---------------------- manmade canals. organic and New Orleans
islands up to 50 m 280 to 350 days Rivers: Atchafalaya and often saline,
(164 ft) Mississippi often marshy
Southern Woodland, pasture, crops Sea level to 20 m 1,150 to 1,650 mm 18 °C (64 °F) Precipitation,stream- Acid pH, silt City and Port of
Mississippi (cotton, rice, soybeans, (65 ft), mostly (45 to 65 in) ---------------------- flow, groundwater in loam to clay New Orleans
Valley Alluvium wheat, sugarcane), wetland flatland, level to 250 to 340 days northern Louisiana,
wildlife areas gently sloping oxbow lakes, bayous,
flood plains and Mississippi River
low terraces,
swamps
55
56
Floridian Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Representative
---------- ----------
Subregion Land Use Topography Resources Soils Site
Period
Florida 50% Indian reservations, Sea level to less 1,275 to 1,625 mm 24 °C (75 °F) Rainfall, surface water, Organic soils, Everglades
Everglades and national parks, and game than 25 m (82 ft) (50 to 64 in) ---------------------- groundwater, marsh, some with tidal Cities: Miami,
Associated refuges; 35% forest and ---------------------------- 330 to 365 days Everglades, St. John’s flooding Ft. Lauderdale
Areas recreation; 13% crops (winter Maximum precipitation River Port: Miami
vegetables, citrus fruits, in late spring through
avocado, papaya, sugarcane), early autumn
urban development
Southern Farming and ranching; 25 m (82 ft) mostly 1,325 to 1,525 mm 23 °C (73 °F) Rainfall, surface water, Neutral to
Florida 20% forest; 20% crops (citrus flat area (52 to 60 in) ---------------------- and groundwater strongly acid
Lowlands fruits, vegetables, and other ---------------------------- 330 to 360 days pH, sand to
cultivated crops), range, Maximum precipitation loamy sand
pasture; saltwater marsh in summer
South-Central 40% forest, 25% pasture, 25 to 50 m 1,275 to 1,400 mm 22 °C (72 °F) Rainfall, groundwater, Acid pH, sandy Orlando
Florida Ridge 5% crops (citrus, vegetables), (82 to 164 ft), (50 to 55 in) ---------------------- lakes, few perennial to sandy loam
urban development some hills up to ---------------------------- 290 to 350 days streams, Lake Apopka
100 m (328 ft) Maximum precipitation
in summer
Southern 65% forest, 15% pasture, Sea level to 1,300 to 1,525 mm 22 °C (72 °F); Rainfall, surface water, Acid pH, sandy Cities: Tampa,
Florida 15% native range, 3% crops 25 m (82 ft) (51 to 60 in) ---------------------- groundwater. Clearwater,
Flatwoods (mainly winter vegetables, ---------------------------- 290 to 365 days Rivers: St. Petersburg,
citrus and other subtropical Maximum precipitation Caloosahatchee, West Palm
fruits) in summer Kissimmee, Peace, Beach
Withlacoochee; Port:
Lakes: Istokpoka, St. Petersburg
Kissimmee,
Okeechobee
Marine Pacific Forest Ecoregion
Avg. Annual
Representative
---------- ----------
Period
Williamette- Farming (including dairy), Sea level to 460 m 375 to 2,550 mm 11 °C (52 °F) Moderate to heavy Alkaline pH in Cities: Seattle
Puget Sound crops (apples, pears, (1,500 ft); mostly (15 to 102 inches) ---------------------- rainfall; abundant local valleys to acid and Portland
Valleys peaches, cherries, and other 200 m (628 ft) ---------------------------- 120 to 240 days streamflow; rivers pH in
fruits; vegetables; small Precipitation less in around Puget Sound mountains;
grains; hay), pasture, forestry, summer, even for rest and Lower Columbia alluvial, glacial
urban development, wildlife of year River Basin till, and loess;
habitats, recreation sand or silt
loams
Upper Farming (including dairy), 100 to 800 m 150 to 300 mm 10 °C (50 °F) Low to moderate Alkaline pH in Cities:
Columbia River crops (apples, pears, apricots, (2,600 ft) (6 to 12 inches) ---------------------- rainfall; moderate valleys to acid Wenatchee and
Basin peaches, cherries, and other ---------------------------- 120 to 200 days streamflow; Columbia pH in Yakima
fruits; hops; vegetables; small Precipitation heavier in River, Yakima River, mountains;
grains, hay), pasture, Federal winter than in summer and Snake River alluvial, glacial
property, forestry, wildlife till, and loess;
habitats, recreation sand or silt
loams
57
Annual precipitation varies from less than 15 cm (6 in) in the Sonora
Basin and Imperial Valley in Arizona and California, to 251 cm (99 in) in
the southern coastal plain. The climate affects soils, vegetation, and
wildlife that are indigenous to individual areas as well as land resources,
socioeconomics, and human populations in potential program areas.
Degradation of residues from potential program pesticide applications
generally would be greater in areas with higher rainfall and temperatures.
In general, warmer temperatures and longer freeze-free periods allow
fruit fly populations to increase more rapidly with resultant increased
potential for spread.
b. Land Resources
The topography of the potential program area varies from the level to
slightly rolling gulf coast, to steep regions of the Cascades and Sierra
Nevada. Elevations range from 24 m (80 ft) below sea level in the
deserts of California to about 1,372 m (4,500 ft) in the southwestern
Arizona Basin and Range ecoregion or slightly higher in the upper
reaches of the Columbia River Basin. Soil reaction ranges from
predominantly acid in the East to alkaline in the West. Introduced fruit
fly populations would not be expected to survive or get established at
high elevation. Degradation of residues from potential program pesticide
applications would be expected to occur more rapidly at lower elevations.
Varied topography and cropping patterns provide more host crops and
microclimates that contribute to enhanced fruit fly survival and spread.
c. Water Resources and Quality
Water availability varies greatly across the potential program area,

ranging from very abundant in Florida and the eastern gulf coast, to
extremely scarce in the desert regions of the West. The more
mountainous areas are characterized by natural lakes and large, deep
reservoirs. Groundwater is abundant in the valleys and is used for
irrigation and livestock production. Water supply is low to moderate in
the prairie subregions. Surface lakes, shallow wells, and streams in these
areas are used for irrigation and watering of animals. Intermittent waters,
such as seasonally flooded impoundments, are important breeding
grounds as well as migration stops for waterfowl and other wetland
species. The southwest, intermountain areas, Sacramento Valley, and
San Joaquin Valley are characterized by low precipitation and in constant
water sources. Water for irrigation and livestock comes primarily from
the few reservoirs and large rivers. Although the annual precipitation
east of the Cascades in Washington is low, there is a constant source of
available water from the mountains. Potential contamination of surface

water and groundwater resources by program pesticides could pose a
hazard to both wildlife and human populations. Because of agricultural
and other uses, low-level background residues of certain pesticides in
water are common in some areas. Therefore, cumulative effects of the
program use of pesticides must be considered.
d. Air Quality
In general, the air quality of most of the potential program area is good.
Most air pollution problems occur in industrialized and urban areas,
particularly in the Eastern States. The air quality of most of the Western
States is relatively good because of low population densities and lack of
polluting industries. The major air quality problems that do occur in the
West are confined to the urban areas of California (e.g., the Los Angeles
Basin, the San Francisco Bay area, and Sacramento) and the smelter
industrial areas of southeastern Arizona. Some undesirable conditions
are also associated with agricultural activities and urbanization in central
California. Release of radioactive particles from the U.S. Department of
Energy’s facilities in Hanford, Washington, has been an ongoing issue in
the Columbia River Valley. Because of agricultural and other uses, low-
level background residues of certain pesticides in air are common in
some areas. Consequently, cumulative effects of the program use of
pesticides must be considered.
Reduced air quality (smog) affects visibility, which is especially valued

for some areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
identified special class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) and
vistas outside Class I areas where visibility is an important value. The
best visibility (more than 113 km or 70 mi) exists in the mountainous
Southwest, while the Pacific coastal regions have the worst visibility
(16 to 40 km or 10 to 25 mi). The potential for toxic air pollution
resulting from agricultural and urban pesticide use remains a concern for
the general public.
2. The Human The human population of the potential fruit fly program area is extremely
Population diverse (see table 4–8). The metropolitan areas are not homogeneous, but
include human subpopulations with dissimilar compositions and social
structures. That diversity is apparent, for example, when comparing the
retirement communities of Florida, the Mexican-American communities
of southern Texas, and the Asian-American communities of California.
In addition, communities adjacent to metropolitan areas may include
Native Americans, suburban families, and farmers. Depending on the

Table 4–8. Demographics of Potential Fruit Fly Program Areas by Ecoregion
Ecoregion Statewide Data Metropolitan Area Data
State % <5 % >65 % Major % % Per1

years years population in city or Hispanic Asian capita
old old metropolitan metro income
areas area(s)
California CA 8.6 10.6 95.7 Los Angeles- 32.9 9.2 18,938

Central Valley Anaheim-
and Coastal Riverside
San Francisco- 15.5 14.8 22,438

Oakland-
San Jose
San Diego 20.4 7.9 17,576
Sacramento 11.6 7.7 17,050
Southwestern AZ 8.7 13.1 79.0 Phoenix 16.3 1.7 16,815

Basin and
Range Tucson 24.5 1.8 14,995
Lower Rio TX 8.7 10.1 81.6 Brownsville- 81.9 ND2 14,753

Grande Valley Harlingen
Southeastern SC 7.5 11.1 60.6 Charleston ND ND 12,907

and Gulf Coastal
Plain GA 7.9 10.1 65.0 Savannah 1.4 1.1 15,280
AL 7.2 12.7 67.4 Mobile ND ND 12,814
MS 7.7 12.4 30.1 Biloxi ND ND 11,055
TX 8.7 10.1 81.6 Houston3 20.8 3.6 16,129
Mississippi Delta LA 8.3 11.1 69.5 New Orleans 4.3 1.7 14,034
Floridian FL 7.0 18.0 90.8 Miami-Ft. 33.3 0.7 18,322

Lauderdale
Tampa-St. 6.7 1.5 16,409

Petersburg-
Clearwater
West Palm 7.7 1.0 16,515

Beach
Orlando 9.0 1.9 16,525
Marine Pacific OR 6.9 13.9 68.5 Portland4 3.2 5.3 16,446

Forest
WA 7.7 11.9 81.7 Seattle4 3.6 11.8 16,446
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1991.
1
Data from 1988, in dollars. Data are statewide averages for Tucson, Brownsville-Harlingen, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile,
Biloxi, and West Palm Beach (no metropolitan area data available).
2
ND - No Data Available.
3
The Houston data also include the Galveston-Brazoria metropolitan area, which is not in the potential program area.
4
Portland and Seattle are part of the same metropolitan area for per capita income.

locale of future programs (hence, also community structure and activity),
the exposure to fruit fly control activities could vary considerably.
The economic levels vary widely across the potential fruit fly program
area as well. Within the potential program areas, the lowest per capita
incomes are in South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. Although per
capita income in metropolitan areas is higher than statewide averages,
every large city contains at least one area characterized by low-income
residents; homeless people are more numerous in cities than in rural
areas.
The general health of a human population may be influenced by the

population’s economic status in that low-income people are often not
able to afford nutritious food and good health care. Studies have
demonstrated that liver disease and protein or thiamine deficiency can
increase sensitivity to the effects of organophosphate pesticides
(Casterline and Williams, 1969; Cavagna et al., 1969). Thus, populations
prone to these conditions may be at greater risk than the general
population. In general, differences in populations that influence
individual’s risks are generally compensated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s use of “ten-fold safety factors” in risk assessments.
The diverse demographic and economic characteristics of the potential

program area indicate the need for special considerations in carrying out
program activities. These considerations relate primarily to issues related
to Environmental Justice for minority and low income populations (refer
to section VIII.E). Notification of treatment, an important aspect of the
program, can be complicated by language differences. The higher
percentages of Hispanic or Asian Americans in cities such as
Brownsville, Texas, and San Francisco, California, suggest that
notification and other public communication may need to be presented in
languages other than English.
Other human factors such as age, income, health, and culture may pose
problems that will require special program considerations in order to
minimize exposure to pesticides and resultant risk. Certain segments of
the population (such as some of the elderly and children) will be more
sensitive to the program activities than the majority of the population.
Generally, metropolitan areas can be expected to include populations
with a lower-than-average income and therefore with less health care, as
well as more homeless people. Nonurban populations with low income
might have more reliance on backyard fruits and vegetables as a food
source. Cultural practices are another consideration if the program
expands beyond metropolitan areas into Native American lands (such as
those surrounding San Diego, California or Phoenix and Tucson,

Arizona); program activities could affect a population of low-income
sustenance farmers whose exposure might be greater because of their
cultural practices (i.e., use of wild food).
a. Cultural Resources
Cultural resources (see table 4–9) are those resources that contribute to
intellectual or aesthetic education. Cultural resources include historic
sites, archaeological sites, Native American lands, religious sites, zoos,
and arboreta. Many such sites exist within the potential program area,
but those most likely to be affected by fruit fly program actions are
located closest to urban areas where program activities will most likely
occur.
Table 4–9. Representative Cultural Resources of Potential Fruit Fly Program Areas by
Ecoregion
Ecoregion City and State Representative Cultural Resources
California Central Valley and Los Angeles-Anaheim- University of California Botanical Gardens, Los Angeles
Coastal Riverside, CA Zoo, Los Angeles Arboretum
San Diego, CA Quail Botanical Gardens, San Diego Zoo, Indian
reservations
Southwestern Basin and Range Phoenix, AZ Westward Expansion historical sites, Indian reservations,
Phoenix Zoo, Desert Botanical Garden
Superior, AZ Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum
Tucson, AZ Spanish historical sites, Indian reservations, Desert
Museum, Tucson Botanical Gardens
Lower Rio Grande Valley Brownsville, TX Palo Alto National Historic Site
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Charleston, SC Magnolia Plantations, Cypress Gardens, Fort Sumter and
Plain other Civil War historical sites
Savannah, GA Colonial and Civil War historical sites
Mobile, AL Historical sites
Biloxi, MS Historical sites
Houston, TX Houston Zoological Gardens
Mississippi Delta New Orleans, LA French historical sites, Longue Vue House and Gardens,
Louisiana Nature Center
Floridian Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL Metro Zoo, Orchid Jungle, Fairchild Tropical Garden,
Seminole Indian Village reconstruction, Butterfly World
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL Gamble Plantation, Yulee Sugar Mill, De Sota National
Monument, Weedon Island Indian Mounds
Orlando, FL Fort Mellon, Mead Botanical Gardens
Marine Pacific Forest Portland, OR Portland Zoo, Forest Hills Park
Seattle, WA Seattle Zoo, botanical gardens, parks and trails

Cultural resources of special concern with respect to pest eradication
programs include zoos, arboreta, and gardens because they contain
nontarget species. The Floridian and California Central Valley and
Coastal ecoregions have a large number of such sites in metropolitan
areas.
Historic, archaeological, and Native American sites are protected by the

National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological and Historical
Preservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act. Furthermore, many Native American reservations are
considered as sovereign nations and, therefore, fruit fly program activities
would have to be coordinated with their councils or the equivalent .
b. Visual Resources
Visual resources (see table 4–10) consist of the landscapes and wildlife of
a particular area. Natural visual resources are preserved in parks, forests,
and wilderness areas. Most “scenic areas” are located some distance
from urban centers; however, a few are near major cities in the potential
fruit fly program area, and could be affected by program activities. For
example, traps placed in city parks could detract from the appearance of
blossoms or foliage; equipment noise (trucks, airplanes, or helicopters)
could intrude upon otherwise peaceful areas; and bird watchers or other
visitors to natural areas could become upset if wildlife species are
affected by program activities or treatments.
3. Nontarget The nontarget species of the potential program area include the plants,
Species animals, and microorganisms that are found there. These organisms exist
as individuals, populations, and multispecies communities. They are
dynamic, interactive components of their ecosystems which undergo
structural and functional change and vary with location and over time. A
broad consideration of the biological environment promotes
understanding of the biological systems which are exposed to program
operations and facilitates a more detailed analysis of the organisms or
systems which might be at risk from those operations.
a. Domestic Animal and Plant Species
Fruit fly eradication efforts typically occur in urban, suburban, and

agricultural areas. Domesticated species which may be exposed to
program operations include dogs, cats, tropical pet birds, and in some
locations, livestock and poultry. Goldfish or koi ponds and stock ponds
occur in some locales.

Table 4–10. Representative Visual Resources of Potential Program Areas by Ecoregion
Ecoregion City and State Representative Visual Resources1
California Central Valley and Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, Cucamonga WA, San Gabriel WA
Coastal CA
San Diego, CA Sweetwater Marsh NWR, Tijuana Slough NWR, Agua
Tibia WA, Hauser WA, Pine Creek WA, San Mateo
Canyon WA
Southwestern Basin and Phoenix, AZ Tonto NF
Range
Tucson, AZ Saguaro WA, Coronado NF
Lower Rio Grande Valley Brownsville, TX Laguna Atascosa NWR
Southeastern and Gulf Charleston, SC Cape Romain WA, Little Wambaw Swamp WA,
Coastal Plain Wambaw Creek WA
Savannah, GA Savannah NWR, Tybee NWR
Mobile, AL Bon Secour NWR
Biloxi, MS Deer Island
Houston, TX Sheldon WMA, Armond Bayou WMA
Mississippi Delta New Orleans, LA Bayou Sauvage NWR, Bohemia State Park WMA
Floridian Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL Biscayne NP, Everglades NP and WA, Hugh Taylor
Birch SP
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL Weedon Island Preserve, Pinellas NWR, Caladesi
Island SP
Orlando, FL Clear Lake, Lake Fairview, other lakes
Marine Pacific Forest Portland, OR Columbia River, Williamette Valley, Mt. Hood
Seattle, WA Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Pacific Cascades, San
Juan Islands
1
Abbreviations: NF = National Forest, NP = National Park, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SP = State Park, WA = Wilderness
Area, WMA = State Wildlife Management Area.
Commercial aquaculture enterprises may rear fish or crustaceans in

natural or artificial impoundments and are of major regional importance.
Backyard gardens occur throughout the program area. Annuals (such as

peppers and tomatoes) as well as perennials (such as citrus and avocado
trees) are commonly grown. Many of these are fruit fly hosts.
Commercial groves of host plants such as apricots, apples, peaches, pome
fruits, and citrus are found throughout the program area. There are
organic growers found at certain locations within the program area, and
their needs are an important program consideration.
b. Wild Animal and Plant Species
The numbers and kinds of wildlife associated with particular habitats

depend on the season and on land resources. Typical species include a
variety of invertebrate fauna, birds (American kestrels, European
starlings, barn swallows, meadowlarks, and other songbirds), mice and

other rodents, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, bats, and in
some areas, coyotes.
Throughout the program area, soil and sediment support a great diversity
of organisms which may inhabit the surface layer, occur beneath leaf
litter or detritus, or are distributed throughout several layers. Earthworms
and microorganisms inhabit the soil; many insects spend portions of their
life cycle as larvae or pupae in soil and sediments. These species provide
food for a variety of fish, birds, and small mammals.
Water birds, including ducks, frequent lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

throughout the program area. Introduced and native fish (including
shiners, sunfish, bass, and catfish) occur in these water bodies as well as
canals. Commercial and sport fishing occur throughout the program area.
Representative species for each ecoregion are presented in tables 4–11

through 4–17. A sampling of typical species is analyzed in the nontarget
risk assessment (incorporated by reference). The assessment serves as
the basis for an evaluation of potential environmental consequences of
the fruit fly eradication program.
c. Habitats of Concern
Aquatic habitats within the program area are of special concern because
of the vulnerability of aquatic species to program pesticides, especially
malathion. These habitats support a variety of endangered and threatened
species, particularly in the more arid program areas. Estuaries are
spawning and nursery grounds for many marine and anadromous fish, as
well as crustaceans and mollusks. They support a high density and
diversity of birds, as well as plankton, which provides the base for many
food webs. Sediments contain a variety of macroinvertebrate species,
many of which are sensitive to program pesticides. In addition,
intermittent streams and ponds are seasonally important as breeding and
egg development habitat for amphibians, and as reservoirs for migratory
waterfowl. These areas often contain a variety of rare plants.
There is some disagreement as to the precise definition of a jurisdictional

(regulated) wetland. Whether broadly or narrowly interpreted, there is a
consensus that wetlands are extremely valuable ecosystem components.
They provide wildlife habitat, flood control enhancement, water quality
improvement, sediment stabilization, nutrient transformation, and
groundwater recharge/discharge. Degradation of water quality in any

66
Table 4–11. Biological Resources
California Central Valley and Coastal Ecoregion
Representative Representative Other
Habitat Dominant Vegetation Mammals Birds Nontarget Species Significance/Status
Grassland Brome, fescue, wild oats Pocket gopher, California vole, Western meadowlark, Gopher snake, grasshoppers, Valuable for wintering
mule deer, coyote, California savannah sparrow, American spiders birds; introduced grasses
ground squirrel, black-tailed kestrel, horned lark, western predominate; converted to
jackrabbit kingbird, killdeer agriculture and rangeland
Scrubland Interior: chamise, California Brush rabbit, brush mouse, California quail, California Western rattlesnake, coast Interspersed with urban
lilac, toyon dusky-footed wood rat, bobcat, thrasher, rufous-sided horned lizard, alligator lizards, areas near coast;
Coast: coyote brush, purple gray fox towhee, sage sparrow, common kingsnake development threatens
and black sage, coastal wrentit southern sage scrub
sagebrush, scub oak
Woodland Valley oak, interior live oak, Mule deer, raccoon, striped Acorn woodpecker, plain Arboreal salamander, slender Variety of wildlife foods;
blue oak, coastline oak, skunk, bobcat, western gray titmouse, western bluebird, salamanders, alligator lizards, some southern woodlands
California buckeye, Engelmann squirrel, deer mouse American crow, scrub jay western fence lizard, ring- reduced by development
oak necked snake
Aquatic Fresh marsh: cattail, sedge, Muskrat, beaver Great blue heron, red-winged Garter snakes, red-legged Especially valuable for
bulrush. blackbird, marsh wren, frog, western toad, Pacific wintering waterfowl; coastal
Salt marsh: salt grass, mallard, Virginia rail tree frog, California newt, marshes sometime near
pickleweed, frankenia mosquitofish, California urban areas
killifish, bluegill
IV. Affected Environment Table 4–12. Biological Resources
Southwestern Basin and Range Ecoregion
Mojave and Joshua tree, ocotillo, Antelope squirrel, kangaroo Scott’s oriole, white- Chuckwalla, fringe-toed Slow to recover from
Sonoran Deserts Mojave yucca, California rats, black-tailed jackrabbit, winged dove, greater lizards, zebra-tailed lizard, disturbance, e.g., off-road
juniper, saltbush, spiny round-tailed ground squirrel, roadrunner, Gila side-blotched lizard, vehicle use
sage brush, creosote kangaroo rats, cactus mouse, woodpecker, cactus shovel-nosed snake,
bush, saguaro, cholla desert mule deer, coyote, wren, LeConte’s glossy snake, western
cactus, burro bush desert pocket mouse thrasher, common whiptail
poorwill, Gambel’s quail,
elf owl
Wash Mesquite, catclaw acacia, Bailey pocket mouse, white- Black-throated sparrow, Red-spotted toad, Desert wildlife concentrates
smoke tree, blue palo throated woodrat, javelina, verdin, black-tailed spadefoot toads, desert here
verde, ironwood mule deer, coyote gnatcatcher spiny lizard, brush lizard,
horned lizards, tiger
rattlesnake
Riparian/aquatic Willow, sycamore, Striped skunk, ring-tailed cat, Summer tanager, Lucy Western diamondback Little woodland remains--
cottonwood, saltcedar raccoon, deer mouse warbler, ladder-backed rattlesnake, spiny soft invaded by saltcedar; heavily
woodpecker, yellow-billed shell turtle, Colorado River used by wildlife; often near
cuckoo, green-backed toad, red-side shiner, Gila agricultural and urban areas
heron, mallard topminnow, bluegill
67
68 Table 4–13. Biological Resources
Lower Rio Grande Valley Ecoregion
Mid-grass Grama, three-awns, White-tailed deer, cotton rat, Turkey, turkey vulture, Grasshoppers, spiders, Little native grassland
grasslands bluestems, curly mesquite, coyote, least shrew, Mexican bobwhite, scaled quail, Texas ratsnake, bullsnake remains; converted to
buffelgrass (introduced) ground squirrel, Eastern mourning dove, great agriculture or rangeland
cottontail horned owl, meadowlark uses; brush encroachment
Shrublands Blackbush (acacia), Javelina, raccoon, white- Harris’ hawk, scaled Spotted whiptail, rose- Many community types--
mesquite, guajillo, granjeno, tailed deer, Mexican spiney quail, white-winged dove, bellied lizard, reticulate largely fragmented, some
pricklypear, ceniza pocket mouse, striped skunk, mourning dove, collared lizard, threatened; nesting sites;
jackrabbit, bats mockingbird, lesser diamondback rattlesnake, used by migratory raptors;
nighthawk Texas tortoise wildlife corridors; refugia
from disturbed sites;
native citrus thicket (Starr
County)
Riparian Mesquite, granjeno, cedar Bobcat, ocelot, raccoon, bats, Ferruginous pygmy owl, Giant toad, Rio Grande Variety of wildlife foods;
woodlands elm, hackberry, acacias, white-footed mouse orioles, mourning dove, leopard frog, Texas indigo roosting and feeding
many fruiting species chachalaca, green jay, snake, blue tilapia areas; only occurrence of
kingfishers, warblers, (introduced), killifish, many species in the
boat-tailed grackle catfish, green sunfish United States; unique
biota in aquatic habitats
Seasonally wet Granjeno, huisache, Ocelot, jaguarundi White-winged dove, white Reticulate collared lizard, Wintering waterfowl
basins and mesquite, pricklypear, Texas pelican, sandhill crane, Texas tortoise habitat; habitat for many
potholes persimmon black-bellied tree duck Texas rare and threatened
species
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion
Alluvial and Bald cypress, swamp gum, Otter, muskrat, raccoon Red-eyed vireo, wood Many insects, eastern mud Flood control; high density
floodplain tupelo, swamp nettle duck, pied-billed grebe turtle, marbled of nesting birds and
salamander, ratsnake amphibians
Marsh Cordgrass, rushes, sedges, Muskrat, marsh rice rat Herons, egrets, ducks, Many insects and other Rookeries, fish nurseries
wild rice, some shrubs common gallinule invertebrates
Pine forest Species of pine, bay, Opossum, white-tailed deer, Long-eared owl, pine Tiger salamander, box Cover and nesting sites;
blueberry, spicebush, gray squirrel, short-tailed warbler, red-cockaded turtle, coral snake, gopher few old growth forests
hydrangea shrew, striped skunk, woodpecker tortoise remain, most are
raccoon, big-eared bat, red intensively managed
fox
Hardwood forest Species of oak, gum, Opossum, white-tailed deer, White-eyed vireo, blue
hickory, elderberry, gray squirrel, short-tailed jay, great-crested
greenbriar, ferns shrew, striped skunk, flycatcher, wood duck,
raccoon, big-eared bat, red red-tailed hawk, cardinal
fox
Grassland Species of bluestem or Ground squirrel, cottontail, Common nighthawk, Many insects Undisturbed grasslands
panic grass plains woodrat eastern meadowlark, very rare
bobwhite, killdeer,
scissor-tailed flycatcher,
mockingbird
69
70 Table 4–15. Biological Resources
Mississippi Delta Ecoregion
Salt marsh Smooth cordgrass, wire Muskrat, otter, Norway rat Marsh hawk, pintail, Gulf salt marsh snake, gulf Feeding grounds for nesting
grass, salt grass, black common loon, white coast toad, diamondback and migrating birds; fish
rush pelican terrapin nursery
Fresh/brackish Maidencane, bulltongue, Nutria, harvest mouse, rice Scaup, teal, widgeon, Green treefrog, green Feeding grounds for nesting
marsh spike rush, alligator weed rat gadwall, shoveler, anole, green frog and migrating birds
mottled duck
Bottomland Water oak, overcup oak, White-tailed deer, opossum, Wood duck, red- Three-toed box turtle, Very high nesting density;
hardwood bitter pecan, green ash, cottontail shouldered hawk, turkey Mississippi ring-necked habitat for large mammals
hawthorns vulture snake
Swamp Southern cypress, bald Mink, bobcat, swamp rabbit, Great blue heron, great Western cottonmouth, Rookeries for herons and
cypress, pond cypress, red bat egret, anhinga, white ibis, green anole, bronze frog, egrets
tupelo, black willow, swamp Louisiana heron alligator
gum, cottonwood, button
bush, swamp privet
Levee Water oak, live oak, Rice rat, fulvous harvest Bronze frog, ribbon snake, Refuge during flooding; dry
hackberry, American elm, mouse, least shrew narrow-mouthed toad land corridors
honeylocust, hawthorn,
marsh elder, groundsel
bush
Floridian Ecoregion
Cypress Cypress, longleaf pine, Cotton mouse, raccoon, Wood stork, herons, Alligators, spiders, aquatic More rare or endangered
swamps slash pine, sabal palm shrews Everglades snail kite, invertebrates species found in Cypress
turkey, warblers, bald Swamps than any other Florida
eagle swamp; Florida panther habitat
Freshwater Pickeral weed, beakrush, White-tailed deer, Florida Egrets, wood stork, Apple snail, amphipods
marshes maidencane, sawgrass water rat ducks, Florida sandhill (scuds), prawns, catfish,
crane alligator
Lakes, rivers, Water hyacinth, cattails, Raccoon, river otter, Kingfisher, herons, Zooplankton, snails,
canals eelgrass, pondweed manatee egrets, anhinga clams, gar, catfish,
suckers, silversides,
minnows, sunfish
Mangroves Black mangroves, red Raccoon, river otter, striped Brown pelican, spoonbill, Tarpon, mullet, snappers, Nursery area for many
mangrove, white skunk, black bear, manatee wood stork, egrets, shrimp, sea turtles, commercial fish species
mangrove, buttonwood herons American crocodile
Salt marshes Saltmarsh cordgrass, Raccoon, marsh rabbit, Common egret, Fiddler crab, shrimp, Nursery area for many fish
saltbush cotton rats, bottlenose swallows, marsh wren, marsh crab, species
dolphin, rice rat seaside sparrow grasshoppers, plant
hoppers, spiders,
diamondback terrapin
Pine flatwoods Longleaf pine, slash pine, White-tailed deer, cotton Brown-headed nuthatch, Box turtle, black racer,
wax myrtle, saw palmetto mouse, cotton rat, gray fox, pine warbler, great pinewoods snake, anoles
fox squirrel horned owl
Scrub Scrub oak, saw palmetto, Flying squirrel, Florida Florida scrub jay, Florida scrub lizard, blue- 40 to 60% of the species are
myrtle oak, sand live oak, mouse, cotton mouse, bobwhite, common tailed mole skink, gopher endemic
Florida rosemary bobcat, gray fox, white-tailed nighthawk, palm warbler, tortoise, sand skink
deer woodpeckers, screech
owl
Dry prairies Switch grass, saw Cotton rat, nine-banded Florida sandhill crane, Box turtle, black racer
palmetto, wiregrass, armadillo, Eastern harvest common nighthawk,
gallberry mouse, Eastern spotted vultures, burrowing owls,
skunk crested caracara
71
72
Table IV-16 , continued.

Rocklands Gumbo limbo, pigeon plum, Opossum, key deer, Florida Northern cardinal, gray Florida tree snail, Schaus Many tropical species only
royal palm, live oak, mastiff bat, mangrove fox kingbird, Carolina wren, swallowtail, anoles found in this habitat of the
strangler fig, wild coffee squirrel, white-tailed deer, red-bellied woodpecker, United States
raccoon pine warbler
Coastal dunes Sea oats, sea lavender, Marsh rabbit, rice rat, Seaside sparrow, marsh Sea turtles, diamondback
saltbush raccoon, cotton rat wren, wading birds, fish terrapin, marsh crab,
crow fiddler crab, grasshoppers,
mollusks
Marine Pacific Forest Ecoregion
Grassland Needle and thread grass, Mule deer, rabbits, coyote Western meadowlark, Gopher snake, Valuable for wintering
bunchgrass, wheatgrass, grouse, mourning dove, grasshoppers, spiders birds; introduced grasses
downy brome American kestrel, western predominate; converted to
kingbird, killdeer agriculture and range land
Woodland Western redcedar, hemlock, Western gray squirrel, Western bluebird, Western rattlesnake Variety of wildlife foods;
Douglas-fir opossum, black-tailed deer, American crow, scrub jay strong lumber industry
deer mouse, bobcat
Alluvial and Willow, cottonwood, cattail, Muskrat, beaver, mink Great blue heron, mallard Garter snake, Western Especially valuable for
floodplain sedge, bulrush duck, red-winged toad, Pacific tree frog, wintering waterfowl;
blackbird bluegill, mosquitofish, coastal marshes near
rainbow trout urban areas
73
aquatic or wetland habitat could disrupt food webs and have serious
implications for composition, density, and diversity of invertebrate, fish,
and bird species.
The Eastern coastal plain wetlands have been designated by the U.S.
Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as Habitats
of Special Concern because of their value to migrating birds and as
breeding grounds for shorebirds. As a whole, the Mississippi Delta is
adversely affected by the high rates of erosion and submergence caused,
in part, by human alteration of the natural drainage systems. The
wetlands of the delta are designated as Habitats of Special Concern for
waterfowl.
Much of the southern tip of Florida is occupied by Everglades National

Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and several smaller State and
private wildlife refuges. The Everglades’ ecosystem is unique in North
America and many species are threatened or endangered. Water
management projects have altered the timing and quantity of freshwater
flow, and preservation of the Everglades’ ecosystem relies on the supply
of high-quality water from the north. Runoff from adjacent agricultural
and urban areas can enter the water conservation areas and contaminate
water in the park with high concentrations of nutrients and pesticides.
Wildlife refuges and other land preserves are also areas of potential
concern. These lands have been set aside to protect wildlife resources
and often become islands surrounded by altered, intensely managed land.
Generally comprised of many habitat types, they serve as refuges for less
common species, provide wildlife corridors, and are important habitats
for migratory birds. Nature Conservancy lands are protected because
they contain unique features, which often includes rare plants. Impacts to
these habitats could affect many species.
The Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Cameron

County, Texas, on the gulf coastal plain, is the southernmost waterfowl
refuge in the central flyway, and is a primary overwintering area. It is the
focal point for the recovery of the endangered northern aplomado falcon.
FWS has issued a Biological Opinion that the use of chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, and several other pesticides will jeopardize the continued
existence of this species. As a result, FWS has recommended a 20-mile
prohibited-use zone around the refuge for these pesticides.
In addition to national- or State-protected areas, many areas of

considerable importance are not afforded protection. An example of an
unprotected area is the Colorado River in Yuma County, Arizona, which

is known internationally as a prime bird watching location. Many such
locations occur throughout the program area.
The Columbia River Basin and the tributaries of Puget Sound in

Washington State are also important wildlife habitats. The damming and
diversion of water on the Columbia River have threatened the survival of
several species of anadromous fish, particularly salmon.
d. Endangered and Threatened Species
Various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States are so
few in number that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction.
The decline of most of these species is directly related to loss of a habitat,
but may also be the result of other factors including hunting, collecting,
pollution, road kills, interspecies competition, or pesticides. (Refer to
appendix D for a listing of species in potential program areas.) More
than 200 federally listed species are found within the potential program
area; they include plants, birds, fish, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and
at least one insect.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) mandates the protection of federally-listed endangered and
threatened species and their critical habitats. It also requires Federal
agencies to consult with FWS or the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that any actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or a species proposed for listing,
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat
or its proposed critical habitat. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has the authority to require that pesticide labels
comply with requirements of ESA.
Because of the existence of endangered or threatened species found

within fruit fly program areas, APHIS consults with FWS. For the
Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program, for example, APHIS prepared
a biological assessment (incorporated by reference) for endangered and
threatened species to determine if those species may be affected, either
directly or indirectly, by program operations (especially those related to
pesticide usage).
For the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program, which has even broader
scope than the Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program (all 50 of the
United States are subject to fruit fly infestations from one or more
species), the potentially affected endangered and threatened species

include all of those species which are federally listed for the entire
United States. APHIS presently is consulting with FWS and NMFS for
the States which are at the highest risk of fruit fly infestations:
California, Florida, Texas, and Washington. In consultation with FWS
and NMFS, APHIS is determining which control methods may be used
safely within the range and habitats of the endangered and threatened
species. If fruit fly infestations are detected in other States, individual
site-specific consultations with FWS will take place to ensure protection
of the species. APHIS will abide by protection measures for endangered
and threatened species that are developed in cooperation with FWS
and/or NMFS. Such consultations and any relevant protection measures
will be finalized before program operations are initiated.

V. Environmental Consequences
A. Introduction
1. General The environmental consequences of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control

Approach Program result from or are related to program actions (especially program
use of chemical control methods). This chapter focuses on the potential
effects of chemical control methods, and analyzes potential effects of
nonchemical and chemical methods on: the physical environment,
human health and safety, biological resources, socioeconomics, and
cultural and visual resources. Control methods are individually analyzed
and discussed, but a section on cumulative effects contains information
on potential effects of the combined use of control methods. Refer also
to chapter III, Alternatives, which characterizes program alternatives and
control methods in detail.
2. Risk The potential environmental consequences were analyzed qualitatively

Assess- and quantitatively. Chemical control methods were quantitatively
ment assessed in a human health risk assessment (APHIS, 1998a) and a
Method- nontarget risk assessment (APHIS, 1998b), incorporated by reference.
ology More recently, a human health risk assessment (APHIS, 1999a) and a
nontarget risk assessment (APHIS, 1999b) were completed for spinosad
bait spray applications and these documents are also incorporated by
reference. All control methods were qualitatively assessed. Findings of
these analyses are summarized within this chapter.
Classical risk assessment methodologies (NRC, 1983) were used for both
the human health and nontarget risk assessments. Using the guidelines
provided by National Research Council, the risk assessments employ
existing government risk assessments and risk assessment
methodologies, where possible, to avoid a duplication of effort, capitalize
on the expertise of other organizations, and allow a more concise
document. Each risk assessment had the following components: hazard
assessment; exposure analysis (and dose-response assessment for
quantitative risk calculations); and risk assessment characterization. The
risk assessments are not predictive of what will occur, but rather what
could occur in a program. The characterizations of risk that are
determined assume the usage of control methods in specific ways and
under certain circumstances. The assumptions involve reasonably
foreseeable events and represent most possible exposures. Based on
actual program operations and observed results, the results of these
assessments should be considered to be conservative (tending to err on
the side of higher rather than lower risk). The probability of the
V. Environmental Consequences 77
occurrence of the analyses' results cannot be determined. More detailed
discussions of the methodology are in the human health and nontarget
risk assessments (APHIS, 1998). A review of the general approach
follows.
a. Hazard Assessment
The hazard of each chemical to either humans or nontarget species was

assessed by reviewing toxicity studies of species that best simulated the
physiology and behavior of humans or other nontarget species under
evaluation. Benchmark or reference toxicity values used in the risk
characterization were identified from acute exposure studies for the
nontarget species and from acute, subchronic, and chronic exposure
studies for humans.
Laboratory toxicity studies provide the basis for assessing quantitatively

the hazard of a chemical. These studies use a variety of concentrations
and formulations. Very few toxicity studies have been conducted with
the exact formulations used in APHIS fruit fly programs. Hazard is,
therefore, based on toxicity information available for each chemical to
approximate toxicity of the specific formulations.
b. Exposure Analysis
Specific scenarios based on the program application methods, chemical

concentrations, and exposed populations were developed to estimate
exposures. To assess the plausible ranges of potential exposure, certain
conditions within each scenario were varied to account for routine,
extreme, and (for humans) accidental exposures. After environmental
concentrations were estimated through the use of models or based upon
application rates, dose estimates for the individual human or nontarget
species were calculated, considering oral, dermal, and inhalation routes
of exposure.
Because this analysis considered (from a programmatic perspective)

scenarios incorporating control methods that could be used across the
broad program area, its routine scenarios are very conservative and tend
to overestimate the actual exposure for specific scenarios.
c. Risk Assessment
The quantitative risk assessments are based on methodologies and

models detailed in sections C ("The Human Population") and D
78 V. Environmental Consequences
("Nontarget Species") of this chapter. Results of these analyses were
compared with actual fruit fly program data when these data were
available. In the human health risk assessment, the calculated dose
estimates were compared with the reference or benchmark toxicity values
to express the level of concern for a particular exposure scenario or set of
scenarios. The risk to an individual was determined by comparing the
estimated dose and the reference or benchmark value. The magnitude of
this ratio indicated the degree of risk. Risks to nontarget species were
estimated for the population as a whole rather than individual organisms.
d. Computer Modeling
Computer models were used to estimate the concentrations of pesticides

in the environment and exposure to humans and nontarget species. The
environmental fate models provided estimates of pesticide concentrations
in air, soil, water, and on vegetation. A model developed by USDA's
Forest Service, the Forest Service Cramer Barry Grim (FSCBG) model,
was used to estimate bait spray residues from drift on soil and vegetation
outside the treatment area.
The Groundwater Loading Effects in Agricultural Management Systems

(GLEAMS) model was used to estimate pesticide concentrations in soil,
runoff water, and groundwater. Environmental Services (ES) of APHIS
developed a surface water model that was used to estimate bait spray
concentrations in aquatic systems. Estimated environmental
concentrations from these models and other sources were used in the
exposure models. APHIS extrapolated from field measurements (Segawa
et al., 1991), made adjustments to the application rate, and used the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide monograph (Urban
and Cook, 1986) to estimate environmental concentrations in air and on
vegetation.
Models and equations used in the human health risk assessment to

estimate exposure and dose were based on methodologies developed and
used by EPA to assess risk for chemicals under that agency's regulatory
authority. APHIS developed two exposure models for its previous
nontarget risk assessment (APHIS, 1992b): one for terrestrial organisms
and another for aquatic species. These models are discussed in section D
("Nontarget Species") of this chapter.
e. Information Data Gaps
New data and more complete information are regularly obtained by

APHIS about the program chemicals and application methods through
independent researchers and monitoring data. This information is
incorporated into risk analyses and applied to environmental assessments
prepared for site-specific programs as it is made available.
The chemical pesticides used in APHIS programs are regulated by EPA.

EPA has responsibility for pesticide registration and reregistration under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, as
modified by the Food Quality Protection Act of August 1996 (FQPA)).
A variety of data, including product and residue chemistry, environmental
fate, and human, wildlife, and aquatic toxicity, are required for this
process (see 40 CFR 158). EPA uses these data to make regulatory
decisions concerning these pesticides.
Data gaps (deficiencies) have been identified by EPA either because

registration requirements have changed or because previously submitted
data have been ruled inadequate under current registration guidelines. In
some cases, data have been submitted since the document and are under
review by EPA.
Data considered inadequate for registration purposes, or data not

submitted to EPA but available through the literature or other sources,
may be adequate to provide indications of potential environmental
effects. Because all data needed for a complete evaluation were not
available, APHIS used the available data and made extrapolations when
necessary. State and/or Federal supplementary or emergency exemptions
may be required to allow the use of some pesticides in the Fruit Fly
Cooperative Control Program. Under FIFRA, EPA grants emergency
exemptions (section 18) or special local need uses (section 24(c)). These
registrations may be required for bait spray applications, soil drenches,
fruit fly male annihilation treatments, and certain regulatory uses of
methyl bromide because the program uses are relatively minor uses
which have not justified the manufacturers to seek the costly and time-
consuming regular registrations. Such registrations have been issued for
earlier eradication efforts, but must be renewed periodically.
B. The Physical Environment
The program control methods were compared with respect to their

potential to affect environmental quality. The concerns over
environmental quality include issues related to the preservation of clean
air, pure water, and a pollution-free environment.
The primary environmental quality impacts from fruit fly programs relate
to the use of various control methods. In particular, the use of chemicals
has multiple issues that relate directly to environmental quality. The
primary issues related to environmental consequences of control methods
on the physical environment are discussed by method in this section.
1. Non- This section presents the potential effects of the nonchemical treatment
chemical methods on the physical components of the environment qualitatively.
Control
Methods a. Sterile Insect Technique
The release of sterile insects is not expected to directly impact soil, water,
and air resources because their relatively small biomass is not anticipated
to contaminate those environmental media to any great extent. Burial or
disposal of debris (paper bags and release cups) associated with sterile
insect technique (SIT) has little potential to result in soil disruption.
Waste products associated with sterile insect production are disposed of
in compliance with local laws and regulations.
Effects from SIT operations are not expected to greatly exceed the
impacts associated with routine procedures that growers or homeowners
use during planting, gardening, yard maintenance, or waste disposal
operations. Only minor soil impacts will result from vehicular and foot
traffic associated with monitoring of traps used with this technique.
(If SIT is used in combination with chemical control methods as a part of

integrated control, then the risks associated with the use of those
chemicals would also apply.)
b. Physical Control
Physical control methods (fruit stripping and host removal) may result in
some soil disruption. Such activities also may increase soil erosion by
removing protective plant material. In the southwest and western
program areas where little natural vegetative cover exists, soil
disturbances may be exacerbated by runoff during heavy winter
rainstorms. Additionally, soil disturbance may also limit or disrupt
populations of soil microorganisms because of soil desiccation or
erosion.
These potential effects from physical control methods are not expected to
exceed the impacts upon soil, air, or water resources associated with
routine procedures that growers or homeowners use during planting,
gardening, or yard maintenance operations.
c. Cultural Control
Clean culture, or complete harvesting, of fruit fly hosts would not result
in effects on soil, water, or air resources or quality. Burial of host
material would be in existing approved landfills and would not be
expected to result in any measurable increased impact to those facilities.
Soil disturbance may limit or disrupt populations of soil microorganisms
because of soil desiccation or erosion. Most other cultural practices,
including crop in rotations or trap crops, are not applicable to fruit fly
eradication programs.
Although biological control has potential for the future, biological control
of fruit flies has not yet been proven logistically or technologically
feasible on any scale. Therefore, information on biological control
agents' potential effects upon land, water, or air resources and quality is
unavailable at this time.
Biotechnological control methods are currently under development and

are not available for program use at this time. Because the circumstances
surrounding their uses are uncertain, information on their potential effects
upon land, water, or air resources and quality cannot be determined at this
time.
f. Cold Treatment

supervision. This treatment is only applicable to certain approved
commodities. The necessary restrictions (duration of treatments and
approval of facilities) and availability of facilities for cold treatment are
likely to continue to limit the use of this treatment. The impacts on the
physical environment would not be expected to differ from those
resulting from cold storage facilities of comparable size. The use of cold
treatment is expected to have negligible environmental impact to soil,
water, or air resources or quality.
Irradiation treatments are conducted in approved facilities in accordance

with stringent safety guidelines. This treatment method is limited to use
on certain approved commodities that are compatible with the radiation
exposure. Other commodities could be destroyed or ruined by this
exposure. The irradiation equipment is designed to release radiation to
the regulated commodity only. Monitoring of radiation at facilities has
demonstrated low ambient background radiation levels at plant
boundaries; any stray radiation from proper equipment use is negligible.
The treated commodity does not retain any radioactivity from the
exposure. Irradiation equipment at approved facilties is checked on a
regular basis by the USDA Radiation Safety Staff in accordance with
standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No problems have
been associated with the use of irradiation equipment under APHIS
permits. Therefore, the use of irradiation treatment is expected to have
negligible impact on the physical environment.
All vapor heat treatments are conducted in approved facilities under strict
supervision. This treatment is only applicable to certain heat tolerant
approval of facilities) and availability of facilities for vapor heat
treatment are likely to continue to limit the use of this treatment. The use
of vapor heat treatment is expected to have negligible environmental
impact to soil, water, or air resources or quality.
2. Chemical The chemicals proposed for use in the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control
Control Program have potential to affect soil (land), water, and air. These effects
Methods are minimized by the low application rates, the standard program
protective measures (see section 6.B), and the program mitigative
measures.
a. Bait Spray Applications
The effects of bait spray applications would not differ greatly between
aerial and ground applications. However, the greater precision of
ground-based applications would lead to reduced exposure of soil, water,
and air, with a subsequent reduction in residues. Aquatic habitats have
fewer impacts from ground applications because they are not being
sprayed directly. Modeling predicted runoff from ground applications of
malathion in only Ecoregion 5—Mississippi Delta (5.4 µg/L) and
Ecoregion 6—Floridian (5.1 µg/L).
Application rates of SureDye are higher in ground applications than those
in aerial applications. Although SureDye has a lower application rate
than malathion, it is more water soluble. Modeling also predicted runoff
from ground applications of SureDye in the Floridian ecoregion (6)
(4.9 µg/L phloxine B) and in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5)
(6.2 µg/L phloxine B). Spinosad has a lower application rate than
malathion, but is not highly water soluble like SureDye. Modeling
predicted runoff from ground applications of spinosad in the Floridian
ecoregion (6) to be 0.0247 µg/L and in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion
(5) to be 0.0466 µg/L. Minor soil and vegetation disturbance could result
from ground applications that use the truck-mounted equipment.
Although targeting is more precise with ground applications, failure to
detect or treat host material jeopardizes program efficacy and may result
in subsequent need for aerial applications, with increased potential for
environmental consequences. The discussions that follow all relate
principally to the consequences of aerial applications, but statements
regarding half-life and degradation pertain to both aerial and ground
applications.
(1) Malathion
(a) Land Resources
The character of a soil is dependent not only upon its physical and
chemical components, but also upon the presence of microorganisms.
The persistence of malathion bait in soil is related to a variety of factors,
including the soil's microbial activity, pH (relative acidity), and organic
matter content. Malathion's half-life in natural soil ranges from less than
1 day to 6 days, with 77 to 95% of the degradation occurring through
microbial activity (Neary, 1985; Walker and Stojanovic, 1973). In
laboratory studies, malathion toxicity to nitrifying bacteria was variable,
with malathion causing slight toxicity to Nitrobacter sp., while causing
complete inhibition of Nitrosomonas sp. (Bollen, 1961; Garretson and
San Clemente, 1968). Malathion applied to soils did not affect the
growth of several fungi or their ability to degrade other pesticides
(Anderson, 1981). Malathion application to a forested watershed resulted
in no observed effects on bacteria or fungi (Giles, 1970).
Inorganic degradation of malathion may be more important in soils that

are relatively dry, alkaline, and low in organic content, such as those that
predominate in the Western program areas. Malathion is subject to
hydrolysis under neutral and alkaline conditions, but is more stable under
acidic conditions. It does not penetrate much beyond the soil surface and
does not adsorb tightly to inorganic soil particles, although it binds tightly
with organic matter (Jenkins et al., 1978). Adsorption to organic matter
and rapid degradation make it unlikely that detectable quantities of
malathion would leach to groundwater (LaFleur, 1979; HSDB, 1991).
Because of agricultural and other uses, low-level background residues of
malathion may occur in certain areas.
Malathion degradation products also have short half-lives. Malaoxon,

the major malathion degradation product of concern in soil, has half-lives
of 4 and 5 days in soils of pH 7.2 and 8.2, respectively (Pascal and
Neville, 1976).
Environmental fate modeling using FSCBG predicts detectable malathion

bait spray residues as far as 12 miles (mi) from the treatment block in
high winds (10 miles per hour (mph)) and high release heights (500 feet
(ft)). With lower wind speeds (5 mph) and release heights (200 ft),
detectable residues (1 microgram per square foot (1 µg/ft 2)) were
predicted up to 3 ½ mi from the treatment block. Using GLEAMS,
predicted concentrations of malathion in the upper centimeter of soil
were highest immediately following application, and ranged from a high
of 0.34 micrograms per gram (µg/g) for the Lower Rio Grande Valley
ecoregion (3) to a low of 0.30 µg/g for the Southeastern and Gulf Coastal
Plain ecoregion (2). Following a rainstorm, the concentration of
malathion would be expected to decrease in the upper 1 centimeter (cm)
of soil, but increase slightly in the lower soil layers.
(b) Water Resources and Quality
Surface water contamination may occur from direct applications or runoff

from treated plants and soils, particularly if a rainfall occurs soon after
application. The half-life of malathion on foliage ranges from 1 to 6 days
(Matsumara, 1985; Nigg et al., 1981; El-Refai and Hopkins, 1972).
Degradation of malathion in water is mostly by photolysis
(decomposition induced by light), microbial degradation under acidic
conditions, and chemical transformations under alkaline conditions
(Wolfe et al., 1977). The half-life of malathion in water with pH values
from 5 to 8 ranges from 6 to 18 days (Paris and Lewis, 1973). The half-
life was calculated from program monitoring data for natural waters
during the 1997 Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program in Florida
(USDA, APHIS, 1997). The half-life of malathion was determined to be
8 hours in a retention pond and 32 hours in the Hillsborough River.
Half-life in seawater at pH 8 was 2.6 days (Horvath, 1982). Malathion in

chlorinated swimming pool water degrades readily to the more toxic
metabolite malaoxon (Oshima et al., 1982j; Segawa et al., 1991). The
half-life of malaoxon in chlorinated swimming pool water depends upon
weather conditions. Malaoxon was determined to have a half-life of
37 hours in one California study of chlorinated swimming pool water
(CDFA, 1991), but more recent monitoring data for the Florida program
in Umatilla found a half-life of 7.4 hours (USDA, APHIS, 1998).
Monitoring of four aerial bait spray applications in the 1991 study
showed no cumulative concentrations of malathion or malaoxon in fresh
water or chlorinated swimming pools. Because of agricultural and other
uses, low-level background residues of malathion may be present in
water in certain areas.
Various sources have set different water quality criteria for malathion in
freshwater and saltwater habitats. EPA's chronic water quality criterion
for malathion is 0.1 µg/L (equivalent to 0.1 part per billion) for both fresh
water and salt water. This criterion is near or below the limit of detection
for malathion using standard analytical techniques. By comparison, the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) water quality criteria
for malathion (based on acute exposure) are 3.54 µg/L for freshwater and
10 µg/L for saltwater. The criteria for aquatic life are quite a bit lower
than for human drinking water—the California Department of Health
Services (CDHS) has established a Health Advisory Level of 160 µg/L
for malathion in human drinking water.
Some directly sprayed water within the treatment area could have
malathion concentrations exceeding the EPA chronic freshwater and
saltwater criteria immediately following malathion aerial bait application.
The concentrations of malathion in unprotected freshwater bodies
immediately after treatment during the 1997 Cooperative Medfly
Eradication Program in Florida ranged from below the detection limit
(less than 0.1 ppb) to 460 ppb (USDA, APHIS, 1997). Environmental
fate modeling predicted that in directly sprayed water bodies greater than
6 ft deep, malathion concentrations immediately after spraying were
11 µg/L or less. Shallow water bodies were estimated to have higher
concentrations (e.g., greater than 64 µg/L in water less than 1 ft deep).
The modeling data are consistent with monitoring data from past
programs. Malathion concentrations in aquatic habitats would decrease
readily over time because of the chemical degradation, biological
metabolism, and water flow into and out of the water body. Modeling
predicts that malathion concentration decreases rapidly in flowing water
and in water bodies with drainage outlets. For shallow water bodies in
which CDFG water quality criteria may be exceeded for a short time,
natural degradation processes make it unlikely that chronic exposures
could result from program activities.
(c) Air Quality
Because of malathion's low volatility, high concentrations are unlikely to

be detected in air. However, because of agricultural and other uses, low-
level background residues of malathion may be present in the air at
certain locations. The California Department of Food and Agriculture
has documented malathion residues in the air of several urban cities that
arise from non-government use of the pesticide. The atmospheric vapor
phase half-life of malathion is 1.5 days (HSDB, 1990).
Criteria pollutants (pollutants for which maximum allowable emission

levels and concentrations are enforced by State agencies) will be
produced by internal combustion engine fuel consumption during control
activities. Effects will be localized and minimal compared with vehicular
activities in urban areas.
(2) Spinosad
(a) Land Resources
The persistence of spinosad bait in soil is related to a variety of factors,

including the soil's microbial activity and organic matter content.
Spinosad exposed to sunlight on the surface of soil can be expected to
degrade readily with a half-life from 8.68 days for spinosyn A to
9.44 days for spinosyn D (Dow Agrosciences, 1998). The residues in bait
could persist longer (protected from sunlight), but degradation would be
rapid when exposed to precipitation and weathering. Although spinosyn
A is highly water soluble, it has a high octanol/water partition coefficient
that results in strong adsorption to organic matter (Borth et al., 1996).
Spinosyns A and D are immobile in soil and will not leach into
groundwater (EPA, 1998). The half-lives in pre-sterilized soils were
substantially longer than in unsterilized soils and the degradation in soils
has been largely attributed to microbial action (Hale and Portwood,
1996).
Environmental fate modeling using GLEAMS predicted concentrations

of spinosad in the upper centimeter of soil were highest immediately
following application. Spinosad concentrations ranged from a high of
0.0006 µg/g for the Floridian ecoregion (6) to a low of 0.0004 µg/g for
the California Central Valley and Coastal ecoregion (1). The strong
adsorption to organic matter in soil would prevent movement into lower
soil layers.

application. The degradation of spinosad is rapid, particularly in the
presence of sunlight. The half-life of spinosad on foliage of cotton was
determined to be 3.4 hours. Degradation of spinosad in water is mostly
by photolysis (decomposition induced by light) and the half-life in tap
water under sunlight was determined to be less than a day (Borth et al.,
1996).
Environmental fate modeling predicted that in directly sprayed water

bodies greater than 6 ft deep, spinosad concentrations immediately after
spraying were 0.016 µg/L or less. Shallow water bodies were estimated
to have higher concentrations (e.g., 0.102 µg/L spinosad in water less
than 1 ft deep). Modeling predicts that spinosad concentrations decrease
rapidly in flowing water and in water bodies with drainage outlets. For
shallow water bodies, natural degradation processes make it unlikely that
chronic exposures could result from program activities.
(c) Air Quality
Because of low volatility (low vapor pressure), high concentrations are

unlikely to be detected in air. Sunlight exposure of spinosad is expected
to result in rapid photodegradation. This rapid degradation in sunlight
indicates that residues will not persist in the atmosphere. Any drift from
aerial applications would be expected to readily deposit on surfaces of
leaves or soil.

(3) SureDye
(a) Land Resources
The persistence of SureDye bait in soil is related to a variety of factors,

including the soil's microbial activity, pH (relative acidity), and organic
matter content. Phloxine B exposed to sunlight on the surface of soil can
be expected to degrade readily with a half-life of about an hour (Heitz
and Wilson, 1978). The residues that are carried below the soil surface
would be expected to persist about 4 days. The high water solubility
(RTECS, 1994a) and low lipophilicity (Valenzano and Pooler, 1982)
indicate that this compound does not adsorb readily to organic matter, but
its rapid degradation makes it unlikely that detectable quantities of
phloxine B would leach to groundwater.
Environmental fate modeling using GLEAMS predicted concentrations

of phloxine B in the upper centimeter of soil were highest immediately
following application. Phloxine B concentrations ranged from a high of
0.0182 µg/g for the Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion (4) to
a low of 0.0079 µg/g for the Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion
(2). Following a rainstorm, the concentrations of phloxine B would be
expected to decrease in the upper 1 centimeter (cm) of soil, but increase
slightly in the lower soil layers.

application. The degradation of phloxine B is rapid, particularly in the
presence of sunlight. The half-life of phloxine B on foliage ranges from
1 to 6 days. Degradation of phloxine B in water is mostly by photolysis
(decomposition induced by light). The half-lives of phloxine B in tap,
stream, and sea water under sunlight range from 10 to 26 minutes (Li
et al., 1997; Wang et al., 1998).
Environmental fate modeling predicted that in directly sprayed water

bodies greater than 6 ft deep, phloxine B concentrations immediately
after spraying were 0.983 µg/L or less. Shallow water bodies were
estimated to have higher concentrations (e.g., 6.447 µg/L phloxine B in
water less than 1 ft deep). Modeling predicts that phloxine B
concentrations decrease rapidly in flowing water and in water bodies with
drainage outlets. For shallow water bodies, natural degradation processes
make it unlikely that chronic exposures could result from program
activities.
(c) Air Quality
Because of low volatility, high concentrations are unlikely to be detected

in air. The evaporation rate of xanthene dyes was determined to be
negligible (CHEMHAZIS, 1994). Sunlight exposure of phloxine B is
expected to result in photodegradation (simultaneous
photodetoxification) with a half-life of approximately 1 hour (Heitz and
Wilson, 1978). This rapid degradation in sunlight indicates that residues
will not persist in the atmosphere.

b. Soil Treatments
(1) Chlorpyrifos
(a) Land Resources
The half-life of chlorpyrifos in natural soils is about 30 days (EPA, OPP,

1992). When applied as a soil drench, chlorpyrifos tends to remain in the
upper 1 cm of the soil profile. Chlorpyrifos degrades most rapidly in
sandy loam soils, and least rapidly in organic soils. Studies show plants
take up very little chlorpyrifos or its metabolite TCP (3,5,6-trichloro-2-
pyridinol) following soil application (Smith et al., 1967). Chlorpyrifos
tightly adsorbs to soil, and vertical movement is limited (Felsot and
Dahm, 1979; Pike and Getzin, 1981). Residues on plants degrade at half-
lives that range from 1 day to weeks and depend on application rates.
GLEAMS estimated chlorpyrifos concentrations in the upper 1 cm of the

soil, ranging from 7.56 µg/g in the Floridian ecoregion (6) to 10 µg/g in
the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5), for the 1 pound (lb) active ingredient
per acre (a.i./acre) application rate. Chlorpyrifos concentrations predicted
from the 4 lb a.i./acre application rate ranged from 30.22 µg/g in the
Floridian ecoregion (6) to 39.25 µg/g in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
ecoregion (3). Following a rainstorm, the highest concentrations of
chlorpyrifos were predicted to remain in the upper 1 cm of the soil.
Surface water contamination from chlorpyrifos can occur following a

rainstorm because of runoff from the treated area. EPA has set water
quality criteria for aquatic life for chlorpyrifos in freshwater of
0.063 µg/L for acute exposure and 0.041 µg/L for chronic exposure. For
saltwater these criteria are 0.011 µg/L for acute exposure and 0.0056
µg/L for chronic exposure. Environmental fate modeling predicts little or
no runoff following small storms, but more runoff following a large
storm in two of the ecoregions—the Mississippi Delta and Floridian.
Chlorpyrifos concentrations in runoff water from the soil drench area
were predicted to be 825 µg/L at 4 lb/acre and 205 µg/L at 1 lb/acre in
the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and 725 µg/L at 4 lb/acre and
189 µg/L at 1 lb/acre in the Floridian ecoregion (6). Only a small volume
of runoff water in a 9 mi2 program area (0.14%) would come from areas
treated with soil drenches. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos in surface
waters would be several orders of magnitude lower than the
concentration of chlorpyrifos in runoff water from the soil drench area.
In natural waters, chlorpyrifos adsorbs to sediments, reducing its
bioavailability.
(c) Air Quality
The photolysis half-life of chlorpyrifos in air is 2.27 hours (Klisenko and

Pis'mennaya, 1979, as cited in EPA, OPP, 1984). Approximately
0.27% of soil applied chlorpyrifos active ingredient will volatilize to air
in the first 24 hours. As with all soil drench treatments, there will be
little production of pollution by internal combustion engine fuel
consumption during control activities with chlorpyrifos.
(2) Diazinon
(a) Land Resources
Diazinon's half-life was reported to range from 1.5 weeks in clay loam
soils to 10 weeks in an organic soil (Getzin and Rosefield, 1966). In an
actual California Japanese beetle program, however, the half-life of
diazinon was reported to be only a few days. The persistence of diazinon
in soil increases with lower soil moisture content, increasing pH,
decreasing temperature, and increasing organic matter content. Fifty
percent of diazinon on a soil surface degraded after 24 hours of exposure
to light (Burkhard and Guth, 1979). Microbial degradation of diazinon is
a major source of its breakdown (Getzin, 1967; Getzin, 1968; Miles et
al., 1979). Diazinon leaches very slowly in soil and is unlikely to reach
groundwater (Sumner et al., 1987).
When applied as a soil drench, diazinon tends to remain in the upper

10 cm of the soil, with the majority of the chemical found in the upper
1 cm. In turf grass, 96% of the diazinon remained in the top 10 mm of
turf; an increase in irrigation caused diazinon to break down more
quickly, but did not increase leaching of the pesticide into the soil
(Branham and Wehner, 1985). There is a possibility of plant uptake of
diazinon from treated soil; however, breakdown in plant tissue is rapid
(Lichtenstein et al., 1967). Environmental fate modeling (GLEAMS)
predicts diazinon concentrations in the upper 1 cm of soil ranging from
11.81 µg/g in the Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion (4) to
24.85 µg/g in the Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion (2).
Surface water contamination from diazinon can occur following a

rainstorm because of runoff from the treated area. Environmental fate
modeling predicts little or no runoff following small storms, but more
runoff following a large storm in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and
the Floridian ecoregion (6). Diazinon concentrations in runoff water
from the soil drench area were predicted to be 25.1 µg/L in the
Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and 0.4 µg/L in the Floridian ecoregion
(6). Only a small volume of runoff water in a 9 square mile program
area (0.14%) would come from areas treated with soil drenches.
Concentrations of diazinon in surface waters would be several orders of
magnitude lower than the concentration of diazinon in runoff water from
the soil drench area.
(c) Air Quality
Diazinon volatilizes only slightly from soil (Burkhard and Guth, 1981).
Air volatility of diazinon applied to soil in an orchard was 2.4% of
applied active ingredient within the first 24 hours following application,
0.93% the second day, 0.11% the third day, 0.09% the fourth day, and
was negligible thereafter (Glotfelty et al., 1990). Consequently, little or
no diazinon would be expected to be detected in the air following a
treatment. Because diazinon is applied as a soil drench, there will be
little pollution produced by internal combustion engine fuel consumption
during control activities.
(3) Fenthion
(a) Land Resources
Under aerobic soil conditions the half-life of fenthion is 24 hours (EPA,

OPP, 1992). Fenthion residues in a column of loam soil leached with
570 mm (22.5 inches of rain in a 45-day period, but the majority of the
residues remained in the upper 4 cm (approximately 2 in) of soil (EPA,
1988a). Leaching would not appear to be a major concern from soil
applications for fruit fly control. Some uptake of fenthion by plants
(0.5% to 2% of applied active ingredient) has been observed following
soil applications (Sirharan and Suess, 1978). Plant residues do not
appear to be persistent except under silage conditions (Bowman et al.,
1970).
EPA's environmental fate data base is incomplete. However, it is clear

that fenthion degrades by aerobic microbial metabolism with calculated
half-lives of <1 day in an aerobic soil metabolism study and 11 days
under anaerobic aquatic conditions (EPA, OPP 1998). Fenthion is more
persistent in pond water (half-life of 1.5 days) but the presence of
sediment reduces the chemical's bioavailability because fenthion will
sorb to sediment.
Using GLEAMS, predicted fenthion concentrations in the upper 1 cm of

soil ranged from 4.50 µg/g in the Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain
ecoregion (4) to 8.19 µg/g in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5).
Following a rainstorm, fenthion concentrations were predicted to be
higher in the 1 to 10 cm soil layer than in the top centimeter.
Surface water contamination from fenthion may occur after a rainstorm if

there is runoff from the area drenched with fenthion. Environmental fate
modeling predicts little or no runoff following small storms, but more
runoff following a large storm in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and
the Floridian ecoregion (6). Fenthion concentration in runoff water from
the soil drench area were predicted to be 85 µg/L in the Mississippi Delta
ecoregion (5) and 24 µg/L in the Floridian ecoregion (6). Only a small
volume of runoff water in a 9 mi2 program area (.14%) would come from
areas treated with soil drenches. Concentrations of fenthion in surface
waters would be several orders of magnitude lower than the
concentration of fenthion in runoff water from the soil drench area.
(c) Air Quality
No studies of the fate of fenthion in air are available. Based on chemical

properties, approximately 0.1% of applied fenthion active ingredient
would be expected to volatilize from soil in the first 24 hours. Air
contamination from soil applications for fruit fly control would not
appear to be a major concern. There will be little production of pollution
by internal combustion engine fuel consumption during control activities
with fenthion.
c. Fumigation
(1) Methyl Bromide
(a) Land Resources
After commodity fumigation, methyl bromide gas is vented into the

atmosphere where it dissipates. Methyl bromide is not expected to reach
soil; however, any methyl bromide that might reach soil breaks down to
inorganic bromide residues and methanol with a half-life of 3 to 7 days
(EPA, 1992).
The solubility of methyl bromide in water is low. The half-life in water

is 6.63 hours (Wegman et al., 1981). Preliminary EPA groundwater
monitoring data show no detectable methyl bromide.
(c) Air Quality
Methyl bromide is highly volatile and disperses rapidly when released or

vented from a fumigation chamber. However, methyl bromide is heavier
than air and can accumulate briefly in low areas; treatment facilities,
therefore, must be designed to avoid exposure to applicators or the
general public in areas downwind from treatments. Long-term toxicity in
air or half-life in air is not relevant because dispersal is so rapid. Several
environmental groups petitioned EPA to classify methyl bromide as a
class I ozone depleting chemical. Since then, EPA ordered that U.S.
companies phase out production of methyl bromide by the year 2005.
Under the Montreal Protocol agreements, quarantine uses of methyl
bromide will be continued (as of the date of this writing). The relative
importance of methyl bromide in ozone depletion, however, is subject to
fundamental uncertainties. Halogen gases (the class of compounds which
includes bromine) have been implicated in ozone destruction in the
stratosphere (mid-atmosphere); ozone forms a layer around the earth
which protects the surface from excessive ultraviolet light exposure.
Chlorine from sources such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is believed of
primary importance in ozone depletion (Solomon et al., 1986).
CFCs have long half-lives in the atmosphere (80 to 100 years), but
methyl bromide has a half-life in the stratosphere of only 1.6 years or less
(Mix, 1992). Aerosols from marine wave action have been assumed to
account for the vast majority of atmospheric bromine (Sturges and
Harrison, 1986). Estimates of the contribution of industrial and
agricultural sources to atmospheric bromine levels range from less than
10 to 35% (Prather et al., 1984; Wofsy et al., 1975). Reactions of
combinations of bromine and chlorine with ozone have been modeled;
however, bromine's actual contribution to ozone depletion is unclear
(McElroy et al., 1986). Even if atmospheric bromine may contribute to
ozone depletion, the extent of the contribution from agricultural methyl
bromide uses is uncertain.
d. Mass Trapping and Other Methods
Mass trapping involves the use of natural or synthetic lures to attract fruit
flies to traps, bait stations, sticky panels, wicks, or fiberboard squares,
where they are killed, either by becoming stuck to a sticky substance or
by being exposed to minute quantities of pesticide. Lures used include
nulure, cuelure, trimedlure, and methyl eugenol. A new three-component
lure has been developed for use in traps that consists of ammonium
acetate, putrescine, and trimethylamine. This has been proposed for use
in wet trapping, but dry trapping applications are being investigated
further. Chemicals used include borax, dichlorvos, malathion, naled, or
phloxine B (SureDye).
Traps containing lures and insecticides are used for detection trapping,
delimitation trapping, monitoring of populations, and mass trapping.
Three kinds of traps are used to detect fruit flies: the Jackson trap, the
McPhail trap, and the yellow panel sticky trap. For mass trapping, the
inexpensive Jackson trap or the yellow panel traps are normally used.
The nature of these traps (which use a sticky substance to trap the fruit
flies) minimizes the potential for adverse effects to the physical
environment. No direct effects to soil or water are anticipated. Although
some volatilization of insecticides is known to occur from some traps
(particularly with dichlorvos and naled), the effects to air quality outside
the trap are still negligible because of the small quantities involved.
Depending on the frequency of monitoring and replacement of traps,
slight soil impacts could result from vehicular and foot traffic.
The fruit fly male annihilation technique involves traps, sticky panels,
bait stations, or spot treatments of lure-insecticide mixture to tree trunks,
utility poles, and fences using hand-held equipment. Spot treatments are
made from slow-moving vehicles. The placement of spot treatments is
generally out of the reach of the general public. Although insecticide
could be washed by rainfall from the spot treated, the small amount of
insecticide that could be carried to soil or in runoff water following rain
would have negligible effects on soil or water resources and quality. Use
of spot treatments, bait stations, or sticky panel traps to attract male fruit
flies is not expected to directly affect soil, water, or air resources.
Depending on the frequency of spot treatments, slight soil impacts could
result from vehicular and foot traffic.
Cordelitos (30-mm long wicks containing cuelure and naled) and wood
fiberboard squares (20 cm2 wood chips with cuelure and naled) are also
used in mass trapping. These devices can be applied aerially in rural or
agricultural areas, and have been shown to be effective on melon fly. The
low concentration of insecticide and the low quantities of the devices
used in program applications are insufficient to adversely affect soil, air,
or water resources and quality.
C. The Human Population
Risks to human health and safety are analyzed quantitatively and

qualitatively in this section by alternative. These risks associated with
chemical, nonchemical, and combined fruit fly control methods were
analyzed. The primary concern for impacts to human health in the fruit
fly program relates to the potential effects of the chemical insecticides.
Most of this section is taken from the Human Health Risk Assessment for
APHIS Fruit Fly Programs (APHIS, 1998a) and the Spinosad Bait Spray
Applications Human Health Risk Assessment (APHIS, 1999a), and these
documents are incorporated by reference into this EIS. This section also
covers principal related issues to human health such as environmental
justice, hypersensitivity, noise, potential psychological effects,
socioeconomics, cultural resources, and visual resources.
1. Non- This section summarizes the potential risks to human health and safety
chemical from the implementation of nonchemical methods to control fruit fly
Control populations. Nonchemical methods of fruit fly control include sterile
Methods insect technique, physical control, cultural control, biological control and
biotechnological control.
a. Sterile Insect Technique
Effects on the human population from the use of sterile insect technique
(SIT) as a control method are unlikely. The public should not be affected
at all, unless by inadvertent involvement in an airplane or ground vehicle
accident. The unique design and shielding of the equipment at fly-rearing
facilities prevents workers from being accidentally exposed to the
radiation used to sterilize the fruit flies. During release of the flies, a
worker on the back of a truck could be at risk of being involved in a
vehicle accident. However, safety controls are built into the program to
minimize accidental injury to workers. The rearing and release of sterile
fruit flies is expected to have little, if any, impact on human health and
safety. (If SIT is used in combination with chemical control methods as a
part of integrated control, then the risks associated with the use of those
chemicals would also apply.)
b. Physical Control
Physical controls, including fruit stripping and host elimination, are not
likely to have health or safety effects on the human population. Human
health risks are limited to workers involved in mechanical accidents
resulting from the stripping of fruits and removal of host plants, and from
subsequent disposal. Because of environmental considerations, time
constraints, and economic concerns, host elimination generally is
considered undesirable and is done only on an extremely limited basis.
Therefore, the main human health risks from physical controls would be
to workers performing fruit stripping and disposal of the fruits.
Accidents resulting from these tasks could include falls from trees or
ladders, or injuries resulting from carrying heavy loads, or from burning
or burying the infested material. One risk to workers picking infested
fruits is exposure to unknown pesticide residues that may have been
applied by the grower or homeowner. However, workers are required to
wear gloves, which would protect them from most exposures. For the
most part, physical controls do not pose health and safety concerns,
except for the possibility of occasional accidents.
c. Cultural Control
The cultural controls that could apply to the fruit fly program include
clean culture, special timing of planting or harvesting, and the use of
resistant varieties. None of these control methods is likely to be effective
alone, but as individual methods, none represent any risk to human health
or safety. However, if used solely in an effort to eradicate fruit flies, the
effects to human health would be similar to those from other ineffective
eradication efforts. These effects would include exposure to unknown
types and concentrations of pesticide residues from applications by the
grower or homeowner, and the possibility of occasional accidents.
Biological control has not yet been shown to be effective for fruit fly
control programs, and therefore, probably would not be used alone. The
method itself poses little, if any, risk to human health and safety.
However, there is much about biological control that remains unknown,
leaving the question of safety open. As with other methods that, when
used alone, prove ineffective in eradicating a pest, the risk to humans
could come from exposure to unknown types and quantities of pesticide
residues that growers or homeowners have applied to protect their crops.
Biotechnological control is a potential future control method, and is

presently in the testing stage. The actual risks to human health and safety
will remain largely unknown until the methods are developed. The
process of genetic engineering used to produce the organisms necessary
to control insect pests may involve some risks. Radiation or chemical
mutagens could be used to alter reproductive capability in the pest, or
disrupt other life systems. Under these circumstances, workers could be
exposed to radiation or chemicals with adherent potential for risk.
However, laboratories involved in these procedures are required to adhere
to good laboratory practices which minimize risk to the workers.
f. Cold Treatment

human health would not be expected to differ from those resulting from
cold storage facilities of comparable size. The strict supervision of these
treatments ensures that program personnel and the general public do not
enter the cooling chambers during treatment. The use of cold treatment is
expected to have negligible adverse effect on human health.

with stringent safety guidelines. The use of this treatment method is
limited to certain approved commodities that are compatible with its
application. The irradiation equipment is designed to release radiation to
the regulated commodity only. There is negligible stray radiation from
proper equipment use. Monitoring for stray radiation at facilities has
demonstrated only ambient background radiation levels at plant
boundaries. The treated commodity does not retain any radioactivity
from the exposure and poses no risks to humans. Irradiation equipment
at approved facilities is checked on a regular basis by the USDA
Radiation Safety Staff in accordance with standards set by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. No problems have been associated with the use
of irradiation equipment under APHIS permits. Equipment design and
shielding ensure negligible risk to workers at these facilities.
approval of facilities) and limited availability of facilities for vapor heat
treatment are likely to continue to restrict the use of this treatment. The
strict supervision of these treatments ensures that program personnel and
the general public do not enter the vapor heat chambers during treatment.
The use of vapor heat treatment is expected to have negligible adverse
effect on human health.
2. Chemical This subsection provides information about the assessment of potential

Control risks to human health from program chemical control methods. The
Methods introductory paragraphs summarize the methodology used in the human
health risk assessment (APHIS, 1998a). This is followed by descriptions
of potential risks from each type of control method (e.g., bait spray
application, soil treatment, fumigation) for the specific pesticides
available in each program control application. The discussion for each
pesticide summarizes the hazard of the chemical, the potential public and
workers' exposure to that chemical, and the quantitative and qualitative
risks associated with the estimated doses to humans. The discussions for
those chemical control methods with lower exposures or lower hazard
(e.g., fruit fly male annihilation technique, trapping, cordelitos, and wood
fiberboard square applications) are presented as a brief summary of the
findings from the Human Health Risk Assessment (APHIS, 1998a).
Models and equations used in the human health risk assessment to

estimate exposure and dose to humans were based on methodologies
developed and used by EPA in risk assessments for chemicals under its
regulatory control (e.g., EPA, OHEA, 1990; EPA, OHEA, 1992; EPA,
ORR, 1988). Refer to the Human Health Risk Assessment for APHIS
Fruit Fly Programs (APHIS, 1998a) for greater detail on APHIS use of
those methodologies. Potential exposure concentrations in or on various
media, i.e., water, soil, and vegetation, were determined from application
rates and the results of the environmental fate models. The risk
assessment considered oral, dermal, and inhalation exposures, both single
and multiple-route of exposure, in some cases. Absorption through the
skin was estimated based on methodologies recommended by EPA (EPA,
OHEA, 1992). Routine, extreme, and accidental scenarios were modeled
for the general public in the treatment area and for workers in the
program. Average population values of human characteristics that
greatly influence exposure and dose, e.g., body weight, consumption
patterns, and activity patterns, were taken from Exposure Factors
Handbook (EPA, OHEA, 1990). In some cases, estimates of doses to
workers were based on modifications to literature-based experimentally
determined exposures or doses of other pesticides to workers performing
similar tasks.
Quantitative toxicological assessments involve the derivation of dose

levels associated with a regulatory risk goal. These derivations are
termed regulatory risk values (RRVs) in this document. The risk
assessment protocol for the determination of the RRV is described in
greater detail in the Human Health Risk Assessment for APHIS Fruit Fly
Programs (APHIS, 1998a). These values are estimates (with inherent
uncertainty) of the dose to which an individual can be exposed over a
specified period of time without an appreciable risk of adverse effects.
RRVs are conceptually similar to a number of other toxicological
assessments conducted by various governmental agencies, and were
derived using methods similar to those used by EPA for deriving
reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs) and those
used by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
for deriving minimum risk limits (MRLs). An attempt was made to
determine the most sensitive toxicological endpoint or effect, and one
that increased in severity as dose increased. An "experimental threshold"
dose was selected, which is the highest dose in a series of doses causing
the effect that is below any dose associated with any adverse effect.
To derive the RRV, the identified experimental threshold was divided by

an uncertainty factor intended to account for differences between the
experimental exposure and the conditions for which the RRV was being
derived. Tenfold uncertainty factors were generally used to account for:
1. Variation in sensitivity among members of the human population,

2. Uncertainty in extrapolating animal data to humans,
3. Uncertainty in extrapolating from less than chronic No Observed
Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) to chronic NOAELs (where
NOAEL is the highest dose level of a chemical that, in a given
toxicity test, causes no observed adverse effect in the test
animals), and
4. Uncertainty in extrapolating from the Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level (LOAEL) to NOAELs (where LOAEL is the lowest
dose level of a chemical that, in a given toxicity test, causes an
observable adverse effect in the test animals).

The tenfold uncertainty factor to account for variability among the human
population was omitted when deriving the RRV for workers, under the
assumption that the special disease conditions or impaired physical states
that it was intended to account for among sensitive groups of the general
population usually are not found in the workforce. Acute, subchronic,
and chronic RRVs have been derived for various exposure durations.
Quantitative risk characterization was accomplished by comparing the

exposure assessment with the toxicological assessment to determine a
hazard quotient (HQ). When appropriate, all relevant routes of exposure
were considered to derive a composite HQ. An HQ that approached or
exceeded one (that is, when the exposure dose approached or exceeded
the RRV) was generally associated with a cause for concern for adverse
effect in the exposed population. In most cases, an HQ greater than one
constituted unacceptable risk. However, in some cases, the uncertainties
associated with the exposure and toxicological assessments resulted in a
lack of confidence in the HQ. Therefore, a qualitative judgment was
required to characterize the risk involved when the dose was above the
RRV.
Bait spray applications may be applied aerially from airplanes or

helicopters, or to foliage from the ground using either backpack or pump-
up sprayers, or truck-mounted sprayers. Although the application rate per
acre treated is the same for both application methods, there is less
likelihood of public exposure from ground applications than from aerial
applications because ground applications more precisely targeted and
there is substantially less off-site drift. The risk to workers depends upon
the type of application and their activity, and is expected to be different
from the risk to the public. Therefore, risks to the public and to workers
were analyzed separately.
(1) Malathion Aerial Application
(a) Hazard Assessment
Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action

is primarily through acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition (Smith,
1987; Klaassen et al., 1986). At low doses, the symptoms include slight
AChE inhibition in humans as well as effects such as nausea, sweating,
dizziness, and muscular weakness. The effects of higher doses of
malathion may include irregular heartbeat, elevated blood pressure,
cramps, convulsions, and respiratory failure. However, AChE inhibition

can be measured in blood at levels much below that which causes
symptoms; therefore, adverse health effects do not necessarily result from
all levels of AChE inhibition.
Generally, complete toxicity data are unavailable for individual

formulations of pesticides. The malathion bait formulation is no
exception. In these cases, regulatory values established by EPA and other
agencies have been based on the toxicity characteristics of the technical
grade (or pure) chemical or other similar formulations of the pesticide. It
is this information that has been reviewed and incorporated into this
hazard assessment of malathion. The acute oral toxicity of malathion is
slight to humans (U.S. DHHS, NIOSH, OSHA, 1978). Malathion's acute
toxicity by the dermal route is minimal and malathion is considered one
of the least dermally toxic of the organophosphorus insecticides (EPA,
OPP, 1989b). Malathion is a very slight dermal irritant and a slight eye
irritant (EPA, OPP, 1989b). Studies of acute delayed neurotoxicity have
been negative (EPA, OPP, 1989b).
Testing also indicates relatively low chronic toxicity. The human RfD
was established at 0.02 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)
based upon no AChE inhibition at a higher concentration (0.23
mg/kg/day) and applying an uncertainty factor of 10 (Moeller and Rider,
1962; EPA, OPP, 1989b). Malathion may be immunosuppressive and
immunopathologic in vitro at high concentrations (Desi et al., 1978;
Thomas and House, 1989). Reproductive and teratology studies are
outstanding data requirements of EPA for reregistration of malathion
(EPA, OPTS, 1990), but adequate data are available for determining a
teratogenic NOEL based upon a study of rabbits (25 mg/kg/day) (EPA,
OPP, 1989b).
Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity tests have included many

results that are clear and some that are equivocal. The tests for
carcinogenicity provide either negative or equivocal data. EPA has
classified malathion as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity,
but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential." This indicates
that any carcinogenic potential of malathion can not be quantified based
upon the weight of evidence determination used in this classification.
EPA is continuing to review the carcinogenic potential of malathion and
any decisions by APHIS regarding future program actions will take into
account the findings provided by EPA in regard to this issue. Malathion
does not induce gene mutations in bacteria, but can cause chromosomal
damage to mammalian cells (WHO, IARC, 1983). Malathion may be an
alkylating agent of DNA nucleic acids (Griffin and Hill, 1978).

An assessment of acute health effects from a Medfly eradication project
in Santa Clara County, California, in 1981, (Kahn et al., 1992) indicated
that there was no detectable increase in reported symptoms or acute
illnesses attributable to malathion exposure from individuals in a
treatment area when compared with a nontreatment area. Independent
review of the human health risks of malathion bait spray applications was
made by CDHS (1991). Their health risk assessment reviewed the risks
comprehensively and concluded that "malathion appears to be a relatively
safe pesticide, particularly in the small amounts used in aerial malathion-
bait. For the majority of citizens in an aerial application area, we are
confident that there is no significant risk to health. Notwithstanding this,
though, for certain individuals with higher than normal contact with the
malathion-bait or with unusual susceptibility, there may be enough
exposure to warrant some concern." Our risk assessment also recognizes
these potential hazards and concurs with these findings.
(b) Exposure Analysis
Calculated doses of malathion from aerial applications were determined

for routine, extreme, and accident scenarios. Calculated doses of
malathion determined for single route exposure scenarios to the general
public range from 4.3x10-6 mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario (a
child incidentally ingesting a very small amount of soil from an area that
had been aerially sprayed) to 9.3x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme exposure
scenario (an adult contacting sprayed vegetation before the malathion bait
spray dried). Calculations of groundwater concentrations were
determined by using the leaching output for pervious ground surfaces
(soil) from the GLEAMS model assuming a 2-year storm 24 hours after
application (extreme), 48 hours after application (routine Florida), or
72 hours after application (routine California). Calculations for runoff
water assumed a ½-inch rainfall at the same intervals, but used runoff
calculations from impervious surfaces.
Other exposure scenarios included an individual eating vegetation from a

backyard garden in a treated residential area and both dermal uptake and
inadvertent drinking of directly-sprayed chlorinated swimming pool
water contaminated with malathion and malaoxon. Other dermal
exposures included contact with sprayed vegetation and direct exposure
to the spray. Inhalation exposures were determined for breathing indoor
and outdoor air within the treatment area. Based on available monitoring
data, potential inhalation doses of malathion were not considered to be a
substantial concern. A calculated inhalation exposure to malaoxon for
the general public was 0.016 µg/m3 for a routine exposure scenario of an

adult breathing indoor air for 16 hours and outdoor air for 8 hours from a
treated area.
Doses to workers involved in aerial application operations were

calculated based upon routine, extreme, and accident scenarios.
Calculated doses of malathion determined for single route exposure
scenarios to workers range from 3.0x10-4 mg/kg/day for a routine
exposure scenario for a mixer/loader to 8.4x10-2 mg/kg/day for an
extreme exposure scenario for the ground personnel, including kytoon
handlers, flaggers, and quality control crew. Exposures were also
determined for pilots of the applicator airplanes. Data from pesticide
studies of a surrogate chemical, 2,4-D, were the basis for calculations of
exposures to pilots (Nash et al., 1982) and mixers/loaders (Lavy et al.,
1987). For ground personnel, estimates of exposure were made from
previously monitored air levels and nominal application rates. The
calculated doses for ground personnel ranged from 6.2x10-2 to 8.4x10-2
mg/kg/day for various scenarios that involve spills of malathion
concentrate onto the skin.
(c) Quantitative Risk Assessment
The regulatory reference values (RRVs) for malathion used in this risk
assessment were 0.02 mg/kg/day for the public and 0.2 mg/kg/day for
workers, both derived from a NOEL for AChE inhibition (0.23
mg/kg/day).
The HQs determined for the general public indicate that there are no
unacceptable risks of adverse effects from malathion exposure from
drinking or contact with groundwater or runoff water, or swimming in or
inadvertently drinking swimming pool water (which also takes into
consideration exposure to malaoxon). Inhalation of malathion was not a
major route of concern, even when the risk assessment was modified with
reasonably conservative assumptions to consider levels of malaoxon in
air. The scenarios that considered soil consumption by children, even in
cases of pica behavior, resulted in HQs of less than 1, and therefore no
unacceptable risks. Pica may be defined as a pathological behavior
characterized by the persistent eating of nonnutritive, generally nonfood,
substance. There was some cause for concern with HQs greater than
1 from the scenarios representing an adult contacting contaminated
vegetation or consuming contaminated vegetation, although both were
extreme exposure scenarios that would be preventable by providing
warnings. The routine exposure scenario of an adult consuming
contaminated vegetation resulted in an HQ of less than 1.

Based on the HQs determined for the exposure scenarios for aerial
application workers, there were no unacceptable risks for pilots,
mixer/loaders, or the ground personnel. The scenario for the ground
personnel incorporated exaggerated exposure conditions which
encompass accidental exposures.
In addition, program operational procedures prevent unacceptable risks

from exposures to pesticides. Workers are routinely tested for inhibition
of AChE, which, at low levels of inhibition, indicates exposure to
organophosphates but does not necessarily produce adverse health
effects. When AChE inhibition is demonstrated, that worker should be
prevented from continuing in any job that would further his exposure to
the organophosphate pesticides. Operational procedures also dictate that
program personnel be fully instructed in emergency procedures, and that
appropriate equipment for washing is available, in the event of accidental
pesticide exposure. Under the circumstances where a large quantity of
pesticide is spilled on a worker, personnel have the appropriate
equipment necessary to rinse the chemical off rapidly so that dermal
absorption is minimized. By preventing additional exposures after a
worker is showing AChE inhibition and by decreasing absorption of
pesticides through the skin, risks of systemic effects from exposures are
minimized.
(d) Qualitative Risk Assessment
Neurotoxicity
Neurotoxicity is any toxic effect on any aspect of the central or peripheral

nervous system. Such changes can be expressed as functional changes
(such as behavioral or neurological abnormalities) or as neurochemical,
biochemical, physiological, or morphological alterations. Malathion
poses a neurotoxic risk only as a consequence of inhibition of AChE. It
does not pose any risk of delayed neurotoxic symptoms or structural
neuropathy. The quantitative risk assessment of AChE inhibition
analyzes the only neurotoxic risks. As a result, no unacceptable
neurotoxic risks are anticipated other than those already presented in the
quantitative risk assessment.
Immunotoxicity
Immunotoxicity is any toxic effect mediated by the immune system, such

as dermal sensitivity, or any toxic effect that impairs the functioning of
the immune system. Malathion has been shown to be
immunosuppressive and immunopathologic to mammalian cells at high

concentrations in vitro. Recent studies have shown that malathion may
alter immune functions in mammals in vivo (Rodgers and Ellefson,
1992). Histamine was elevated in the blood of rats and mice alter oral
exposure to malathion as low as 1 mg/kg (Rodgers and Xiong, 1997).
The corresponding no-effect levels for both rats and mice were
0.1 mg/kg. The histamine levels of the test animals returned to levels
comparable to control animals within 12 hours. Although cellular
immune response to exposure to a xenobiotic does not necessarily
constitute an adverse effect and this exposure is higher than program
exposures, application of uncertainty factors could place some potential
program exposures within regulatory reference values. None of the
regulatory agencies have considered this effect in rodents to be an
outcome of concern for adverse effects to humans. The implications of
these findings with respect to human immune system toxicity remain
unclear, but further research could help to clarify this issue.
Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity
Genotoxicity is a specific adverse effect on the genome (the complement

of genes contained in the haploid set of chromosomes) of living cells
that, upon the duplication of the affected cells, can be expressed as a
mutagenic or a carcinogenic event because of specific alteration of the
molecular structure of the genome. It results from a reaction with
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that can be measured either biochemically
or, in short-term tests, with end points that reflect on DNA damage.
DNA is the genetic material of a cell.
Mutagenicity is an adverse effect that produces a heritable change in the

genetic information stored in the DNA of living cells. There is some
evidence that malathion may pose a genetic hazard at high concentrations
based upon some in vivo and in vitro cytogenetic studies where
chromosomal aberrations and reactivity with DNA had a weak
association to exposure, but the majority of studies do not support a
finding of any genetic hazard from malathion exposure (WHO, IARC,
1983; Griffin and Hill, 1978). The potential risk of clastogenic injury
increases if the high doses of malathion formulation contain sufficient
impurities. The premium grade malathion is of high purity, and
exposures resulting from applications are relatively low compared to the
thresholds for genotoxicity. Based upon this, there should be no
unacceptable risks of genotoxicity or mutagenicity from program
applications of malathion.

Carcinogenicity
Carcinogenicity is an adverse effect that causes the conversion of normal

cells to neoplastic cells and the further development of neoplastic cells
into a tumor (neoplasm). A neoplasm is an altered, relatively
autonomous growth of tissue composed of abnormal (neoplastic) cells,
the growth of which is more rapid than, and not coordinated with, the
growth of other tissues. EPA has classified malathion as having
"suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess
human carcinogenic potential." This indicates that any carcinogenic
potential of malathion can not be quantified based upon the weight of
evidence determination used in this classification.
Guidelines for the expression of potential carcinogenic hazard are being

revised by EPA to accommodate the increased understanding of the
nature and causation of cancer. Historically, it was widely believed that
cancer was caused by a limited number of discrete chemical, physical, or
biological agents. It was assumed that this limited number of
carcinogenic agents could be readily determined and regulated to
eliminate cancer risks. This assumption that only certain compounds
cause cancer led to a non-threshold approach to regulation. The finding
of a positive result for cancer in an acceptable animal study, human
study, or through epidemiological study presumed the agent to be a
carcinogen. The finding of a negative result for cancer in these studies
was interpreted as indicative that the agent was either not carcinogenic or
the data were inadequate to classify the carcinogenic potential. This
widespread assumption that potential initiation and promotion of cancer
related to specific agents led EPA to issue guidelines on September 24,
1986, (51 Federal Register 33992-34054) to rank those agents according
to carcinogenic hazard potential based upon the weight of evidence.
Under these guidelines, chemical and other agents were identified as
human carcinogens (Group A), probable human carcinogens (Group B),
possible human carcinogens (Group C), not classifiable (Group D), or
having evidence of non-carcinogenicity (Group E). Although this
classification based upon positive or negative results could be used
readily for regulation of agents, it is widely recognized by the scientific
community that this approach does not adequately use the advances in
knowledge of carcinogenesis and risk assessment.
Today, scientists recognize that cancer is a highly complex, multifactorial

disease caused, in part, by endogenous (intrinsic) metabolic or other
imbalances associated with age or genetic makeup and, in part, by a wide
variety of exogenous (external) factors including diet, lifestyle, exposure
to ionizing radiation, and exposure to chemicals of natural or man-made

origin. It is now known that initiation of cancer may be caused by cell
damage resulting from excess exposure to one or multiple agents and that
promotion of genetic errors from the cell damage may also be caused by
conditions or agents other than those causing the initial cell damage. It is
also widely recognized that there is a threshold for all agents to cause
carcinogenicity and the threshold for a given agent may be affected by the
endogenous and exogenous factors mentioned above. This realization
has led to changes in carcinogen regulation by some international
organizations. Likewise, EPA has prepared new categories to address
these issues and other advances in the understanding of carcinogenesis.
Their narrative descriptors of carcinogenic risk for potential agents in the
1999 proposed guidelines include the following: (1) carcinogenic to
humans, (2) likely to be carcinogenic to humans, (3) suggestive evidence
of carcinogenicity but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic
potential, (4) not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and (5) data are
inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential.
Classification of pesticides into a given category is based upon a weight
of evidence approach. These new rankings recognize the potential risk of
all agents to cause cancer, even if the actual occurrence is “not likely.”
Uses of most chemicals in APHIS' fruit fly control programs are expected
to be classified by EPA under the new guidelines as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans based upon the weight of evidence. As part of
EPA’s pesticide reregistration process (for all pesticides registered prior
to 1984) and in compliance with the FQPA, it is expected that
carcinogenic potential will be reclassified for all registered pesticides.
Because of the changes in the terminology, this EIS' references to
carcinogenic potential may rely on the terminology used in either the
1986 guidelines or 1999 proposed guidelines.
A preliminary draft review by EPA of a previously submitted application

by APHIS for a 3-month renewal of the Section 18 Quarantine
Exemption for use of malathion bait to control Medfly in Florida
included an assessment of aggregate cancer risk from program use of
malathion. Their draft assessment was made based upon several
extremely conservative assumptions (no degradation, constant exposure,
and residues at tolerance level) and used the default cancer potency value
recommended by the Cancer Peer Review. The total aggregate cancer
risk determined by calculation to be 4.5 x 10-7. The preparers have
indicated that their refinement of these risk calculations to more
realistically address the actual potential exposure will lower the risk
when their review is completed. Based upon existing data including
recent reviews, there are no unacceptable risks of carcinogenicity
anticipated for this program.

Ocular (Eye) Toxicity
Review of animal studies by EPA indicates that malathion is a slight eye

irritant. Information on other ocular effects of malathion have been based
mostly on anecdotal data. Reports from Japan in the early 1970's
associated eye disease in a number of people with agricultural use of
malathion (as well as other pesticides) at extremely high concentrations
(the syndrome was called Saku Disease after the region in which it
occurred). A review of the data by the Malathion Public Health Effects
Advisory Committee, a committee formed by CDHS in 1990, found
fundamental flaws in the original study and subsequent papers, and
determined that the reported association between malathion and eye
disease had not been established.
However, because data from various studies have demonstrated adverse

ocular effects from other organophosphates, EPA has issued a data call-in
to the registrant for ocular toxicity testing of malathion. The study is
required to confirm or deny the potential for malathion to cause adverse
eye effects.
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity
Reproductive toxicity is any adverse effect that produces changes in the

capacity to produce viable offspring, for example, by affecting the
reproductive organ systems or hormonal functioning. Developmental
toxicity is any adverse effect in the parent or the offspring that produces
changes in fetal or neonatal growth and development, including
physiological, morphological, biochemical, or behavioral changes.
The lowest NOEL determined for these effects from malathion exposure
was a development NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day in rabbits (EPA, OPP,
1989b). This exposure level is considerably higher than the NOEL for
AChE inhibition (0.23 mg/kg/day) analyzed in the quantitative risk
assessment, so these effects would not be anticipated unless other effects
were noted first. There are no unacceptable risks of reproductive or
developmental toxicity to workers or to the general public from any
exposure scenario. Recently there has been considerable interest in the
hormones and functioning of the endocrine system. Endocrine disruption
by malathion has only been observed at exposures much higher than
could result from routine program applications.

Impurities in Formulations Applied
The main impurities of concern in malathion formulations are

isomalathion (95 times as toxic as malathion) and malaoxon (68 times as
toxic as malathion) (CDHS, 1991; Aldridge et al., 1979; Ryan and
Fukuto, 1985; Fukuto, 1983). Isomalathion formation results from
improper storage or handling of malathion formulations. Malaoxon is
formed from malathion's oxidation, which has been reported to occur in
air and from volatilization from the bait droplets on various surfaces. A
recent pilot study by the California Department of Health Services
(Brown et al., 1991; Brown et al., 1993) found that, following aerial
malathion applications, malaoxon and other transformation products were
detectable in air and on various test surfaces for hours and, in some cases,
days after the treatment. Levels of malaoxon increased, presumably via
oxidation of malathion on some test surfaces for the 9 days of the study.
However, another study (Ross et al., 1990) indicated that the dermal
uptake of a pesticide can be highly dependent on the amount that is
bioavailable (i.e., the amount of residue that can be dislodged or
assimilated) and that the amount can decrease substantially over a
12-hour period. The composition of the malathion used in those earlier
programs is not as pure as in formulations used by the current program.
The premium grade malathion used by the program is 96 to 97% pure.
The impurities of primary concern (malaoxon and isomalathion) account
for smaller percentages of the premium grade malathion than in previous
programs. The variances in test data and the absence of any scientific
accord over the interpretation of the results point to the need for further
studies in this area.
Synergistic Effects
Although the toxicity of malathion may be potentiated by some other

organophosphates and carbamates (Knaak and O'Brien, 1960; Cohen and
Murphy, 1970), it is impossible to predict multiple exposures and
synergism from applications not related to this program. Dichlorvos and
naled were not found to be synergistic with malathion, but only additive
(Cohen and Ehrich, 1976). Diazinon is synergistic with malathion
(Keplinger and Deichmann, 1967), and although they may be used within
the same treatment program, simultaneous application of the two
pesticides usually does not occur. Even though it still may be possible
for an individual to be exposed to malathion and diazinon within a
critical exposure window, the implications of such an exposure are not
clear. In addition, organophosphate insecticides are routinely used in
various public health applications such as mosquito control programs.
There is some potential for synergistic effects resulting from the

combination of malathion and inadvertent simultaneous pesticide
application by the public; however, public notification about program
treatments helps to minimize this risk.
(2) Ground Applications of Malathion Bait
The hazard assessment for malathion bait spray is presented in the

previous section on malathion aerial application. The formulation,
including the lure, is the same with both application methods.
Calculated doses of malathion from ground application were determined

for routine, extreme, and accident scenarios. Malathion exposures to the
public from ground applications are generally the same, but may be
somewhat less than from aerial applications because the ground
application is directed at the trees and foliage rather than the entire
surrounding area. Calculated doses to the public from ground application
of malathion are, therefore, considered the same as from aerial
application and are presented in that section.
Exposure to malaoxon is not expected to result from either swimming in

a pool or ingesting pool water following ground application. The precise
targeting of trees and vegetation from ground application should prevent
the deposit of pesticide into pools. Malaoxon is the malathion oxidation
product which results most readily from contact with chemicals in pool
water. However, potential inhalation exposures to malaoxon by
individuals in the treatment area are considered the same as those from
aerial application, and are presented in that section.
Exposures to workers involved in ground applications are different from

those to workers involved in aerial applications. Doses to ground
workers were calculated based upon routine and extreme scenarios.
Calculated doses of malathion determined for single route exposure
scenarios to workers range from 3.0x10-4 mg/kg/day for a routine
exposure scenario for mixer/loaders to 0.153 mg/kg/day for an extreme
exposure scenario for the backpack applicators. Exposures were also
determined for hydraulic rig applicators. Data from pesticide studies on a
surrogate chemical, 2,4-D, were the basis for calculations of exposures to
backpack and hydraulic rig applicators and mixer/loaders (Lavy et al.,
1987). The calculated doses for ground personnel determined for the
assessment of aerial applicators, and which include scenarios for

accidental exposure, ranged from 6.2x10-2 to 8.4x10-2 mg/kg/day for
various scenarios that involved spills of malathion concentrate onto the
skin.
Ground applications of malathion bait result in lower risk to the public

than aerial applications. There is less likelihood of exposure to ground
applications because the applications specifically target the trees and
foliage rather than the entire area. Risks to the general public from
ground applications therefore would be even lower than those from aerial
applications, which were determined to be acceptable.
Based on the HQs determined for the exposure scenarios for ground
workers, there were no unacceptable risks for backpack applicators,
mixer/loaders, or hydraulic rig applicators. Accidental exposure
conditions were evaluated in the section on malathion aerial application,
and indicated that there were no unacceptable risks.
Risk of humans developing neurotoxic effects, immunotoxic effects,

genotoxic or mutagenic effects, oncogenic effects, or reproductive or
developmental effects from exposures to malathion bait spray are similar
for both aerial and ground applications. These risks are discussed in the
section on aerial application of malathion bait.
(3) Spinosad Aerial Application
Spinosad is a mixture of compounds produced naturally by the

actinomycetes bacteria, Saccharopolyspora spinosa. Spinosad is
registered for use on various crops and has permanent EPA-approved
tolerances for some fruits (including citrus), nuts, vegetables, cotton, and
meat. The active ingredients in spinosad are spinosyn A and spinosyn D.
Although the bait formulation includes sugars and attractants, these
chemical substances are of low toxicity and are not expected to contribute
substantially to overall hazard.
Unlike malathion, spinosad has not been widely analyzed in toxicological

testing because of its relatively recent registration status. Acute toxicity
of spinosad to humans is low by all routes of exposure. The symptoms of
intoxication are unique and are characterized by initial flaccid paralysis

followed by weak tremors and continuous movement (Thompson et al.,
1995). The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) to rats is greater than
5,000 milligrams (mg) of spinosad per kilogram (kg) of body weight
(Dow Agrosciences, 1998; EPA, 1998a). The acute dermal LD50 to rats
is greater than 2,800 mg/kg. The acute inhalation median lethal
concentration (LC50) to rats is greater than 5.18 mg per Liter (L). Primary
eye irritation tests in rabbits showed slight conjunctival irritation.
Primary dermal irritation studies in rabbits showed slight transient
erythema and edema. Spinosad was not found to be a skin sensitizer.
Subchronic and chronic studies of spinosad also indicate low hazard to

mammals. The systemic NOEL for spinosad from chronic feeding of
dogs was determined to be 2.68 mg/kg/day (EPA, 1998a). The LOEL for
this study (8.22 mg/kg/day) was based upon vacuolated cells in glands
(parathyroid) and lymphatic tissues, arteritis, and increases in serum
enzymes. No studies found any evidence of neurotoxicity or
neurobehavioral effects. A neuropathology NOEL was determined to be
46 mg/kg/day for male rats and 57 mg/kg/day for female rats. No
evidence of carcinogenicity was found in chronic studies of mice and
rats. EPA has classified the carcinogenic potential of spinosad as group
E—no evidence of carcinogenicity (EPA, 1998b).
There has been no evidence of mutagenic effects from spinosad (EPA,

1998a). Tests have been negative for mouse forward mutations without
metabolic activation to 25 µg/ml and with metabolic activation to
50 µg/ml. No increases in chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster
ovary cells were observed without activation to 35 µg/ml or with
activation to 500 µg/ml. No increase in frequency of micronuclei in bone
marrow cells of mice were found for 2-day exposures of spinosad up to
2,000 µg/ml. No unscheduled DNA synthesis was observed in adult rat
hepatocytes in vitro at concentrations of spinosad as high as 5 µg/ml.
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have found that these

effects occur only at doses that exceed those which cause other toxic
effects to the parent animal. The reproductive NOEL from a 2-generation
study of rats was determined to be 10 mg/kg/day with a LOEL of
100 mg/kg/day based upon decreased litter size, decreased pup survival,
decreased body weight, increased dystocia, increased vaginal post-partum
bleeding, and increased dam mortality (EPA, 1998a).
As with any recently developed compound, there are some data gaps.
However, adequate data are available to determine potential effects by
quantitative and qualitative analyses for given environmental exposure.

Exposure to spinosad bait spray involves simultaneous exposure to both

spinosad and bait in the formulated insecticide. The consequence of this
fact is that the determined risk must be based on the cumulative exposure
to both chemicals. However, the baits are of low toxicity and potential
hazard from baits will not be considered in a quantitative manner.
Hazard from exposure to the bait relates only to those individuals with
allergic or hypersensitive reactions to the compounds present and this
subject is discussed in the section on hypersensitivity.
Calculated doses of spinosad from aerial application were determined for

routine, extreme, and accidental exposure scenarios. The exposure
scenarios for the general population to spinosad indicate very low
exposures by most potential routes. Calculated doses to the general
public ranged from 2.01 x 10-9 mg/kg/day spinosad for the routine
exposure scenario of a 10 kg child spending 4 hours in a swimming pool
to 1.18 x 10-5 mg/kg/day spinosad for the accidental exposure scenario of
a 10 kg toddler who consumes 250 milliliters (ml) of runoff water from a
driveway that has not been washed off shortly after an application of
spinosad bait.
Calculated doses from aerial applications of spinosad bait to workers

ranged from 5.11 x 10-7 mg/kg/day spinosad for the routine exposure
scenario of pilots to 3.0 x 10-3 mg/kg/day spinosad for the extreme
exposure scenario of ground personnel. The dose from the accidental
exposure scenario where a worker spills concentrate on an uncovered
lower leg and does not wash it off for 2 hours is 2.78 x 10-3 mg/kg/day
spinosad.
The RRV selected for spinosad is 0.027 mg/kg/day for the general
population and 0.27 mg/kg/day for occupational exposures. These values
are based on a chronic feeding study in dogs. This study determined a
NOEL to dogs of 2.68 mg/kg/day and a LOEL to dogs of 8.46 mg/kg/day
based upon vacuolization in glandular cells (parathyroid) and lymphatic
tissues, arteritis, and increases in serum enzymes (EPA, 1998a). The
RRV values were determined by applying an uncertainty (safety) factor of
10 to the NOEL to account for inter-species variation for occupational
exposures and by applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to the NOEL to
account for inter-species and intra-species variation for general
population exposures. There is no increased sensitivity of infants or
children to spinosad over that of the general population, so it is

unnecessary to apply an additional uncertainty factor of 10 for protection
of this subgroup of the population.
The risks of adverse effects to program workers and the general

population are very slight. The HQs for all scenarios are much less than
1. The highest HQ for occupational exposures (1.1x10-2) to spinosad is
for the extreme scenario of ground personnel activity. The likelihood of
any adverse effects to ground personnel in this scenario is very slight.
The risks of adverse effects are negligible for all occupational exposures
to spinosad. The highest HQ for general population exposures (4.4x10-4)
to spinosad is for the accidental scenario where a 10 kg toddler consumes
250 ml of runoff water shortly after an application of spinosad bait. The
HQ for this scenario still exceeds a 100-fold safety factor, so the potential
risks for this scenario are minimal. Other scenarios for the general
population have even greater safety factors. Based upon the HQs
determined for all exposure scenarios, there are not expected to be any
unacceptable risks from applications of spinosad bait spray.
Neurotoxicity
No subchronic or chronic studies found any evidence of neurotoxicity or

neurobehavioral effects. A neuropathology NOEL was determined to be
46 mg/kg/day for male rats and 57 mg/kg/day for female rats. Based
upon this, it is expected that any neurotoxic response to spinosad would
require exposures greater than those anticipated from aerial applications
of spinosad bait spray.
Immunotoxicity
Primary dermal irritation studies in rabbits showed slight transient

erythema and edema. Spinosad was not found to be a skin sensitizer.
Although no studies indicate any evidence of immunotoxic response,
some individuals may have allergic reactions at higher exposures than
would be expected from program applications.
There has been no evidence of mutagenic effects from spinosad (EPA,

1998a). Tests have been negative for mouse forward mutations without
metabolic activation to 25 µg/ml and with metabolic activation to
50 µg/ml.

No increases in chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary cells
were observed without activation to 35 µg/ml or with activation to
500 µg/ml. No increases in frequency of micronuclei in bone marrow
cells of mice were found for 2-day exposures of spinosad up to
2,000 µg/ml. No unscheduled DNA synthesis was observed in adult rat
hepatocytes in vitro at concentrations of spinosad as high as 5 µg/ml.
Based upon this, no genotoxic or mutagenic effects are expected from
program applications of spinosad bait spray.
Carcinogenicity
No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in any chronic studies of mice

and rats. EPA has classified the carcinogenic potential of spinosad as
group E—no evidence of carcinogenicity (EPA, 1998b). Based upon
this, no carcinogenic effects are expected from program applications of
spinosad bait spray.
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have found that these

effects occur only at doses that exceed those which cause other toxic
effects to the parent animal. The reproductive NOEL from a 2-generation
study of rats was determined to be 10 mg/kg/day with a LOEL of
100 mg/kg/day based upon decreased litter size, decreased pup survival,
decreased body weight, increased dystocia, increased vaginal post-partum
bleeding, and increased dam mortality (EPA, 1998a). Based upon this,
no adverse reproductive or developmental effects are expected from
program applications of spinosad bait spray.
The primary active ingredients in spinosad are spinosyn factor A and

spinosyn factor D. All other substances in the formulated products of
spinosad are of lower toxicity. Spinosyns are relatively inert and their
metabolism in rats results in either parent compound or – and O-
demethylated glutathione conjugates as excretory products (EPA, 1998a).
Studies have found that 95% of the spinosad residues in rats are
eliminated within 24 hours.
Synergistic Effects
The mechanism of toxic action of spinosad relates to persistent activation

of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and prolongation of acetylcholine
responses (Salgado et al., 1997). This prolonged response leads to

involuntary muscle contractions and tremors. This mode of toxic action
is unique to spinosyns. No evidence has been found that would indicate
that exposure to other substances increases this intoxication response
from exposure to spinosad in a synergistic manner. In fact, this
mechanism may actually be antagonistic to the adverse effects from some
other chemical classes of pesticides.
(4) Ground Applications of Spinosad Bait
The hazard assessment for spinosad bait spray is presented in the

previous section on spinosad aerial application. The formulation,
Calculated doses of spinosad from ground application were determined

for routine, extreme, and accident scenarios. Spinosad exposures to the
somewhat less than from aerial applications because the directed spray
hits the trees and foliage and not the surrounding area. Calculated doses
to the public from ground application of spinosad are, therefore,
considered the same as from aerial application and are presented in that
section.

Calculated doses determined for single route exposure scenarios to
workers range from 9.0x10-7 mg/kg/day spinosad for a routine exposure
scenario for hydraulic rig applicators to 7.3x10-6 mg/kg/day spinosad for
an extreme exposure scenario for the mixers and loaders. Exposures
were also determined for backpack applicators. Data from pesticide
studies on a surrogate chemical, 2,4-D, were the basis for calculations of
exposures to backpack and hydraulic rig applicators and mixer/loaders
(Lavy et al., 1987). The calculated doses for ground personnel
determined for the assessment of aerial applicators, and which include
scenarios for accidental exposures, ranged from 1.1x10-3 mg/kg/day
spinosad to 3.0x10-3 mg/kg/day spinosad for various scenarios that
involved spills of spinosad concentrate onto the skin.

Ground applications of spinosad bait result in lower risk to the public

applications than to aerial applications because the ground application is
directed at the trees and foliage rather than the entire surrounding area.
Risks to the general public from ground applications therefore would be
even lower than those from aerial applications, which were determined to
be acceptable.
conditions were evaluated in the section on spinosad aerial application,

developmental effects from exposures to spinosad bait spray are similar
section on aerial application of spinosad bait.
(5) SureDye Aerial Application
SureDye bait is a formulation of a red xanthene dye—phloxine B. The

mechanism of toxic action of phloxine B to invertebrates occurs through
the oxidation of susceptible tissues. Mammals and higher organisms lack
this tissue structure and are not affected in the same way as invertebrates.
Phloxine B is a halogenated xanthene dye registered as D&C (Drug and

Cosmetic) Red Dye #28 for use as a color additive in drugs by the Food
and Drug Administration under 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
74.1328 and as a color additive in cosmetics under 21 CFR 74.2328.
Unlike malathion, phloxine B has not been widely analyzed as a pesticide

in toxicological testing. Generally, toxicity data are available from tests
related to drug and cosmetic usage. Acute toxicity of phloxine B to
humans is low by all routes of exposure. The acute oral toxicity of
phloxine B is very slight to mammals (Hansen et al., 1958; Webb et al.,
1962; Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, 1962a, 1962b). The low

metabolism, low toxicity, and rapid excretion in mammals probably
account for the low mortality observed (Webb et al., 1962; Hansen et al.,
1958). Phloxine B is a mild skin and eye irritant. Phloxine B has been
shown to be a skin sensitizer (Wei et al., 1994).
Human experience using cosmetics containing phloxine B has been

summarized by the number of complaints received per million units sold
(Toilet Goods Association, Inc., 1965). These rates of alleged adverse
effects from formulated cosmetics are well within reasonable limits of
safety for the consuming public (range from 2.6 to 37.1 per million units
sold for different cosmetic groups, although it is uncertain whether the
dye or other agents in the product formulations were responsible.
Although it is possible that some individuals may have allergic responses
to phloxine B, there was no evidence of immunotoxic responses from
repeated applications of the red dye to rabbit skin (Leberco Laboratories,
1965).
Testing also indicates low chronic toxicity of phloxine B to mammals.

The MADI for phloxine B in humans is 1.25 mg/kg/day (FR
47(188):42567 on Tuesday, September 28, 1982). Studies of phloxine B
indicate that this compound has a low systemic chronic toxicity to
mammals. Phloxine B is not considered to be carcinogenic by either the
National Toxicology Program (NTP) or the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) (Baker, 1994; Baker, 1994a). Mutagenicity
and genotoxicity tests have included some results that are clear and some
that are equivocal. Reproductive and developmental toxicity have been
recorded in laboratory tests equivalent to or greater than the highest doses
in drugs (RTECS, 1994; Seno et al., 1984; McEnerney et al., 1977).
There are some data gaps. No regulatory review for registration has been
performed for SureDye by EPA. However, adequate data may be
available to determine potential effects by quantitative and qualitative
analyses for given environmental exposures.
Exposure to SureDye bait spray involves simultaneous exposure to both

phloxine B and the bait in the formulated insecticide. The exposure
calculations are based upon exposure to the active ingredient, phloxine B.
The bait is relatively non-toxic.
Calculated doses of phloxine B from aerial application were determined

for routine, extreme, and accidental exposure scenarios. The exposure
scenarios for the general population to phloxine B indicate very low

exposures by most potential routes. Calculated doses to the general
public ranged from 3.1x10-8 mg/kg/day phloxine B for the routine
exposure scenario of a 10 kg child drinking from runoff water from
impervious surfaces following a rainstorm to 4.26x10-3 mg/kg/day
phloxine B for the extreme exposure scenario of an adult who consumes
vegetation that has not been washed off shortly after an application of
SureDye bait.
Calculated doses from aerial applications of SureDye bait to workers

ranged from 4.6x10-6 mg/kg/day phloxine B for the routine exposure
scenario of pilots to 1.32x10-1 mg/kg/day phloxine B for the extreme
exposure scenario of ground personnel. The dose from the accidental
exposure scenario where a worker spills concentrate on an uncovered
lower leg and does not wash it off for 2 hours is 7.2x10-2 mg/kg/day
phloxine B.
The RRV selected for phloxine B is the same as the MADI for humans of
1.25 mg/kg/day (FR 47(188):42567 on Tuesday, September 28, 1982) as
determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This
is based on the contention that the maximum consumption allowed by the
MADI is adequate to prevent adverse human health effects and exposures
in agency eradication programs should not exceed the MADI. The same
exposure level will be used for the RRV for both general population and
occupational exposures.
The risks of adverse effects to program workers and the general

population are very slight. The HQs for all scenarios are much less
than 1. The highest HQ (0.1036) for occupational exposures (1.32x10-1)
is for phloxine B in the extreme scenario of ground personnel activity.
The likelihood of any adverse effects to ground personnel in this scenario
is very slight, particularly when considering that the diminished risk
afforded by the safety precautions required by the program was not
considered in this analysis. The risk of adverse effects are negligible for
most occupational exposures. The highest HQ (0.0034) for general
population exposures (4x10-3) is to phloxine B is for the extreme scenario
for consumption of contaminated vegetation. The hazard quotient for
this scenario still exceeds a 100-fold safety factor, so the potential risks
for this scenario are minimal. Other scenarios for the general population
have even greater safety factors. Based upon the HQs determined for all
exposure scenarios, there are not expected to be any unacceptable risks
from applications of SureDye bait spray.

Neurotoxicity
Unlike malathion, phloxine B is not known to be neurotoxic. It is

expected that any neurotoxic response to phloxine B would require
exposures greater than those anticipated from aerial applications of
SureDye bait spray.
Immunotoxicity
Human experience using cosmetics containing phloxine B has been

summarized by the number of complaints received per million units sold
(Toilet Goods Association, Inc., 1965). These rates of alleged adverse
effects from formulated cosmetics are well within reasonable limits of
safety for the consuming public (range from 2.6 to 37.1 per million units
sold for different cosmetic groups, although it is uncertain whether the
dye or other agents in the product formulations were responsible.
Although it is possible that some individuals may have allergic responses
to phloxine B, there was no evidence of immunotoxic responses from
repeated applications of the red dye to rabbit skin (Leberco Laboratories,
1965). Skin sensitization from exposure to phloxine B has been found to
occur with direct and high exposures (Wei et al., 1994). These exposures
are possible in accidents to workers who do not wear the required
protective clothing or follow the safety procedures. The exposures to the
general public are lower than would be anticipated to result in skin
sensitization.
Genotoxicity and mutagenicity tests have included some results that are
clear and some that are equivocal. A mutagenicity assay of carp
indicated that phloxine B has DNA-damaging capacity (Tonogai et al.,
1979b). EPA GENETOX Program of 1988 determined that the data from
rec assays and histidine reversion-Ames tests of phloxine B are
inconclusive (RTECS, 1994).
Carcinogenicity
Two-year feeding studies of rats and dogs at dietary levels up to 1%

phloxine B indicated no adverse effects from visible or pathologic
observations (Industrial Bio-Test Labs, 1965a; 1965b). Lifetime studies
of mice found no evidence of tumors when dermal applications as 1%
solutions of phloxine B were applied weekly (Leberco Labs, 1964;

Hazleton Labs, 1969). Phloxine B is not considered to be carcinogenic
by either the National Toxicology Program (NTP) or the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Baker, 1994; Baker, 1994a).
The oral LEL for reproductive toxicity of phloxine B to 1- to 22-day

pregnant female rats was determined to be 63,000 mg/kg and to 6- to
16-day pregnant female mice was determined to be 39,600 mg/kg
(RTECS, 1994). D&C Red Dye #28 was shown to cause maternal
toxicity to female mice at dietary levels of 3 and 5% dose levels. A
teratogenic effect (split cervical arches) was observed at the 1% dose
level (Seno et al., 1984).
The manufacturer indicates that there are no significant inert ingredients

in SureDye. Phloxine B is relatively inert. Phloxine B is not
metabolized by mammals (Webb et al., 1962). Degradation of phloxine
B results in detoxification of this relatively nonionic compound (Heitz
and Wilson, 1978). Bromine is the only degradation product of
toxicological interest from phloxine B, but the potential exposure
resulting from the degradation process would be to only very low
concentrations.
Synergistic Effects
Uranine has been shown to function as a synergist to phloxine B against

some insect pests (Carpenter et al., 1984). Knowledge of this synergistic
action has been applied to increase the overall efficacy of the SureDye
formulation. It is known that other halogenated and nonhalogenated
xanthene dyes are also synergistic, but most are not used as pesticides or
not expected to result in situations where there could be simultaneous
exposures.
(6) Ground Applications of SureDye Bait
The hazard assessment for SureDye bait spray is presented in the

previous section on SureDye aerial application. The formulation,

Calculated doses of SureDye from ground application were determined

for routine, extreme, and accident scenarios. SureDye exposures to the
somewhat less than from aerial applications because the directed spray
hits the trees and foliage, and not the surrounding area. Calculated doses
to the public from ground application of SureDye are, therefore,
considered the same as from aerial application and are presented in that
section.

Calculated doses determined for single route exposure scenarios to
workers range from 1.8x10-4 mg/kg/day phloxine B for a routine
exposure scenario for mixer/loaders to 7.8x10-4 mg/kg/day phloxine B for
an extreme exposure scenario for the backpack applicators. Exposures
were also determined for hydraulic rig applicators. Data from pesticide
studies on a surrogate chemical, 2,4-D, were the basis for calculations of
exposures to backpack and hydraulic rig applicators and mixer/loaders
(Lavy et al., 1987). The calculated doses for ground personnel
determined for the assessment of aerial applicators, and which include
scenarios for accidental exposure, ranged from 2.7x10-1 mg/kg/day
phloxine B to 6.9x10-1 phloxine B for various scenarios that involved
spills of SureDye concentrate onto the skin.
Ground applications of SureDye bait result in lower risk to the public

applications than to aerial applications because the ground application is
directed at the trees and foliage rather than the entire surrounding area.
Risks to the general public from ground applications therefore would be
even lower than those from aerial applications, which were determined to
be acceptable.
conditions were evaluated in the section on SureDye aerial application,


developmental effects from exposures to SureDye bait spray are similar
section on aerial application of SureDye bait.
b. Soil Treatments
The human health and safety risks to the public and workers from the
application of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and fenthion as soil treatments are
considered in this section. Because chlorpyrifos is being considered for
use at two rates of application, a risk assessment was performed for the
potential exposures that could occur from each application rate.
(1) Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic

action is primarily through AChE inhibition (Smith, 1987; Klaassen
et al., 1986). At low doses, the signs and symptoms of AChE inhibition
in humans include localized effects (such as blurred vision) and systemic
effects (such as nausea, sweating, dizziness, and muscular weakness).
The effects of higher doses may include irregular heartbeat, elevated
blood pressure, cramps, convulsions, and respiratory failure.
The acute oral toxicity of chlorpyrifos is moderate to severe in humans

(Gosselin et al., 1984). Chlorpyrifos is considered moderately toxic
(EPA Toxicity Category II) to other mammals through oral and dermal
routes of exposure. Acute inhalation toxicity is considered to be a data
gap by EPA (EPA, OPP, 1984a), although studies have indicated that the
acute inhalation toxicity of chlorpyrifos is moderate (EPA, OPP, 1984a).
Chlorpyrifos is a slight to moderate dermal irritant, depending on the
formulation, and is considered a slight to moderate eye irritant, showing
conjunctival irritation that clears after 48 hours (EPA, OPP, 1984a;
1989d).
Reports of chronic and subchronic toxicity tests, as measured by plasma

and red blood cell cholinesterase (ChE) inhibition, indicate that the
toxicity to humans is relatively low. A human oral RfD of 0.003
mg/kg/day was established by EPA based on no cholinesterase inhibition
at 0.03 mg/kg/day, and an uncertainty factor of 10 to account for the

range of human sensitivity for cholinesterase inhibition (EPA, ORD,
1988). Cholinesterase inhibition in red blood cells from dermal exposure
was reported to occur at higher doses (EPA, OPP, 1989c). Subchronic
inhalation exposure at the highest attainable vapor concentration
(20.6 ppm) to rats over 90 days produced no ChE inhibition. The major
metabolite of chlorpyrifos, TCP, is structurally similar and is not thought
to be a cholinesterase inhibitor (EPA, OPP, 1989d).
Chlorpyrifos has not shown delayed neurotoxicity at the doses tested

(EPA, OPP, 1984a). There was no observable evidence of dermal
sensitization, and data on immunotoxicity indicate that chlorpyrifos does
not induce delayed dermal hypersensitivity, as tested in guinea pigs. The
data on carcinogenicity suggest that chlorpyrfos is noncarcinogenic.
Most studies on mutagenicity in mammals indicate that chlorpyrifos is
nonmutagenic, although some results suggest that chlorpyrifos may cause
chromosomal aberrations and may be directly toxic to DNA (LAI,
1992a).
Reproductive toxicity studies of chlorpyrifos have shown no effects at

doses up to 1 mg/kg/day. EPA has determined that chlorpyrifos does not
cause developmental toxicity at doses up to 15 mg/kg/day, and that it is
not teratogenic at levels up to 10 mg/kg/day. Maternal effects
(cholinesterase inhibition) were seen at 0.3 mg/kg/day, with a NOEL at
0.1 mg/kg/day (EPA, OPP, 1989d).
EPA lists a chronic feeding-oncogenicity study with rats as a FIFRA data

gap, but adequate data are available to determine potential effects by
quantitative and qualitative analyses for given environmental exposures.
Separate exposure analyses were performed for high and low application
rates of chlorpyrifos soil drench treatments. Doses of chlorpyrifos to the
general public were determined for routine, extreme, and accident
scenarios. Calculated doses of chlorpyrifos at the low application rate
determined for exposure scenarios to the general public range from
4.9x10-9 mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario of a 10 kg child
drinking from a groundwater source in an area of California that was
treated 72 hours before a rainstorm to 6.6x10-3 mg/kg/day for an extreme
exposure scenario of a 10 kg child consuming soil from a drenched area
immediately after application.
Doses to workers were calculated based upon routine, extreme, and

accident scenarios for hand applicators and mixer/loaders. Calculated

doses of chlorpyrifos from the low application rate determined for
workers range from 7.7x10-4 mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario
for mixer/loaders to 1.2x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme exposure scenario
for a hand applicator. The calculated dose from an accident scenario in
which a worker spills chlorpyrifos concentrate (or mixture which
evaporates to pure chlorpyrifos) on an uncovered lower leg and does not
wash for 2 hours is 8.7x10-4 mg/kg/day.
Calculated doses of chlorpyrifos at the high application rate determined

for exposure scenarios to the general public range from 8.7x10-9
mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario of a 10 kg child drinking from
a groundwater source in an area of California that was treated 72 hours
before a rainstorm to 2.8x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme exposure
scenario of a 10 kg child with pica consuming soil from a drenched area
immediately after application.
Calculated doses of chlorpyrifos from the high application rate

determined for workers range from 3.1x10-3 mg/kg/day for a routine
exposure scenario for mixer/loaders to 4.8x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme
exposure scenario for a hand applicator. The calculated dose from the
accident scenario is the same as for chlorpyrifos at the low application
rate because the exposure was assumed to be to the concentrate.
The oral RRVs used in this risk assessment were 0.003 mg/kg/day for
acute, subchronic, and chronic effects for the general public and
0.03 mg/kg/day for acute, subchronic, and chronic effects for workers.
The RRVs were derived from a NOEL for AChE inhibition (0.03
mg/kg/day) which was the basis for the derivation of the verified RfD
from EPA. The inhalation RRV, based on the TLV-TWA recommended
by ACGIH (1992), was 0.2 mg/m3. For chlorpyrifos, exposures above
the RRV, that is, an HQ above 1, may be cause for concern, and
exposures that result in an HQ above 3 may be associated with clinical
effects.
The HQs determined for routine exposure scenarios of chlorpyrifos at the

low application rate to the general public indicated that there were no
unacceptable risks of adverse effects. The extreme exposure scenario
presented some cause for concern for a 10 kg child ingesting drenched
soil immediately after application (HQ = 2.2). It is uncertain whether
EPA would allow residential use of chlorpyrifos based on concerns
relating to exposure to children.

The HQs for toxicity to workers were calculated based upon routine,
extreme, and accident scenarios. In the routine and extreme scenarios at
the low application rate, the HQs were less than 1, indicating that there
were no unacceptable risks to soil drench applicators or mixer/loaders.
An HQ of 0.3 was determined from the accident scenario in which a
worker spilled chlorpyrifos concentrate on his/her lower leg and washed
it off 2 hours later. Therefore, there is no cause for concern for an
accidental exposure of this type.
In a routine exposure scenario of chlorpyrifos at the high application rate

in which a 10 kg toddler plays for 1 hour on turf 6 hours after the
pesticide is applied, the resulting HQ was 2.1. Another scenario that
presented a cause for concern was the extreme exposure scenario in
which a 10 kg child with pica ingests drenched soil immediately after
chlorpyrifos application (HQ = 9.3). These exposures present a reason
for concern in one case and a possibility of causing clinical effects in the
other case. Again, concerns related to adverse health effects on children
suggest that future program use of chlorpyrifos in residential settings is
unlikely.
The HQs determined for workers were calculated based upon routine,
extreme, and accident scenarios. The HQs calculated from the routine
scenarios for the soil drench applicators and the mixer/loaders at the high
application rate indicated that there were no unacceptable risks for these
workers. However, the HQ of 1.6 for an extreme exposure scenario for
the drench applicators might be cause for concern. Although the HQ is
only slightly above 1, the dose/severity slope for humans was interpreted
to be atypical based on the available data. Under these circumstances,
any exposure level that exceeds the RRV might raise concerns, and
exposure levels of 1 mg/kg/day (an HQ of about 3) may be associated
with clinical effects. An HQ determined from the accident scenario was
the same as for the low application rate (HQ = 0.3) because the exposure
was assumed to be to the concentrate.
Neurotoxicity
Data on neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos to mammals, other than that which

occurs due to AChE inhibition, were not located. There was no evidence
of delayed neurotoxicity in an acute study of hens (EPA, OPP, 1989d). It
is not expected that the doses that could occur from exposures to either
the low or high application rates of chlorpyrifos during program use
would present an unacceptable risk of neurotoxicity.

Immunotoxicity
The only data available on immunotoxicity indicate that chlorpyrifos did

not induce delayed dermal hypersensitivity in guinea pigs. Chlorpyrifos
drench applications are not expected to pose an unacceptable risk of
adverse immune system effects under the conditions of use in this
program.
Most studies on mutagenicity in mammals indicate that chlorpyrifos is

nonmutagenic. Some results suggest that chlorpyrifos may cause
chromosomal aberrations and may be directly toxic to DNA, although
these results were not seen in mammalian test systems (LAI, 1992a). The
exposures to chlorpyrifos that are possible from program use are not
likely to pose an unacceptable risk of genetic toxicity.
Carcinogenicity
EPA (EPA, OPP, 1989d) reported that mouse and rat chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity studies did not reveal any evidence that chlorpyrifos
is carcinogenic. Therefore, it is not expected that chlorpyrifos exposures
from this program, at either the low or high application rates, would
present an unacceptable risk of carcinogenicity.
Based on a 3-generation rat study, chlorpyrifos has shown no effects at

doses up to 1 mg/kg/day. EPA has determined that chlorpyrifos does not
cause developmental toxicity at doses up to 15 mg/kg/day, and that it is
not teratogenic at levels up to 10 mg/kg/day. A reproductive and
developmental NOEL is 2.5 mg/kg/day, based on postimplantation loss
(EPA, OPP, 1989d). This NOEL is higher than the NOEL used for
derivation of the RRV. Therefore, reproductive and developmental
effects to the public are not expected from program use of chlorpyrifos at
either the low or high application rates.
TCP (also known as 3,5,6-TCP and 3,5,6-trichloropyridinol, or TC-

pyridinol) is the major metabolite of chlorpyrifos. TCP is structurally
similar to chlorpyrifos and is not considered to be an inhibitor of
cholinesterase (EPA, OPP, 1989d).

Synergistic Effects
The toxicity of chlorpyrifos has been shown to be potentiated by another

organophosphate (phosfolan). However, the insecticide phosfolan has
been discontinued (Farm Chemicals Handbook, 1991) so that
simultaneous exposure to the two pesticides should not occur. The
addition of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to the diet of rats was reported to
enhance the toxicity of chlorpyrifos and increase serum phosphatase
activity (U.S. DHHS, NIOSH, 1987).
(2) Diazinon
Diazinon is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action

is primarily through AChE inhibition (Smith, 1987; Klaassen et al.,
1986). At low doses, the signs and symptoms of AChE inhibition in
humans include localized effects (such as blurred vision) and systemic
effects (such as nausea, sweating, dizziness, and muscular weakness).
The effects of higher doses may include irregular heartbeat, elevated
blood pressure, cramps, convulsions, and respiratory failure.
The acute oral toxicity of diazinon is moderate to humans (Gosselin

et al., 1984). The acute toxicity of diazinon by the dermal route is low to
moderate (Gaines, 1960; EPA, OPP, 1988a). Technical diazinon is not a
dermal irritant, but other formulations may be slightly irritating to the
skin (EPA, ODW, 1988). Diazinon has been shown to be a dermal
sensitizer (EPA, OPP, 1988a). Diazinon is considered to be a mild eye
irritant with corneal opacity and slight conjunctival redness from
treatment (Agrochemicals Handbook, 1990; EPA, OPP, 1988a). Studies
of delayed neurotoxicity have been negative or equivocal (EPA, OPP,
1988a).
Chronic testing indicates moderate to high toxicity in animals. The

lowest NOEL based upon plasma AChE inhibition is 0.006 mg/kg/day in
dogs (Williams et al., 1959). A NOEL at 0.009 mg/kg/day was
determined from a 92-day study of rats (Davies and Holub, 1980). Based
upon the NOEL for AChE inhibition in this study, a human oral
provisional acceptable daily intake (PADI) of 0.00009 mg/kg/day was
established by EPA (EPA, OPTS, 1990a).
Several tests for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity have

been completed. The tests for carcinogenicity provide good evidence that

diazinon is not carcinogenic (NCI, 1979). Diazinon does not induce gene
mutations in bacteria with or without metabolic activation (EPA, ECAO,
1984; EPA, OPTS, 1988). Studies of unscheduled DNA synthesis and
sister chromatid exchange are also predominantly negative (Simmons et
al., 1979; Abe and Sasaki, 1982). Positive results were found for
chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes (Lopez et al., 1986).
Several reproductive and developmental studies have been conducted

with diazinon. The lowest NOEL values for various outcomes were
7 mg/kg/day for reproductive effects, 20 mg/kg/day for maternal toxicity,
100 mg/kg/day for fetotoxicity, and 100 mg/kg/day for teratogenicity
(EPA, ODW, 1988; EPA, OPP, 1988a).
Chronic feeding studies and rat reproduction studies are listed by EPA as
FIFRA data gaps (EPA, OPTS, 1989), but adequate data are available to
determine potential effects by quantitative and qualitative analyses for
given environmental exposures.
Doses of diazinon for the general public were determined for routine,
extreme, and accident scenarios. Calculated doses of diazinon
6.3x10-5 mg/kg/day for an exposure scenario of a child drinking from a
contaminated groundwater source to 2.1x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme
exposure scenario of a 10 kg child with pica ingesting soil immediately
after application of the soil drench.

doses of diazinon determined for workers range from 4.8x10-4 mg/kg/day
for a routine exposure scenario for mixer/loaders to 2.8x10-2 mg/kg/day
for an extreme exposure scenario for a hand applicator.
The RRVs used in this risk assessment were 0.003 mg/kg/day for acute
and subchronic effects, and 0.0005 mg/kg/day for chronic effects for the
general public, and 0.03 mg/kg/day for acute and subchronic effects and
0.005 mg/kg/day for chronic effects for workers. The RRVs were
derived from health advisories recommended by the EPA Office of
Drinking Water (EPA, ODW, 1988). Since the health advisories were
based on a study in which the high dose was associated only with
cholinesterase inhibition, and no frank effects were observed, HQs of less

than or equal to 2.5 did not cause substantial concern. However, HQs
greater than 10 may be associated with severe clinical effects. The
inhalation RRV, based on the threshold limit value-time weighted
average (TLV-TWA) recommended by ACGIH (1992), was 0.1 mg/m3.
This TLV notes that skin absorption may be an important route of
exposure.
The HQs determined for routine exposure scenarios of diazinon to the

general public indicate no unacceptable risk from groundwater or soil
consumption. The scenario in which a 10 kg toddler is exposed to
diazinon dermally from 1 hour of playing on turf 6 hours after application
results in an HQ of 1.7. However, because the HQ was less than 2.5, this
exposure did not cause concern. The HQs determined for extreme
exposure scenarios of diazinon to the general public indicate a cause for
concern for a child consuming soil immediately after a soil drench
application. However, the public will be adequately cautioned to prevent
children or toddlers from entering the drenched area until after the spray
has dried. Theoretical exposures of the public to drinking from
groundwater sources or breathing air near areas where the soil has been
drenched were determined to be toxicologically insubstantial relative to
other routes of exposure.
The HQs determined for workers were calculated based upon routine,
extreme, and accident scenarios. The HQs calculated from the routine
and extreme scenarios for the soil drench applicators and the
mixer/loaders indicated that there were no unacceptable risks for these
workers. An HQ of 2 was determined from an accident scenario in which
a worker spilled diazinon concentrate on a lower leg and washed it off
2 hours later. Again, for diazinon, HQs of less than or equal to 2.5 did
not raise concern.
Neurotoxicity
Diazinon has been shown to cause neurological damage in offspring of

mice treated during gestation (Spyker and Avery, 1977) and to nerve cells
in vitro (Obersteiner and Sharma, 1976). Studies of delayed
neurotoxicity of diazinon to chickens were either negative or equivocal
(EPA, OPP, 1988a). Doses that might cause neurotoxicity in humans,
other than that resulting from AChE inhibition, would not be expected to
occur in this program. In addition, AChE inhibition would likely be
noted (during routine testing) from exposures to lower doses, which

would alert the worker to prevent continued exposure before higher doses
could potentially produce lasting neurological effects.
Immunotoxicity
Diazinon has been shown to be a dermal sensitizer, but data

demonstrating other immune reactions were not located. Therefore, there
is insufficient evidence to clearly determine the risk of immune system
effects in individuals exposed to diazinon at the levels anticipated in this
program. However, based upon the limited evidence, program use of
diazinon should not pose an unacceptable risk of adverse immune system
effects.
Studies of mutagenicity of diazinon have generally produced negative

results (EPA, ECAO, 1984; EPA, OPTS, 1988a; Simmons et al., 1979;
Abe and Sasaki, 1982), although chromosomal aberrations were detected
in studies with human lymphocytes (Lopez et al., 1986). However, it is
unlikely that the exposures that could occur from program use of
diazinon would pose an unacceptable risk of genotoxicity to the public or
workers.
Carcinogenicity
From chronic bioassays in rats and mice, the National Cancer Institute
(1979) has concluded that diazinon was not carcinogenic under the
conditions of the tests. Therefore, it is unlikely that the potential
diazinon exposures evaluated in the scenarios from this program would
present an unacceptable risk of carcinogenicity.
The reproductive and developmental NOEL of 7 mg/kg/day (EPA, OPP,

1988a) is several orders of magnitude greater than the NOEL for AChE
inhibition that served as the basis for the derivation of the RRV. Under
these circumstances, parental cholinesterase inhibition and systemic
effects, which both have lower NOELs, would be evident before there
were unacceptable risks of developmental effects in humans.
The main impurity and degradation product of concern in diazinon

formulations is sulfotepp. This compound is relatively stable in the

environment, can accumulate, and is more toxic than diazinon to
mammals and aquatic organisms (Meier et al., 1979). This compound
has only been a problem when improper storage and handling resulted in
transformation of the formulated product to higher levels of sulfotepp and
monothiono-TEPP (Soliman et al., 1982).
Synergistic Effects
Although the toxicity of diazinon may be potentiated by some other

organophosphates and carbamates (Keplinger and Deichmann, 1967;
Seume and O'Brien, 1960), it is impossible to predict multiple exposures
and synergism from applications not related to this program. The toxicity
of diazinon and malathion appears to be synergistic (Keplinger and
Deichmann, 1967), and although they may be used within the same
treatment program, simultaneous application of the two pesticides usually
does not occur. The program applicators are instructed to allow the
insecticide drench to penetrate the soil before leaving the treatment sites
to prevent exposures to the soil drench chemicals. Even though it still
may be possible for an individual to be exposed to diazinon and
malathion within a critical exposure window, the implications of such an
exposure are not clear. There is some potential for synergistic effects
resulting from the combination of diazinon and inadvertent simultaneous
pesticide application by the public; however, public notification about
program treatments helps to minimize this risk.
(3) Fenthion
Fenthion is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action is

primarily through AChE inhibition (Smith, 1987; Klaassen et al., 1986).
At low doses, the signs and symptoms of AChE inhibition in humans
include localized effects (such as blurred vision) and systemic effects
(such as nausea, sweating, dizziness, and muscular weakness). The
effects of higher doses may include irregular heartbeat, elevated blood
pressure, cramps, convulsions, and respiratory failure. Fenthion has also
been shown in animal studies to produce ocular effects similar to those
observed in humans exposed to organophosphate pesticides (EPA, OPP,
1988b).
The acute oral toxicity of fenthion is moderate to severe in humans

(Gosselin et al., 1984). Acute dermal and inhalation toxicities are
considered to be moderate, although in animal studies, whole-body
exposure to fenthion was eight times more toxic than snout-only

exposure (Iwasaki et al., 1988). Fenthion is minimally irritating to the
skin and eyes (EPA, OPP, 1988b).
Chronic and subchronic toxicity testing and accidental and intentional

human exposure reports of fenthion indicate very high toxicity to
humans. EPA has recommended an RfD of 0.00005 mg/kg/day based on
an LEL of 0.05 mg/kg/day from a 1-year dog feeding study and an
uncertainty factor of 1,000. The World Health Organization has
established an acceptable daily intake of 0.001 mg/kg/day (EPA, OPP,
1990a).
Fenthion has five cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites: fenthion

sulfoxide, fenthion sulfone, fenthion oxygen analog, fenthion oxygen
analog sulfoxide, and fenthion oxygen analog sulfone (EPA, OPP,
1988b).
Two studies using rat and chick cell cultures determined that fenthion can
affect dopamine levels and nerve cell growth, indicating that there is a
possibility of fenthion being neurotoxic. Reduced antibody titers in
chickens that were fed fenthion suggest that it may be
immunosuppressive. Fenthion was not a dermal sensitizer when tested in
guinea pigs (EPA, OPP, 1985). Fenthion at doses up to 25 mg/kg has
been found to be nonmutagenic in male mice (EPA, OPP, 1988b).
Reproductive and developmental toxicities have been investigated using

rabbits exposed to fenthion during gestation. The maternal toxicity
NOEL is 6 mg/kg/day, the fetotoxic NOEL is 2 mg/kg/day and the
teratogenic NOEL is 18 mg/kg/day. Other reproductive effects were
studied in rats that showed no adverse effects in 3 generations exposed to
doses as high as 75 ppm in their feed (EPA, OPP, 1988b).
Fenthion is classified by EPA in category D for carcinogenicity,

indicating that insufficient evidence is available to draw a conclusion
regarding its potential to produce cancer in laboratory animals or humans.
Therefore, carcinogenicity studies of fenthion have been listed by EPA as
data required for reregistration (EPA, OPP, 1988b). Nonetheless,
adequate data are available to determine potential effects by quantitative
and qualitative analyses for given environmental exposures.
Doses of fenthion for the general public were determined for routine,
extreme, and accident scenarios. Calculated doses of fenthion

1.2x10-6 mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario of a 10 kg child
drinking from a groundwater source in an area in California after a
rainstorm 72 hours after a treatment to 2.2x10-2 mg/kg/day for an extreme
exposure scenario of a 10 kg child with pica ingesting soil from a
drenched area immediately after application.

doses of fenthion determined for workers ranged from 9.0x10-4
mg/kg/day for a routine exposure scenario for mixer/loaders to 4.0x10-2
mg/kg/day for an extreme exposure scenario for a hand applicator. The
calculated dose from an accident scenario in which a worker spills
fenthion concentrate or mixture on an uncovered lower leg and does not
wash for 2 hours is 7.6x10-3 mg/kg/day.
The oral RRVs used in this risk assessment were 0.00005 mg/kg/day for
acute, subchronic, and chronic effects for the general public and
0.0005 mg/kg/day for acute, subchronic, and chronic effects for workers.
The oral RRVs were based on an RfD recommended by the EPA Office
of Pesticide Programs, derived from an AEL of 0.05 mg/kg/day for
spleen enlargement in a 1-year dog study. The inhalation RRV was
0.2 mg/m3, which was adopted from the TLV-TWA established by the
ACGIH (1992).
The HQs determined for the extreme and the routine exposure scenarios
of fenthion to the general public indicated that the projected exposures in
some scenarios presented substantial risk of adverse effects. The HQs
exceeded 1 in routine scenarios depicting a 10 kg toddler incidentally
ingesting a very small amount of soil from a drenched area immediately
after a fenthion application (HQ = 11), and a 10 kg toddler dermally
exposed to fenthion for 1 hour by playing on the ground 6 hours after
drench application (HQ = 102). The extreme exposure scenarios
obviously resulted in much higher HQs. The HQs determined for both
routine and extreme scenarios of a 10 kg child drinking from a
groundwater source receiving runoff from fenthion soil drench
application indicated that groundwater contamination was toxicologically
insubstantial relative to other routes of exposure.
The HQs for toxicity to workers were calculated based upon routine,
extreme and accident scenarios. The HQs determined for mixer/loaders
in both the extreme and routine exposure scenarios presented some risk
of adverse effects (HQs = 3.3 and 1.7, respectively). For the hand

applicators, the calculated HQs indicated that both the extreme and the
routine exposure scenarios presented substantial risk of adverse effects
(HQs = 80 and 44, respectively). An HQ of 0.15 was determined from
the accident scenario in which a worker spilled fenthion concentrate on a
lower leg and washed it off 2 hours later. Therefore, there was no cause
for concern for an accidental exposure of this type. Although it may
appear illogical that a routine exposure would be more of a health risk
than an accidental exposure, the rationale is that under accidental
exposure conditions, the pesticide would likely be rinsed off much more
rapidly, diminishing the time for dermal absorption.
Neurotoxicity
In vitro studies have suggested that fenthion may be a neurotoxic agent,

although the only clear data in animals and humans show cholinergic
symptoms resulting from AChE inhibition after exposure to high doses.
Epidemiological surveys of workers exposed to fenthion indicate that
symptoms disappear within 4 hours of exposure; there was no evidence
of peripheral neuropathy (Wolfe et al., 1974; Beat and Morgan, 1977).
Scenarios in which a child consumed soil or contacted sprayed ground
predict exposures that pose a risk of adverse systemic effects. Therefore,
exposures at this and higher levels may put the public or workers at risk
of temporary nervous system effects.
Immunotoxicity
On the basis of negative responses in dermal sensitization studies in

guinea pigs (EPA, OPP, 1985), and the lack of evidence for humoral and
cell-mediated immunotoxic potential (Singh et al., 1988; Rodgers et al.,
1986), fenthion is unlikely to present an unacceptable immunological risk
to humans.
Fenthion was found to be nonmutagenic in male mice up to 25 mg/kg,

with a systemic NOEL for mutagenicity at 10 mg/kg/day. Tests for gene
mutation, structural chromosomal aberrations, and other genotoxic
effects were negative (EPA, OPP, 1988b). This evidence suggests that
fenthion does not pose a risk of causing heritable genetic mutations or
somatic genotoxicity to humans exposed in the fruit fly program.

Carcinogenicity
EPA has classified fenthion as an Group D (inadequate evidence) relative

to carcinogenic potential based on review of two oncogenicity studies in
the rat and one in the mouse (EPA, OPP, 1988b). These studies did not
provide sufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion about
carcinogenicity in humans.
Fenthion was found to produce reproductive and developmental effects in

a rabbit teratology study (EPA, OPP, 1986b). In this study, the maternal
toxicity NOEL was 6 mg/kg/day, the fetotoxic NOEL was 2 mg/kg/day,
and the teratogenic NOEL was greater than or equal to 18 mg/kg/day.
EPA concluded that fenthion does not induce developmental effects in
rabbits. These exposure levels are several orders of magnitude greater
than the NOEL (0.05 mg/kg/day) used to derive the RfD of 0.00005
mg/kg/day for fenthion recommended by EPA. Therefore, reproductive
and developmental effects would be secondary to systemic effects that
would be observed at a much lower dose. Under these circumstances,
unacceptable risks of reproductive and developmental effects to the
public and most workers would not be expected from program use of
fenthion. However, the extreme exposure scenario posed some risk of
toxicity to the fetus of a pregnant soil drench applicator.
Technical fenthion was found to have 23 impurities, eight of which have

been identified as phosphorus-containing. Some of these have been
tentatively identified as the sulfoxide and sulfone of fenthion and the
sulfoxide and sulfone of fenoxon. Technical fenthion was reported to be
only slightly more toxic than the purified fenthion, based on results of rat
LD50 studies. The symptoms observed were characteristic of AChE
inhibition. The difference in toxicity may be attributed to the small
amount of fenoxon in the technical material (Toia et al., 1980).
Synergistic Effects
Several organophosphate pesticides, including malathion and dioxathion,

were reported to cause potentiation of fenthion acute toxicity (EPA, OPP,
1985). Although malathion and fenthion may be used during the same
treatment program, simultaneous application of the two pesticides usually
does not occur. Even though it still may be possible for an individual to
be exposed to fenthion and malathion within a critical exposure window,

the implications of such an exposure are not clear. There is some
potential for synergistic effects resulting from the combination of
fenthion and inadvertent simultaneous pesticide application by the public;
however, public notification about program treatments helps to minimize
this risk.
c. Fumigation
(1) Methyl Bromide
Methyl bromide is an organic compound which contains the inorganic

element bromine. Inorganic bromine occurs naturally in soils and food,
and is also found in humans at varying concentrations. A blood-bromine
level of 50 ppm is considered normal (Hayes and Laws, 1991). Levels
above this may be indicative of methyl bromide exposure. Levels up to
1,500 ppm were achieved when inorganic bromide drugs were prescribed
and no apparent ill effects were noted (Gay, 1962; as cited in Hayes and
Laws, 1991).
The mode of toxic action of methyl bromide is not well understood. The
central nervous system is the primary focus of toxic effects. There is
evidence that the observed toxicity is caused by methyl bromide itself and
not its metabolites or by-products (Honma et al., 1985).
At low concentrations human symptoms of exposure appear slowly and

include: dizziness, blurring vision, sluggishness, tiredness, staggering,
slurred speech, nausea, vomiting, lack of appetite, and loss of muscle
coordination. High concentrations of methyl bromide can cause more
rapid onset of symptoms, including convulsions, and can result in lung
damage. Chronic overexposure causes peripheral nerve damage.
Prolonged skin and eye contact can cause burns (Great Lakes Chemical
Corporation, 1989; Hayes and Laws, 1991).
The acute toxicity of methyl bromide has been determined by the oral and
inhalation routes for several species. Acute lethal doses to humans have
been determined to be 1,583 ppm in air for a 10- to 20-hour exposure and
7,890 ppm for a 1.5-hour exposure (EPA, ORD, 1986). The acute oral
median lethal dose to rats was determined to be 214 mg/kg (Sax and
Lewis, 1989). The acute inhalation median lethal doses to animals range
from 1.2 ppm for 5 hours to guinea pigs (Sayers et al., 1929; as cited in
Alexeeff and Kilgore, 1983) to 2,700 ppm for 30 minutes in rats (EPA,
ORD, 1986).

The subchronic and chronic toxicity studies of methyl bromide have also
analyzed the oral and inhalation routes of exposure. The lowest NOEL
determined for oral exposure was 0.4 mg/kg/day in a subchronic gavage
study of rats based upon hyperplasia of the epithelium of the forestomach
at the LEL of 2 mg/kg/day (Danse et al., 1984). The lowest NOEL
determined for inhalation exposure was 20 ppm in a chronic study of
mice (EPA, OPP, 1990a). Decreased liver weights were noted at the LEL
of 40 ppm in this study. No information was located about immunotoxic
effects from methyl bromide exposure. Several studies found neurotoxic
effects in rodents when exposed to methyl bromide over extended periods
of time.
Unequivocal evidence of carcinogenicity has not been shown in any

studies of methyl bromide. A study in rats receiving methyl bromide by
gavage for 90 days found well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma in
13 animals (Danse et al., 1984), but a panel of the National Toxicology
Program reviewed this study and determined that there was no evidence
of carcinogenicity. Following procedures similar to Danse et al., another
study found that stomach lesions regressed in rats which had stopped
receiving treatments (Boorman et al., 1986). Oncogenicity was negative
for rats exposed by inhalation for 29 months to concentrations as high as
90 ppm (EPA, OPP, 1990a).
Most researchers have found that the mutagenic potential of methyl

bromide is low (Hayes and Laws, 1991). Methyl bromide can cause
chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes in vitro, and in rat bone
marrow in vivo (Garry et al., 1990; Fujie et al., 1990). Methyl bromide
has been shown to cause sister chromatid exchange in human blood and
human lymphocyte cultures (Tucker et al., 1985; Garry et al., 1990).
No adverse reproductive effects, including fetotoxicity and teratogenicity,

were seen in rats and rabbits exposed to 20 to 70 ppm methyl bromide
gas for 6 to 7 hours/day during gestation (Hardin et al., 1981). Ninety-six
percent of the rabbits died at the higher concentration, but there was no
indication of maternal toxicity in the rabbits at 20 ppm (NOEL) and in
the rats at both concentrations.
Based upon reduced maternal weight observed in pregnant rats at an

inhalation LEL of 90 ppm, the maternal NOEL was determined to be
30 ppm (EPA, OPP, 1990a). Reduced rates of pregnancy set the
reproductive LEL at 30 ppm. Based upon reduced pup weights and
survival at 30 ppm (fetotoxic LEL), a fetotoxic NOEL was set at 3 ppm
(EPA, OPP, 1990a). Hurtt and Working (1988) found only temporary
effects on plasma testosterone levels in male rats exposed to 200 ppm for

6 hours/day for 5 days. No lasting effects on sperm quality or
spermatogenesis were noted.
FIFRA data gaps exist for mutagenicity, rabbit teratology, subchronic

inhalation in the rat and rabbit, and chronic feeding studies in the rat and
dog (EPA, ORD, 1986), but adequate data are available to determine
potential effects by quantitative and qualitative analyses for given
environmental exposures.
The lack of both monitoring data on levels of exposure associated with

fumigations using methyl bromide and air dispersion models designed to
estimate levels of a gas in the area surrounding the fumigation apparatus
have made it impossible to quantify the exposures that may occur during
program use of methyl bromide. However, details regarding operating
procedures and typical circumstances surrounding fumigations were
considered in determining the potential for exposure to the public and
workers. The safety procedures required of the personnel conducting the
fumigation of regulated commodities are stringently enforced to prevent
unacceptable risk to humans from exposure under routine conditions.
Workers are required to wear protective clothing and maintain a 30-ft
(10-m) restricted area around the fumigation chamber where access is
limited to individuals with self-contained breathing apparatus. Although
some fumigations are performed near the source of the commodity,
fumigation operations generally are carried out in rural, or otherwise,
remote locations, so that public exposures are very unlikely.
The possibility exists for accidental release of methyl bromide through a

tear in a tarp, or a leak in a hose or canister. In the event of an accident,
workers, and in extremely rare circumstances the public, may be exposed
to levels of methyl bromide that exceed those minimums recommended
to protect human health.
(c) Qualitative Risk Assessment
An RRV of 0.48 mg/m3 for chronic exposure of the general population

was adopted from the RfC established by EPA (EPA, ECAO, 1992). The
RfC was based on a 29-month inhalation study in rats in which the lowest
exposure caused degenerative lesions in the nasal cavity. Because this
study was adjusted for a 6-hour exposure, and because the exposures
projected in this risk assessment are likely to be much less than 6 hours,
the chronic RRV was adjusted by a factor of 4 (24 ÷ 6) to yield an
intermittent RRV of 1.92 mg/m3 for the general population exposure.

The ACGIH (1992) recommends a TLV-TWA of 19 mg/m3 with a
notation that unprotected skin could exacerbate exposure. This value was
adopted as the inhalation RRV for workers. This recommendation has
been in effect since 1986. In the documentation for the TLV, ACGIH
(1986) notes that the toxicological data are not adequate for
recommendation of a short-term exposure limit. Following the general
guidelines in ACGIH (1992), exposures of up to three times the TLV-
TWA for no more than a total of 30 minutes are considered acceptable.
Exposures greater than or equal to 5 times the TLV-TWA for any
duration are considered unacceptable.
Because monitoring data and air dispersion models were determined to

be inappropriate for characterizing exposures to either the general public
or workers, a qualitative assessment of risk was performed. Fumigations
with methyl bromide are conducted in a manner that prevents
unacceptable risk to people. For fumigations conducted in locations
without a wall to prevent access to the chamber, there is a 30-ft (10-m)
area around the fumigation chamber where entry is restricted to
individuals wearing self-contained breathing apparatus when a
fumigation is being conducted. This restricted area allows dispersion and
mixing of methyl bromide with ambient air which forms a buffer zone to
assure safe concentrations in the surrounding areas. Thus, restricted
access, buffer zones, and dissipation prevent risks of adverse effects to
the public.
There may be unacceptable risks of adverse effects from exposures

greater than the TLV within close proximity of the aeration outlet of the
fumigation chamber during the initial phases of aeration. However,
because regulatory fumigations require that unprotected individuals be
kept out of the fumigation area until the level of methyl bromide drops
below the TLV, these unacceptable risks should not be realized in any
program-related fumigations.
Accidental worker exposures that are greater than the level/duration

recommended by the ACGIH may cause serious clinical effects. This
possibility does exist, especially since the methyl bromide used in these
fumigations does not contain a marker chemical that warns workers of its
presence through an odor. However, methyl bromide fumigations using
the methods specified in the "Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment
Manual" (USDA, APHIS) have a long history of safe operation.
Therefore, the likelihood of an accidental exposure resulting in severe
illness is extremely remote.

Neurotoxicity
Unintentional or accidental occupational exposures of humans have

resulted in a variety of adverse neurological manifestations (Behrens and
Dukes, 1986; Anger et al., 1986; Verberk et al., 1979). The safety
requirements of all program fumigations adequately prevent these
exposures. The only possibility of neurotoxic effects from fumigations
would be the result of an unprotected individual accidentally wandering
into the restricted access area around the fumigation chamber. This
should not occur if program personnel are properly monitoring the
fumigation.
Immunotoxicity
No evidence was found to indicate that methyl bromide causes dermal

sensitization, allergic hypersensitivity, or other immune function
alteration in laboratory animals or humans.
Although the mutagenicity of methyl bromide has not been demonstrated

in mammalian cells and intact mammals, methyl bromide is a mutagen to
bacteria. Methyl bromide has been shown to cause chromosomal injury
to mammalian cells and the inability to induce mutation in mammals
probably relates to the greater physiological protection from mutagens in
the mammalian system. Adherence to safety procedures for fumigations
in agency programs prevents exposure to levels of methyl bromide that
could cause chromosomal injury and the risks of an accidental exposure
of the magnitude that could cause injury are very slight.
Carcinogenicity
The National Toxicology Program found no evidence of carcinogenicity

in its review of a 13-week rat study (Danse et al., 1984), which had
reported a finding of squamous cell carcinomas in the forestomach of
some animals tested. The panel determined that the reported lesions were
inflammation and hyperplasia rather than oncogenic effects. The
conclusion of the National Toxicology Program was verified by another
study (Boorman et al., 1986) where the same experimental design was
used and all stomach lesions regressed when methyl bromide exposure
ceased. Two chronic studies of rats (diet and inhalation) were both
negative for carcinogenicity (Mitsumori et al., 1990; EPA, OPP, 1990a).
Methyl bromide is listed by EPA as a class D chemical in regards to
carcinogenicity. This means that no firm decision has been made

regarding the potential to cause cancer, but the results of these bioassays
indicate that any risk of carcinogenic effects is unlikely.
The toxic effects of methyl bromide exposure are considerably more

critical than adverse effects from any metabolites or impurities (Honma
et al., 1985). No impurities of any toxicological consequence are
associated with formulations of methyl bromide.
Synergistic Effects
There is some evidence that methyl chloride may be synergistic with

methyl bromide, but this has not been specifically analyzed (Van
Wambeke et al., 1982). The use of methyl chloride occurs only in
Europe. No studies were located that analyzed multiple exposures to
determine synergistic or antagonistic effects. No risks from synergistic
effects of methyl bromide are anticipated in this program.
The traps are placed out of the reach of the general public and are labeled
as a hazard so individuals living in the treatment areas are not likely to be
exposed to the pesticides used in the traps. In the unlikely event that a
person were to open a trap, there would be no adverse human health
effects anticipated except in the accidental case where the trap contents
are ingested. The workers are more likely to be exposed to trap
chemicals and their use of required safety precautions and protective
clothing prevent any adverse health effects.
Male annihilation, using sticky yellow panels, is not expected to pose a

risk to human health and safety. The panels kill fruit flies simply by
trapping them in sticky substance, and although a chemical lure may be
incorporated, the toxicity of the lure is very low. In addition, the public
is not likely to be exposed to the panels, which are placed out of reach in
host trees.
The usage pattern (small spots applied at locations out of reach of the
general public and large untreated intervals) for bait stations and other
male annihilation spot treatments rely on a bait to attract the target pest.
Most humans would not come into contact with the pesticide used. Any
random contact by humans with the treatment spots and chemical would
not be expected to result in any adverse health effects. The application
process might constitute some small risk to applicators who are

encouraged to minimize their risk through adherence to APHIS standard
operating procedures.
Cordelitos and wood fiberboard squares are only applied in rural and
agricultural areas where most humans would not be exposed. They are
attractive only to some of the fruit fly species and their appearance would
not attract the attention of humans. The quantity of pesticide on any
given cordelitos or wood fiberboard squares would not be expected to
cause adverse human health effects except for the case of accidental
ingestion, which is an unlikely route of exposure.
3. Principal a. Hypersensitivity
Related
Issues Hypersensitive humans experience toxicological symptoms and signs at
dosage levels much lower than those that are required to produce the
same symptoms in the majority of the population. Hypersensitive
individuals constitute only a small portion of the total population. If the
response of the population being studied follows the varying doses in a
normal distribution (bell-shaped curve), the hypersensitive individuals
would be expected to be on the left side of the curve. The increased
genetic susceptibility of these individuals is quite variable. Although a
margin of safety factor of 10 (uncertainty factor) has traditionally been
used by regulatory agencies (National Academy of Sciences, 1977) to
account for intraspecies variation or interindividual variability, human
susceptibility to toxic substances has been shown to vary by as much as
three orders of magnitude (Calabrese, 1984). Individual sensitivity to
effects from chemical exposure is known to be strongly influenced by
several factors including age, nutritional status, and disease status.
Individuals with immune systems that are less developed or that are
compromised physically are more likely to be more hypersensitive. The
hypersensitive individuals, therefore, would be expected to include larger
proportions of the populations of elderly and young children than the
proportions of other subgroups of the general population. Calabrese
examined several studies of human responses to chemicals and found that
a safety factor of 10 was useful for predicted effects in 80 to 95% of a
population. In APHIS fruit fly programs, pesticide rates and protection
measures would result in a safety factor much greater than 10 for the
general population.
There is no single established mechanism or measureable biological

marker that is associated with the reported reactions of individuals who
purportedly suffer from multiple chemical sensitivities. Thus, there is no
clinical identity or established physiological relationship to individual
chemical exposure. The etiology of multiple chemical sensitivity is,

therefore, very subjective. The reactivity of this group cannot be
effectively evaluated because there are no objective criteria to use to
evaluate individual agents.
Based upon the current state of knowledge, individual susceptibility to

toxic effects of the chemicals used in the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control
Program cannot be specifically predicted. The approach used in this risk
assessment takes into account much of the variation in human response
(Calabrese, 1984). However, unusually sensitive individuals may
experience effects even when the HQs indicate that there are no
unacceptable risks. An association may exist between exposure to the
protein bait and resulting dermal, respiratory, and other immunological
responses. The program will assure that residents are notified if bait
spray applications are to made in their neighborhood so sensitive
individuals can prevent the possibility of adverse effects from exposure.
Only limited amounts of the soil drench chemicals—chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, and fenthion—are permitted to be applied to specific areas (to
the drip line under infested trees) so that potential exposure is minimized.
Exposures from trap chemicals, fruit fly male annihilation treatments,
cordelito applications, and wood fiberboard square applications are
expected to be minimal due to the limited usage and placement of
chemicals. Because an extra effort is made to contact individuals on the
lists of registered hypersensitive persons, those individuals can take extra
precautions to avoid exposure to residues from program pesticide
applications.
Methyl bromide exposure to the public is not expected because program

procedures for fumigations preclude entry into restricted areas around the
fumigation chambers, so potential hypersensitive responses from program
fumigations should be prevented by the required safety procedures.
b. Environmental Justice
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 places certain requirements on all Federal

actions to address Environmental Justice issues in minority and low-
income populations. Consistent with the requirements of this executive
order, APHIS considers the potential for disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations
and low-income populations for all programs.
The population of most sites in recent fruit fly eradication programs has
been diverse and lacked any special characteristics that implicate greater
risks of adverse effects for any minority or low-income populations. A
review of the demographic characteristics of likely future program sites is

provided in chapter 4. Those characteristics are expected to be
representative of conditions for most site-specific fruit fly eradication
actions.
The demographic review did reveal certain areas with large minority
populations and some minority communities. In particular, some areas
have large Spanish-speaking populations. To ensure that these
individuals are informed of agency actions related to fruit fly eradication,
pertinent documents (environmental documents, precautions, and/or
warnings) are translated into Spanish for dissemination in these areas.
Pesticide application schedules are provided to local radio stations and
other communication media in Spanish to facilitate good communication
of program activities in their area.
It is also recognized that some low income populations do not receive an

adequate daily intake of protein and vitamins, which may contribute to
the potential for adverse effects for these subgroups of the population. In
particular, homeless populations would be expected to receive higher
exposures and to have less adequate nutrition. The homeless are
protected from disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects through standard program mitigations and
provisions of the Emergency Response Communication Plan.
c. Psychological Effects
Program actions, including pesticide applications, may elicit

psychological effects in some members of the general population.
During an eradication effort, the public is notified about the pesticide
applications and informed that personnel and equipment will be in their
neighborhoods to make those applications. Nevertheless, individuals are
generally uncomfortable with actions that are not under their direct
control. Literature from environmental and citizen groups that
disapprove of the use of pesticides may influence the attitudes of the
public and cause additional concern.
Some individuals have expressed a fear of malathion, branding it as a

nerve gas. This fear stems from information about a German company,
I.G. Farben, whose organophosphate pesticide development led to
research into the development and production of nerve gases for the
Nazis during World War II. Private individuals have circulated literature
to a wide segment of the populations of program areas, implying that
malathion is a nerve gas or can have the same effects as a nerve gas.
Malathion and other organophosphate pesticides in this program are not
nerve gases. Instead, there are chemical differences in the classes of

compounds and there are vast magnitudes of difference in their effects.
Nevertheless, misinformation or misperception could lead to unfounded
distrust of the fruit fly programs.
Some people may be disturbed by the sight of the helicopters overhead

during spraying of bait spray. Some individuals who have not seen the
notifications may not be aware of the program and may wonder what the
helicopters are for and what is being sprayed. Concerns have been raised
on behalf of Vietnam veterans, especially those who have been diagnosed
with posttraumatic stress syndrome, regarding the use of helicopters in
the program. Some have speculated that the use of helicopters may
trigger uncontrolled behavior because of memories of fighting in the
jungles of Vietnam, but no evidence exists to indicate this has happened
in previous programs.
The notification sent out to the affected population states that the public
should remain indoors during the spraying operations, cars should be
covered, and pets should be taken indoors. Adequate notification and
education of the public should minimize the risk of individuals
developing psychological traumas from the fruit fly programs.
d. Noise
The effects of noise from application procedures for the program

pesticides have been considered. Aircraft noise and ground application
equipment noise occur for only short durations of time and at low
frequency of repetition, so that disturbances to humans from program
actions are likely to be minimal and temporary. The potential use of
large aircraft in fruit fly programs could increase the noise level,
particularly close to the airport where loading, take-offs, and landings
could occur at late hours in the night. Soil drench applications should not
cause any noise disturbance other than minimal equipment noise and
conversation of hand applicators. Noise is also expected to be minimal
from conversation and equipment for fruit fly male annihilation
treatments, trapping, cordelitos applications, and wood fiberboard
squares applications. The disturbance of humans by noise from program
fumigations with methyl bromide is likely to be minimal and mostly the
result of setting up the fumigation stack, which is a temporary structure.
e. Socioeconomics
People potentially affected by fruit fly infestations or resulting fruit fly

eradication efforts may belong to any of several major social groups:
agricultural producers (producers of host crops, home gardeners, organic

farmers, and beekeepers); pesticide applicators; residents; and consumers.
Many other groups may be indirectly affected, but this discussion will be
restricted to those groups immediately impacted. The program will result
in both benefits and risks for people within these social groups.
The impact of a program on agricultural producers will be, for the most
part, beneficial. Fruit flies represent a threat to numerous crops, and their
establishment could lead to substantial losses of produce, income, and
export markets. These losses could be most serious for small farmers and
people dependent upon gardens for a substantial portion of their food. A
fruit fly eradication program will protect both crops and income, as well
as alleviating the need for (and cost of) uncoordinated farm-by-farm
control programs.
There are some risks for agricultural producers from a program,

particularly a program which uses pesticides. These risks include the
potential mortality of biological control agents, the loss of "pesticide-
free" status (and thus certain markets) for organic farmers, and potential
mortality of honey bees. The risk to honey bees can be substantially
reduced by early notification of beekeepers so that they can take
precautions to protect their hives. With proper precautions there should
be no loss of hives due to pesticide use (see program mitigative
measures).
A program using pesticides will create both benefits and risks for
pesticide applicators. The timely nature of an eradication program and its
intensive work schedule will probably create additional income for
pesticide applicators. There are some health risks for pesticide
applicators, although the use of protective clothing greatly reduces these
risks (see section on human health).
The residents of an area infested with fruit flies will receive both benefits
and risks from a fruit fly eradication program. The benefits will include
the protection of backyard and ornamental host plants from the fruit flies.
The risks will be those associated with pesticide use, although only
certain subpopulations of the area residents are at risk due to program
pesticide use (see section on human health).
The largest group of program beneficiaries includes anyone who

consumes produce that is a host of fruit flies. Because commercial farms
and orchards ship produce to other States and countries, this group
encompasses a wide spectrum of people. The Fruit Fly Cooperative
Control Program benefits this social group by preserving the current
availability and cost of certain produce. Federal regulations governing

pesticide residues on produce protect the general public from any risks
associated with pesticides used in a program (see section on human
health).
The potential for the rapid spread of fruit fly infestations requires that
programs be initiated soon after infestations are detected. Fruit fly
outbreaks often occur first in urban/residential areas, thus nonagricultural
areas are involved. Under these conditions, the distribution of benefits
and risks of the program among various social groups can be somewhat
inequitable. Even under the no action alternative (no Federal cooperation
in eradication efforts), State and private eradication programs would
create risks similar to those that might result from the fruit fly program.
Because the potential distribution inequity of the program is unavoidable,
every effort is made to reduce risks from the program to all social groups
(see sections on mitigative measures and risk-reduction strategy).
f. Cultural and Visual Resources
(1) Nonchemical Control Methods
Nonchemical control methods are expected to have minimal effect on

cultural and scenic resources of the program area. Equipment (aircraft or
trucks) used to release sterile fruit flies may affect those resources only to
the extent that the activity or noise may disturb visitors to these
resources. Physical control methods may affect the appearance of public
and private gardens; fruit stripping would not result in harm to plants, but
host removal could change the appearance of gardens. Cultural control
should not affect cultural resources because it involves agricultural lands
that generally are not considered cultural resources. Neither physical
control nor cultural control will be applicable in scenic areas such as
national forests or wilderness areas because of the resources' large sizes
and nonagricultural nature. The potential effects of biological and
biotechnological control on cultural resources would depend on the
species-specificity of the controls, the relative contribution of nontarget
species to the particular resource, and the effect on the species. Mortality
of insects is not likely to directly affect cultural resources but adverse
effects on plants could change the appearance of gardens. The
establishment of quarantine checkpoints under regulatory control, and the
associated traffic, noise, and signboards, may affect nearby cultural
resources such as Indian reservations. The effect of integrated pest
management on cultural or scenic resources would depend on the
component control methods used.

(2) Chemical Control Methods
Aerial bait spray applications have potential to adversely affect cultural

and visual (scenic) resources through direct or indirect effects on
nontarget species that are associated with or comprise the resources. The
effect of aerial applications on cultural and scenic resources such as
gardens, parks, zoos, arboreta, forests, and wildlife refuges will depend to
a large extent on the animal and plant species they contain. Aerial
applications of malathion bait spray tend to have more adverse effects on
the desired wildlife than SureDye bait spray or spinosad bait spray (which
are more selective). Standard operational procedures (such as
notification of residents within a spray area and avoidance of recognized
major bodies of water) generally help to limit the exposure of wildlife in
zoos, arboreta, gardens, and the major bodies of water.
Bait spray applications are known to mark some surfaces. Malathion bait
spray is known to affect some types of car paint. SureDye bait spray is
known to give red or brown marks to external surfaces of some buildings.
No data exist about the potential effects of bait spray formulations on the
types of paint or exteriors found on historical buildings or Native
American petroglyphs. However, archaeological sites are not likely to be
treated, and the vertical walls and exposures of the petroglyphs would
serve to minimize exposure to any bait spray. Cultural practices, such as
wild food gathering by Native Americans on Indian reservations, could
be temporarily halted due to aerial applications of bait spray.
Other chemical control methods will have little to no effect on cultural or

scenic resources. The soil treatments and ground applications of bait
spray may affect those resources if substantial mortality of nontarget
species were to occur as a result of treatment. However, these
applications are applied to limited areas and any resulting impacts would
be minimal and localized. Methyl bromide fumigation should not have
any impact on cultural or scenic resources because fumigation generally
is not conducted in or near cultural or scenic resources. The use of traps
in gardens or around historic sites may temporarily detract from the
appearance of cultural and scenic resources. Use of fruit fly male
annihilation technique, cordelitos, and wood fiberboard squares are
generally not applied to areas of cultural or visual resources, but their
limited application to specific areas ensures that any impacts would be
minimal and localized.

D. Nontarget Species
This section summarizes the quantitative and qualitative risks to

nontarget species associated with chemical, nonchemical, and combined
control methods used or proposed for use in the Fruit Fly Cooperative
Control Program. Those risks were based on scenarios that incorporated
control methods which could be used across the broad program area, but
may not be used in all areas; as such, the risks should be viewed as being
very conservative and may even be interpreted by some as being "worst-
case." In addition, potential environmental effects were considered for
habitats or ecological associations of concern, endangered and threatened
species, and biodiversity. Refer to the Nontarget Risk Assessment
(APHIS, 1998b), and Spinosad Nontarget Risk Assessment (APHIS,
1999b), incorporated by reference.
1. Non- This section qualitatively considers the potential effects of the

chemical nonchemical treatment methods.
Control
Methods a. Sterile Insect Technique
The release of sterile fruit flies (when not used in combination with other
treatments) in agricultural and urban areas is unlikely to cause
disturbance to domestic animal species. The noise and interruption from
aircraft or vehicles dispensing sterile fruit flies should not interfere with
animal or agricultural production, but could interfere with some sensitive
native species or life stages, e.g., nesting birds. Any possible disruption
should be transitory with no long term consequences because it is
anticipated that most program areas already will be disturbed by human
activity.
The sterile fruit flies will feed and oviposit on the host fruit, however,
and will serve as a food source for insectivorous species. No extensive
damage to wild host plants is anticipated from the introduced sterile fruit
flies.
With the addition of the exotic, sterile fruit flies to a localized

invertebrate fauna, a possibility exists for food competition with other
fruit fly species and shifts in predator food selection. Because the sterile
flies do not reproduce, the population will be short-lived and any such
changes will be of short duration. The exception would be in the case of
the unintentional release of nonsterile fruit flies. Although proper rearing
and handling procedures required by the program preclude such releases,
the presence of even one fertile female can lead to more than one site of

infestation. If fertile flies were inadvertently released and a population to
become established, the consequences would be far ranging.
b. Physical Control
Domestic animals and personnel could be affected when program

personnel enter a property to strip fruit or eliminate host plants if the
animals are agitated by the presence of strangers. Host plant removal
could also affect domestic animals by reducing the amount of cover
available to provide shelter on rangeland, or by increasing the possibility
that weedy species unsuitable for forage could exploit the disturbed
environment where trees and shrubs had been removed.
Domestic plants will not be affected by fruit stripping unless the stripping
procedure also removes a portion of the vegetative material which
reduces the plant's growth rate. Removal of vegetative material could
also expose portions of the branch or trunk of woody plants, allowing the
entry of bacteria, fungi, or plant pests.
Wild animals that utilize fruit fly host fruits as an energy source would be
affected by both fruit stripping and host plant removal. These organisms
would have to find an alternative source of food and might have to spend
more time foraging. However, the ultimate effect of fruit stripping in a
control program would be the preservation of the quality and quantity of
the host fruit in the area, which would tend to benefit those species in the
long run. Larger soil organisms (e.g., burrowing rodents, moles,
earthworms, and insects) may be injured or killed during destruction
operations, or populations may be reduced as a result of disturbed soil
conditions.
Wildlife that use fruit fly hosts for shelter would be displaced and would
need to locate other trees or shrubs in which to live. Host elimination
over a large area would change the plant species in the area by creating
patches of disturbed soil and would increase soil erosion, which increases
turbidity in aquatic resources. Changes in the plant species in the area
could affect animals dependent upon specific types of plants for food or
shelter. Increased turbidity in aquatic resources could affect the ability of
aquatic organisms to breathe and to find food.
Plants would be affected by fruit stripping due to loss of reproduction for

the year. Host elimination would create patches of disturbed soil which
could be exploited by weedy, herbaceous plants.

c. Cultural Control
Domestic plants, such as agricultural crops, may be affected by cultural

control if crops are grown at different times of the season than usual.
This could affect the growth rate of these crops. Domestic animals are
not expected to be affected by cultural control.
Cultural control methods, such as clean culture methods, which involve

fruit stripping and host plant removal would have the same consequences
as those discussed above in the section on Physical Control. Growing
fruit fly host crops at special times and using resistant varieties would not
affect wild animals and plants. Trap cropping would increase the number
of fruit flies and fruit fly predators in an area and would cause increased
mortality to fruit fly predators when chemical treatments are used to
control fruit fly populations. The consequences of chemical treatments
are discussed in the chemical control section.
In general, domestic animals are unlikely to be affected by biocontrol

agents. Predatory and parasitic invertebrate biocontrol agents for fruit
flies generally affect only other invertebrates, and microorganisms used
for biocontrol (e.g., Bt, NPV) are known to have essentially no negative
impacts on domestic animals. Individual honey bees could potentially be
at risk from some predators, but hives or colonies should not be
considered at risk. Although honey bees are at risk from some parasitic
invertebrates (i.e., mites), none of these species are considered as fruit fly
biocontrol agents.
The primary risk to domestic plants is a disruption of pollination systems

by predators and parasites that might be used for biocontrol of fruit flies.
Most agricultural pollination depends on honey bees which are
considered to be at low risk from fruit fly biocontrol agents. However,
some agricultural pollination and pollination of most other plants (e.g.,
horticultural plantings) depend on the activities of feral bees and other
species of insect pollinators. These pollination systems would be
disrupted to the extent that the predators and parasites released for fruit
fly control affect populations of natural pollinators. Few data on such
complex systems exist for any natural systems; the effect that inundative
releases of biocontrol agents for fruit fly control would have on
pollination systems in program areas is unknown.
If they were available for use, release of biocontrol agents for fruit fly
control could negatively impact populations of nontarget wild animals

(primarily insects) and plants. Predators (including nematodes) would
not be specific to fruit flies and could potentially damage populations of
many species of nontarget insects. Parasites would be more host-specific,
but could damage populations of insects related to fruit flies (e.g., other
species of flies). Biological larvicides (Bt and viruses) could affect other
species of insects, but would be less host-specific than parasites.
Although these agents potentially could have a serious impact on local
nontarget invertebrate populations, specific impacts are unknown.
Biotechnological control methods are still under development. One

potential biotechnological method for fruit fly control is bioengineering
of domestic plants (i.e., use of bioengineered (transgenic) citrus trees that
resist fruit flies). A concern with use of any transgenic organism is
exchange of genetic material with nontarget organisms. However, before
transgenic plants are released, their ability to exchange genetic material
with native, feral, and weedy species in general is examined closely and
steps are taken to avoid exchange of genetic material. This may include
removal of flowers, bagging of flowers, or production of sterile
transgenics. It is, therefore, unlikely that transgenic domestic plants
could affect nontarget domestic plants because specific steps are taken to
prevent exchange of genetic material.
Production and release of temperature-sensitive lethal (TSL) and combi-

flies (genetically altered fruit flies) would be unlikely to have any direct
impact on domestic nontargets. Impacts potentially could result from
production facility operations and to predators from releases of large
quantities of TSL flies and combi-flies.
Another potential method would be the use of genetically engineered

microorganisms. Release of genetically improved microorganisms for
fruit fly control could affect other nontarget invertebrates to the extent
that the biological agent could kill species other than fruit flies. Because
biological insecticides are not always species-specific, at least some other
related species could be at serious risk. Species at greatest risk would
include those most closely related to fruit flies.
Biotechnological applications that could be developed for Medfly control

would be unlikely to impact domestic animals and plants because there is
little opportunity for interaction among bioengineered agents of fruit fly
control and domesticated species. Potential effects on native flora and
fauna are unknown at present.

In conclusion, although current regulatory controls and practices make it
unlikely that biotechnological controls would have more than a minimal
impact on nontarget biological resources, the uncertainties surrounding
the use of this technology for fruit fly control have resulted in a
determination that its effects are largely unknown.
Should biological control or biotechnological control technologies be

developed to the point where they can be effectively used in a control
program, they would add to the overall risk. They may pose additional
consequences including further losses in invertebrate populations and
further effects on plant reproduction resulting from losses of pollinator
species from biocontrol predators or genetically engineered biological
insecticides.
f. Cold Treatment

nontarget species would not be expected to differ from those resulting
from cold storage facilities of comparable size. The treatment chambers
are sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species during cold treatment.
The only nontarget species affected would be any additional organisms
present on the commodity being treated. The use of cold treatment is
expected to have negligible impact on nontarget species.

proper equipment use. The treated commodity does not retain any
radioactivity from the exposure and poses no risks to nontarget species.
The irradiation equipment is sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species
to the irradiation chamber and therefore, there is no hazard to nontarget
wildlife.

treatment are likely to continue to limit the use of this treatment. The
treatment chambers are sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species
during vapor heat treatment. The only nontarget species affected would
be any additional organisms present on the commodity being treated.
The use of vapor heat treatment is expected to have negligible impact on
nontarget species.
2. Chemical The characterization of risks to nontarget species from fruit fly program
Control pesticide applications was based on the well-accepted paradigm: hazard
Methods (toxicity) definition; exposure estimation to each potential receptor
(nontarget species) based on program use of each chemical; and risk
assessment. Benchmark toxicity values for terrestrial nontarget species
were based on the LD50. The LD50 is the dose (in milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight) that is lethal to 50% of the population
tested. Benchmark toxicity values for aquatic nontarget species were
based on the LC50. The LC50 is the concentration (in milligrams per liter
(mg/L) of water) that is lethal to 50% of the population tested. These
values allow comparison of toxicity to specific species among chemicals.
EPA has categorized these values for ease of comparison (table 5–1).
ES-APHIS developed exposure models to compare treatment alternatives

across ecoregions. This will facilitate planning on a regional scale.
Environmental concentrations, which provided the basis of exposure
estimates, were derived from transport and fate models (GLEAMS and
the EAD-APHIS surface water model) and EPA pesticide residue data.
All modeling was based on program application rates and treatment
methods.
Risk was characterized by comparing the estimated dose and the

benchmark toxicity value. The benchmark values were the LD1 and the
LC1 (the calculated dose lethal to 1% of the population, usually for a
surrogate species). These values were estimated from laboratory-derived
LD/LC50s (methodology detailed in the Nontarget Risk Assessment
(APHIS, 1998b)). This level was chosen because a 1% population loss
would not be a serious threat to most populations. In addition, the
uncertainty associated with assessing risk, because of incomplete and
unavailable information, necessitated a conservative approach. All
species analyzed were assumed to be exposed to pesticides either directly

or indirectly. Therefore , the analysis characterizes risk to the exposed
population only.
Environmental monitoring data from previous fruit fly eradication efforts

were considered and addressed qualitatively where possible. However,
much of the monitoring data from past programs was inadequate for the
estimation of risk because of incompleteness, lack of controls, lack of
statistical validity, and inability to show an association between cause
and effect. Additionally, program operational changes that have occurred
limit the usefulness of much of the data. Differences between application
methods and rates between different programs have also made
applicability difficult. Comparisons were made between calculated risks
and actual monitoring data for past programs with the same or similar
methods. Some good monitoring data are available for the 1997 and
1998 Florida Medfly Eradication programs. In general, available
monitoring data were consistent with the environmental risks calculated
from the models. Literature and modeling data relative to effects on
reptiles and amphibians is notably scarce, therefore modeling was the
primary method of estimating risk to them.
Table 5–1. Toxicity Categories

Habitat Category Toxicity Criteria
Terrestrial Severely toxic LD501? 50 mg/kg
Moderately toxic 50 mg/kg < LD50 < 500 mg/kg
Slightly toxic 500 mg/kg < LD50 < 5,000 mg/kg
Very slightly toxic 5,000 mg/kg < LD50 < 50,000 mg/kg
Aquatic Very highly toxic LC502 ? 0.1 mg/L
Highly toxic 0.1 mg/L < LC50 < 1.0 mg/L
Moderately toxic 1.0 mg/L < LC50 < 10 mg/L
Slightly toxic 10 mg/L < LC50 < 100 mg/L
Practically nontoxic LC50 > 100 mg/L

1
Dose lethal to 50% of test organisms.
2
Concentration in water that is lethal to 50% of the test organisms.
ES-APHIS developed exposure models for terrestrial and aquatic

habitats. The terrestrial model considered exposure during the first
24 hours after a single pesticide application. Because aquatic toxicities
generally are based on 96-hour exposure, the aquatic model considered
96-hour exposure.

The models for estimating exposure of terrestrial nontarget species to
program chemicals [malathion, SureDye, and spinosad (aerial and
ground), chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and fenthion] considered dermal,
ingestion, and inhalation exposure. The sum of exposures via all routes
was the estimated dose. This approach tends to overestimate toxicity
from exposures of invertebrates to SureDye and spinosad (which occur
primarily by the oral route) but other exposures would be expected to
accurately portray potential risk. Diet, grooming, activity patterns, and
other species-specific parameters were estimated for two scenarios:
routine and extreme. The routine scenario characterizes exposure that
organisms would likely experience; the extreme scenario generally
assumed the animal was more active, it spent more time in the treatment
area, and a higher proportion of its diet items were contaminated with
pesticide residues. Although exposure is assumed for most species in
this analysis, it is important to note that not all individuals in populations
will be exposed.
For aquatic species, exposure was equivalent to the concentration of

pesticide in the organism's habitat. Four habitats were modeled for
malathion, spinosad, and SureDye: stream, river, pond, and wetland.
Pesticide concentrations in aquatic habitats were determined using a
combination of the GLEAMS model and the ES-APHIS surface water
model which estimated pesticide concentrations in lakes and ponds
following a runoff-producing rainstorm. The routine exposure was the
96-hour average pesticide concentration in the aquatic habitat; the
extreme exposure was the maximum concentration that occurred over the
96-hour postspray period. No routine exposure was assumed for soil
drench pesticides because these chemicals are not routinely used in water
bodies. For the extreme soil drench scenario, ES-APHIS modeled runoff
from a treated orchard into an adjacent ditch. The model predicted
movement of soil drench chemicals into the ditch in only the Mississippi
Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion (6).
Risks to exposed nontarget species were calculated by comparing the

exposure estimate to toxicity benchmark values, usually of a surrogate
species. The benchmark toxicity value was extrapolated from the
laboratory-derived dose lethal to half of the test organisms (LD50) or, for
aquatic organisms, the water concentration (LC50). The benchmark
toxicity values to which the estimated doses were compared were: the
LD1 for terrestrial species and the LC1 for aquatic species exposure. The
test organism selected as a surrogate for each species was the most
taxonomically similar species or one of similar size and trophic level.
Generally, the lowest literature toxicity value for this species was
selected. Surrogate species and toxicity benchmarks are given in the

Nontarget Risk Assessment for Medfly Programs (APHIS, 1992b) and
the Nontarget Risk Assessment for Fruit Fly Programs (APHIS, 1998b).
Tables 5–2 to 5–8 estimate the calculated mortality rates for populations
of nontarget species that are exposed to the program pesticides. The
tables are presented for each application method as a unit to facilitate
comparison of data, that is, the tables for all bait spray applications
follow that text section and the tables for all soil treatments follow that
text section. Estimated mortality rates were calculated for each species
and each chemical using the estimated dose predicted by the exposure
model and the dose-response curve for the species or a surrogate species
from a laboratory study (see the Nontarget Risk Assessments (APHIS,
1998b; APHIS, 1992b) for details on this method). Populations of any
species for which estimated mortality exceeded 1% are considered at risk;
species with mortality estimates exceeding 99% are considered to be at a
high degree of risk. These values were calculated from the routine
exposure estimates. It must be emphasized that the calculated mortality
rates shown in the tables are for individuals that are exposed to the
program pesticides; the tables are not intended to reflect and should not
be interpreted to reflect mortality rates for nontarget species populations
across the entire program area.
Information gaps in each step of the risk analysis lead to much inherent
uncertainty. Toxicity information is primarily from laboratory studies on
laboratory animals. The dose-response curve is undoubtedly different for
wild populations under field conditions where other stressors could
magnify or ameliorate the effect of the pesticide. These studies are
conducted with a range of formulations, rarely those used in the fruit fly
program. In addition, few studies have been conducted with bait spray.
The protein hydrolysate undoubtedly would affect the toxicity in some
way. Toxicity data are available for very few species, requiring the
selection of surrogate species for analysis. This is particularly true for
SureDye and spinosad which have only recently been developed for use
as pesticides. Often there were no data for similar species, and selection
was based primarily on sensitivity. The choice of a surrogate had a great
effect on the assessment of risk. Information about surrogate species is
given in the Nontarget Species Risk Assessment (USDA, APHIS,
1998b).
Because environmental fate is site-specific, the pesticides may not act as

modeled at every site (i.e., may degrade more or less rapidly and travel
farther). ES-APHIS exposure models required the estimation of a variety
of characteristics for the species under analysis, e.g., diet and activity
patterns. These input parameters cannot take into account the temporal

and seasonal variability nor behavioral response characteristics within a
species. Nonetheless, because a uniform approach was taken, the results
allow comparison of relative risks across taxa and across ecoregions.
(1) Malathion Aerial Application
Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action

is primarily through AChE inhibition. The acute oral toxicity of
malathion is slight for humans and very slight to moderate for other
mammals. The acute toxicity of malathion by the dermal route is one of
the lowest of the organophosphorus insecticides. Malathion is a very
slight dermal irritant and a slight eye irritant.
Malathion is very slightly toxic to moderately toxic to mammals, slightly

to moderately toxic to birds, moderately to severely toxic to terrestrial
invertebrates, and of low phytotoxicity to most plants. Malathion is
slightly to very highly toxic to fish, highly toxic to aquatic stages of
reptiles and amphibians, and moderately to very highly toxic to aquatic
invertebrates.
From modeling, the terrestrial invertebrates were anticipated to receive

the highest total malathion doses of any of the terrestrial organisms (most
species had total doses greater than 100 mg of malathion per kilogram of
body weight). Vertebrate insectivorous species had higher total doses
than other vertebrate omnivores, herbivores, or noninsect carnivores.
Vertebrate nectar feeders (hummingbirds) and invertebrate nectar feeders
(honey bees) also displayed high total doses of malathion. Predatory
invertebrates (orb web spider, adult beetle, and parasitic wasp),
invertebrates with high metabolic requirements (caterpillars and
maggots), and invertebrates with high activity rates and frequent contact
with malathion residues (ants and honey bees) had higher total doses than
other terrestrial organisms.
Vertebrates exhibited exposures ranging from 10 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg.

Smaller species tended to have higher total doses than larger species
because small species have higher metabolic rates (and need to consume
more food per body weight) and also are more active than large species

(contacting malathion more frequently resulting in higher dermal
exposures).
Total doses for all types of terrestrial organisms were higher in the
western ecoregions (California Central Valley and Coastal, Southwestern
Basin and Range, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Marine Pacific Forest).
This assumed that the sparse vegetative cover in these areas allowed a
higher proportion of the malathion bait spray to penetrate the canopy to
the level where the organism would be exposed.
Exposure was dependent upon the behavior of the organism. Ingestion

was considered to be the dominant route of exposure for all but a few of
the vertebrates. Inhalation was negligible for all taxa. Ingestion and
dermal exposure were approximately equal for most of the invertebrates.
However, dermal exposure was greater than ingestion for moths and
butterflies due to limited grooming and dietary intake. Dermal exposure
was also usually the dominant type of exposure for invertebrates living in
the soil depending on the amount of time spent at the soil surface.
For aquatic organisms, exposure estimates were equivalent to the

malathion concentration in the water body in which they occurred.
Malathion concentration in water was correlated to water body depth;
organisms living in shallow water bodies had higher total doses than
those living in deeper habitats. The highest malathion concentrations,
and thus the highest total doses, were observed in wetlands and shallow
ponds. There were no differences in extreme exposure in wetlands and
ponds. The highest total doses under the routine scenario for the pond
and wetland were in the Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion (2) and
the Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion (4), respectively.
Direct spray was assumed for all aquatic habitats. Some water bodies
also received runoff from the treatment area. Malathion concentrations
were dependent upon the amount of runoff expected following a rain
storm and the soil-specific degradation rate. Ecoregion differences in
total doses were noted for water bodies receiving runoff water (lakes and
streams). Highest total doses in the stream and lake were predicted in the
western ecoregions and in the Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion
(2), respectively.
(c) Risk Assessment
Table 5–2 summarizes the estimated risk to nontarget species resulting

from aerial spraying of malathion bait. Terrestrial and aquatic
invertebrates are at risk throughout the treatment area because of high

exposures and toxicity. Exposed invertebrate populations would be
expected to be severely reduced for aquatic species, such as mayflies,
stoneflies, cadddisflies, scuds, water fleas, backswimmers, and aquatic
beetles, and all terrestrial species.
The terrestrial invertebrates, particularly insects exposed to bait spray, are

likely to have depressed populations for a given period of time following
spraying. The treatment area and number of treatments will influence the
ability of the population to become reestablished. The ability to
reestablish the population is also influenced by the distance from the
treatment area to similar, untreated habitats containing potential
colonists, and the ability of these potential colonists to disperse. Limiting
the bait spray either by selective applications to smaller, more critical
areas or using only ground applications allows these populations better
chances for earlier recovery to their previous population levels.
Dahlsten et al., (1985) examined effects of malathion bait spray on

nontarget invertebrates and concluded there was a biologically
"significant effect of the Medfly malathion bait spray on several
nontarget insects on urban and suburban trees." These effects included:
direct knockdown (kill) of species such as flies, caterpillars, and small
wasps; an increase in populations of pest species as a result of damage to
populations of beneficial insects; and stimulation of pest reproduction
(whiteflies). Although no specific information was provided concerning
recovery of populations, the author stated that long-term residual effects
were likely.
The elimination of predatory insects would allow insect pest populations

to increase. These outbreaks have been observed and "were attributed to
destruction of natural enemies by malathion. In general, concentrations
of malathion bait sufficient to kill most adult parasites tested were less
toxic to the pest species tested. These results indicate that future fruit fly
eradication programs which employ numerous sequential applications of
malathion bait spray can be expected to disrupt a substantial portion of
the biological control which exists in the target zone" (Ehler and
Endicott, 1984).
Troetschler (1983) compared nontarget arthropod populations in a

Medfly eradication treatment area (Palo Alto, California) with unsprayed
control areas (Hayward and Jasper Ridge, California). A variety of
polyphagous and carnivorous arthropods were attracted by the baits, and
in most cases fewer numbers were caught in treated than in control
areas." Soil dwellers, polyphagous beetles, some fly species, ants, and
wasps were reduced in the treated area; no spiders or predaceous beetles

Table 5–2. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Aerial Application of
Malathion Bait1
Species Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew 19.5 31.8 26.1 12.5 6.1 9.2 N/A2
Bat 1.7 4.2 2.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.95
Cottontail rabbit <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Pied-billed grebe <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American kestrel <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Belted kingfisher <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Northern flicker <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Northern mockingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
European starling <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-winged blackbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Reptiles
Desert iguana <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Side-blotched lizard <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
Carolina anole N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Eastern fence lizard N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Western fence lizard <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
Canyon lizard N/A N/A <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Desert tortoise <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Eastern box turtle N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Western box turtle N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Hognose snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Terrestrial Amphibians
Toad 36.9 52.4 46.2 28.1 15.5 21.8 44.7
Tree frog 54.1 68.9 61.6 42.1 27.9 36.0 61.5
Terrestrial Invertebrates
Earthworm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Slug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sowbug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Spider 91.7 96.3 94.5 81.1 61.6 70.7 94.0
Mayfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dragonfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Grasshopper 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lacewing 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.1 97.5 98.7 99.7
Water strider 65.6 78.7 73.0 53.1 36.3 45.5 72.2
Beetle (grub) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Beetle (adult) 91.9 96.0 94.5 88.5 82.4 86.5 94.0
Butterfly 20.1 22.8 21.5 18.9 16.7 18.1 21.5
Moth 24.5 27.6 26.1 23.0 20.5 22.2 26.05
Caterpillar 30.8 33.9 32.4 28.7 25.8 27.5 32.35
Maggot (fly) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fly (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Honey bee 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wasp 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
Golden shiner (lake) 40.2 45.5 52.6 45.5 45.2 45.4 42.9
Golden shiner (pond) 66.9 18.13 62.8 72.4 71.6 71.9 60.6
Speckled dace <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
(stream)
Mexican tetra (stream) N/A N/A <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silvery minnow (lake) N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Sheepshead minnow N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
(wetland)
California killifish <1.0 N/A N./A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(stream)
California killifish <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(wetland)
Swamp darter N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(wetland)
Mosquito fish (stream) 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Mosquito fish (pond) 11.7 15.3 9.7 15.2 14.6 <14.8 13.5
Rainbow trout (stream) <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
Rainbow trout (lake) <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arroyo chub (stream) <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bluegill sunfish N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
Bluegill sunfish (lake) <1.0 N/A 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bluegill sunfish (pond) 2.9 4.2 2.3 4.1 3.9 4.0 3.6
Largemouth bass <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
Largemouth bass <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(lake)
Channel catfish N/A N/A <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
Channel catfish (lake) N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Yellow bullhead catfish N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
(stream)
Yellow bullhead catfish N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 N/A N/A
(lake)
Yellow bullhead catfish <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(pond)
Longnose gar (lake) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 5.6 N/A
Longnose gar (pond) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Longnose gar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.6 N/A
(wetland)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lake chubsucker <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(lake)
Aquatic Reptiles
Snapping turtle N/A N/A N/A 5.6 5.3 5.4 N/A
(wetland)
Western pond turtle 4.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0
(wetland)
Water snake (wetland) N/A N/A N/A 5.6 5.3 5.4 N/A
Aquatic Amphibians–larval forms
Bullfrog (wetland) 8.2 N/A N/A 10.9 10.5 10.6 N/A
Tiger salamander 8.2 N/A N/A 10.9 10.5 N/A 8.2
(wetland)
Amphiuma (wetland) N/A N/A N/A 10.9 10.5 10.6 N/A
Aquatic Invertebrates
Sponge, freshwater <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Sponge, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(lake)
Sponge, freshwater 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(pond)
Hydra (wetland) 10.0 N/A N/A 13.1 12.5 12.7 10.0
Leech (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (wetland) 10.0 N/A N/A 13.1 12.6 12.7 10.0
Clam, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(pond)
Snail, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13.1 12.5 12.7 <1.0
(stream)
Snail, freshwater 10.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 10.0
(wetland)
Scud (pond) 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9
Crayfish (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish (wetland) 10.0 N/A N/A 13.1 12.6 12.7 10.0
Water flea (lake) 98.1 98.7 99.2 98.7 98.6 98.6 98.4
Dragonfly, larva 37.3 37.4 35.8 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.4
(stream)
Dragonfly, larva (pond) 66.9 72.6 62.8 72.4 71.6 71.9 69.8
Dragonfly, larva 94.9 N/A N/A 96.2 96.3 96.2 94.9
(wetland)
Mayfly, larva (stream) 99.1 <1.0 <1.0 99.1 <1.0 <1.0 99.1
Mayfly, larva (lake) 99.3 99.5 99.7 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.4
Stonefly, larva 99.1 <1.0 <1.0 99.1 <1.0 <1.0 99.1
(stream)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Caddisfly, larva 64.7 <1.0 <1.0 64.6 <1.0 <1.0 64.7
(stream)
Backswimmer (pond) 87.2 90.3 84.8 90.3 89.8 90.0 88.8
Backswimmer 99.0 N/A N/A 99.4 99.3 99.3 99.0
(wetland)
Beetle (pond) 87.2 90.3 84.8 90.3 89.8 90.0 88.8
Mosquito, larva (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito, larva 2.0 N/A N/A 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.0
(wetland)
1
Estimates are based on the routine exposure scenario; Ecoregions are: 1 - California Valley and Coastal; 2 - Southwestern
Basin and Range; 3 - Lower Rio Grande Valley; 4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian;
7 - Marine Pacific Forest
2
N/A = Not applicable; species does not occur in area.
were trapped. Lepidopterous larvae and aphid and whitefly populations

were higher in the spray zone. Populations of muscoid flies were not
reduced. She concluded, "When bait sprays are applied full cover over
many months over a wide area, recovery of some species may require
1 year or more."
ES-APHIS modeling predicts that lepidopterans (butterflies, moths, and

caterpillars) are less affected than many other insects by malathion bait
spray. The predicted loss of soil invertebrates could affect nutrient
cycling rates in the ecosystem. Loss of earthworms could affect the
physical characteristics of the soil by reducing pore space and aeration
which could potentially affect plant growth.
Modeling also predicts honey bees are at risk throughout the treatment
area in all of the ecoregions, with estimated exposures of 700 times the
median lethal dose. Unprotected honey bee hives would be expected to
suffer substantial mortality and this has been found to occur. Gary and
Mussen (1984) state: "We conclude that the impact of Medfly malathion
bait spray on honey bees is significant. Although colonies recovered
satisfactorily after cessation of spraying during the spring and early
summer when there is sufficient time for populations to return to normal
levels before winter begins...Although Medfly malathion bait spray is a
threat to honey bee colonies, we conclude that the overall economic
benefits of controlling the destructive Medfly are far greater than the
transient losses incurred by beekeepers." The notification process for
beekeepers and mitigation measures for bees reduce potential adverse
impacts to honey bee hives.

The timing and frequency of spraying have a great impact on the species
alterations. Washburn et al., (1983) found: "Few adult natural enemies
survived one spray, but populations recovered quickly...Timing of spray
regimes could qualitatively as well as quantitatively alter the community
composition. Whether the balance of the system is shifted to favor the
scale [pest species] or the natural enemies depends on the frequency and
seasonal timing of the applications."
Some vertebrates may be at risk including insectivorous mammals (bat

and shrew) and the terrestrial amphibians. Birds are not anticipated to
suffer mortality in the program area due to malathion aerial spraying.
Species which depend upon invertebrates for part of their diet would be
affected by the aerial spray program due to a reduction in food supply
even if they suffer no direct mortality. Effects would be greatest for
predators with restricted mobility. Field studies have shown that
mammals, birds, reptiles, and terrestrial amphibians are unlikely to be
affected by direct toxicity, but some species dependent upon insects for
food (insectivore) or pollination of food plants could be stressed by
environmental conditions that result from malathion applications. Plants
dependent upon invertebrates for pollination would also be affected, as
well as animals dependent upon the fruits of these plants.
In aquatic systems, fish in shallow water bodies, such as wetlands or

ponds less than 1 ft deep, are at risk because of the elevated (more than
59 µg/L) malathion concentrations in these habitats. Individuals of
sensitive species, such as bluegills or shiners, are also at risk in ponds,
streams, and some lakes. Commercially reared crayfish and shrimp are at
risk in shallow ponds less than 1 ft deep in every ecoregion. In deeper
ponds, these species are not at risk.
Aquatic reptiles and amphibians are at risk in wetlands. Many aquatic

insect larvae are anticipated to be affected.
Field studies of the 1981 Medfly eradication program in Santa Clara

County, California, indicate that the total number of aquatic insects
remained constant following spraying, but the species composition
changed and diversity declined, favoring those insects more tolerant of
malathion. Adverse effects to fish are localized and may be limited to
only highly sensitive species if applications are limited to the dry season
when runoff is not a major concern. Fish losses that were attributed to
malathion use in the 1981 program occurred in shallow creeks during the
dry season as well as in larger streams during the wet season (CDFG,
1982). Field monitoring of the 1997 Medfly Eradication Program in

Florida found some fish losses in shallow bodies of water that were
associated with aerial applications of malathion (USDA, APHIS, 1997).
Exposure to malathion bait spray or to the noise made by aircraft could

cause behavioral changes in some organisms causing them to leave the
treatment area, become more susceptible to predation, or become unable
to either reproduce or care for young. No pertinent studies are available
relative to effects of fruit fly programs on such behavioral changes.
(2) Ground Applications of Malathion Bait
The toxicity and hazards of malathion have been discussed previously.

The same formulation is used for both aerial and ground applications.
Ground applications may range from spot treatments (part of a host tree)
to full foliar coverage of the host plants. Hazards and resultant risks
would be higher for full foliar coverage applications than for spot
treatments because of the greater amount of pesticide used. Because of
the potential for using full foliar coverage application in a future
program, the risk assessment has been based on that type of application.
As with aerial application, the ES-APHIS model predicted small

insectivores had the highest exposures of the mammals, the large
herbivores and aquatic foraging species the least. The highest total
invertebrate exposures were to predators (orb web spider, lacewing larva,
and parasitic wasp) and to those with high dermal exposure, such as
maggots.
Ingestion was the primary exposure route for the vast majority of
vertebrate species. Estimated dermal and ingestion exposures were about
equal for invertebrates, although dermal exposure was higher for
fossorial invertebrates, spiders, butterflies, and moths (the latter feed little
as adults). Total doses in the eastern ecoregions were, in general, higher
than in western ecoregions. The ecoregion differences in total dose are
related to differences in the malathion concentration in prey items, as the
dermal dose did not differ greatly among ecoregions.
No aquatic exposure was assumed under routine ground applications of

malathion bait. However, because of soil characteristics, runoff is
anticipated in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion

(6). This is predicted to result in aquatic concentrations ranging from
0.03 to 3.1 µg/L in less than 2 m (6 ft) deep habitat.
(c) Risk Assessment
Table 5–3 provides a summary of the estimated risk to nontarget

terrestrial species from ground spraying of malathion bait on foliage. Of
the nontarget terrestrial species, the invertebrate species are at most risk
from this treatment method. All terrestrial invertebrates modeled under
both routine and extreme scenarios have estimated mortality rates greater
than 99% except spider, beetle, butterfly, moth, caterpillar, and water
strider. Amphibians that have a high proportion of their diet items
containing residues from malathion ground treatments are at lesser risk.
No mammal, bird, or reptile species analyzed had doses that exceeded the
LD1 values.
Ground spraying of malathion poses less risk to populations of birds and

mammals than aerial spraying because it is applied to small areas relative
to the size of birds' and most mammals' home ranges. Animals that feed
extensively beneath a sprayed tree, or nest or forage within it, would
receive the highest doses.
Ichinohe et al., (1977) treated foliage with malathion ground spray and
concluded: "It is clearly evident from results that proteinaceous bait is
effective against fruit flies and also against many insects belonging to
Diptera, Blattaria, Orthoptera, Homoptera, and Psocoptera." The study
lacked controls and had "no information on population density of each
species." They detected secondary poisoning (from eating contaminated
prey items) as the cause of mortality in spiders.
Aquatic organisms are not at risk from ground spraying of malathion

under the routine scenario.
Nontarget organisms could be disturbed by the treatment. Mobile species

could leave the area and would suffer no adverse effect unless survival
resources could not be found elsewhere. Effects would be greater on
species or life stages (e.g., nestlings) that could not relocate. Precautions
should be taken to ensure domestic animals do not contact the treated
area.

Table 5–3. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Ground Application
of Malathion Bait1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cottontail rabbit <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American kestrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Northern <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
mockingbird
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hognose snake N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Toad <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 2.8 2.8 <1.0
Tree frog 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.0 5.3 5.3 1.7
Earthworm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Slug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sowbug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Spider 95.8 95.8 95.8 96.1 96.5 96.5 95.8
Mayfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dragonfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Grasshopper 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lacewing 98.6 98.6 98.6 99.7 99.9 99.9 98.6
Water strider <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Beetle (grub) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Beetle (adult) 39.7 39.9 40.0 70.3 85.2 85.1 39.8
Butterfly 13.4 13.4 13.4 19.1 23.0 23.0 13.4
Moth 17.1 17.1 17.1 23.6 28.0 28.0 17.1
Caterpillar 31.3 31.3 31.3 34.6 37.3 37.3 31.3
Maggot (fly) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fly (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Honey bee 99.7 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.9
Wasp 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
Golden shiner (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Golden shiner (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Sheepshead N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
minnow (stream)
(wetland)
(stream)
(wetland)
(wetland)
Mosquito fish (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito fish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Bluegill sunfish (lake) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bluegill sunfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Largemouth bass <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(lake)
(stream)
(stream)
Yellow bullhead catfish N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(lake)
Yellow bullhead catfish N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(pond)
Longnose gar (lake) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Longnose gar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 N/A
(wetland)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(lake)
Aquatic Reptiles
Snapping turtle N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(wetland)
Western pond turtle <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
(wetland)
Water snake (wetland) N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Bullfrog (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Tiger salamander <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0
(wetland)
Amphiuma (wetland) N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Sponge (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hydra <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Clam (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Snail (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Scud <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water flea <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly (nymph) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly ( larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Stonefly (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caddisfly (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Backswimmer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1
1
Estimates are based on the routine exposure scenario for Terrestrial Organisms; extreme exposure scenario for Aquatic
Organisms; Ecoregions are: 1 - California Valley and Coastal; 2 - Southwestern Basin and Range; 3 - Lower Rio Grande Valley;
4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian;7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
(3) Spinosad Aerial Application
Spinosad is a mixture of two compounds–spinosyn factor A and spinosyn

factor D. The hazard relates to the combined exposures and toxicity of
both factors. Unlike malathion and organophosphate insecticides which

cause intoxication through multiple routes of exposure, the route of
intoxication of spinosad occurs primarily through ingestion. Since the
mechanism of intoxication for both compounds is the same, the hazards
of exposure to each compound are combined to determine overall risk.
Acute toxicity of spinosad to mammals and birds is low by all routes of
exposure. The acute oral toxicity of spinosad is very slight to mammals
(Dow Agrosciences, 1998; EPA, 1998a). The low metabolism, low
toxicity, and rapid excretion in mammals probably account for a lack of
observed adverse effects. The mechanism of intoxication occurs through
persistent activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and prolongation
of acetylcholine responses (Salgado et al., 1997). This prolonged
response leads to involuntary muscle contractions and tremors.
Spinosad is practically nontoxic to birds (Borth et al., 1996; Dow
Agrosciences, 1998). It is expected that acute toxicity to reptiles and
amphibians is also low. Phytotoxic effects may be observed on some
plants, but most plants are not expected to show adverse effects at the
low rates of application.
Toxicity to terrestrial invertebrate from exposure to spinosad occurs

primarily through ingestion, but some effects from contact exposure are
possible. Spinosad is particularly effective against caterpillars
(Lepidoptera) and all stages of flies (Diptera) (Adan et al., 1996). The
mode of toxic action of spinosad against insects has been shown to relate
to the widespread excitation of isolated neurons in the central nervous
system (Salgado et al., 1997). The symptoms of intoxication to terrestrial
invertebrates are unique and are typified by initial flaccid paralysis
followed by weak tremors and continuous movement of crochets and
mandibles (Thompson et al., 1995). The effects occur rapidly and there
is little to no recovery.
The toxicity of spinosad to invertebrates is dependent upon the species.

Spinosad is very highly toxic to native budworm caterpillars, but only
slightly toxic to cotton leafworm caterpillars (Sparks et al., 1995;
Thompson et al., 1995). The median lethal dose to house flies is
0.9 mg/kg. Ants such as the Argentine ant (LD50 = 185.6 mg/kg) are very
tolerant of spinosad. Other Hymenoptera such as honey bees (LD50 =
11.5 mg/kg) and the red headed pine sawfly (LD50 = 2.8 mg/kg) are more
sensitive (Borth et al., 1996; Thompson et al., 1995). Spinosad is
slightly toxic to parasitic wasps such as Encarsia formosa (LD50 =
29.1 mg/kg). Beetles, fleas, lacewings, minute pirate bugs, and
cockroaches are quite tolerant of spinosad. Although spinosad is
moderately toxic to the 2-spotted spider mite (LD50 = 2.1 mg/kg), it is

practically nontoxic to the mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis (LD50>200
mg/kg). Beneficial arthropods observed to not be affected by spinosad in
treated cotton fields include trichogrammatid wasps, minute pirate bugs,
assassin bugs, ladybird beetles, predatory mites, fire ants, big-headed
bugs, damsel bugs, green lacewings, and spiders (Peterson et al., 1996).
Another field study found (1) no adverse effects from spinosad on
populations of predators; (2) some decreases in parasitic Hymenoptera
populations, some pest species plant bugs, cotton aphids, and spur-
throated grasshoppers; and (3) substantial decreases of Lepidoptera
caterpillars (Murray and Lloyd, 1997). Spinosad was found nontoxic to
bees at the program's proposed concentrations.
Spinosad is slightly to moderately toxic to fish. The 96-hour median

lethal concentrations of spinosad determined for fish species are as
follows: bluegill = 5.9 mgL, rainbow trout = 30 mg/L, carp = 5 mg/L,
and sheepshead minnow = 7.9 mg/L (Borth et al., 1996). A 21-day
median lethal concentration of spinosad was determined for rainbow
trout to be 4.8 mg/L.
Spinosad is slightly to moderately toxic to most aquatic invertebrates.

The median lethal concentration of spinosad to daphnia was determined
to be 92.7 mg/L (Borth et al., 1996). Grass shrimp were more sensitive
and had a 96-hour median lethal concentration for spinosad of 9.76 mg/L
(Dow Agrosciences, 1998). Spinosad was found to be highly toxic to
marine molluscs with a median lethal concentration of spinosad at
0.295 mg/L for eastern oyster.
Spinosad is of slight to moderate acute toxicity to algae. The median

lethal concentration of spinosad was determined to be 106 mg/L for green
algae and 8.09 mg/L for blue green algae (Borth et al., 1996).
From modeling, the terrestrial invertebrates and vertebrate insectivorous

species were anticipated to receive the highest total spinosad doses of the
terrestrial organisms (most species had total doses greater than 0.1 mg/kg
of spinosad). Predatory invertebrates (orb web spider, adult beetle, and
parasitic wasp), invertebrates with high metabolic requirements
(caterpillars and maggots), and invertebrates with high activity rates and
frequent contact with spinosad residues (ants and honey bees) had higher
total doses than other terrestrial organisms.
Vertebrates exhibited exposures to spinosad ranging from less than

0.01 mg/kg to 1.561 mg/kg. Smaller species tended to have higher total

doses than larger species because small species have higher metabolic
rates (and need to consume more food per body weight) and also are
more active than large species (contacting spinosad more frequently
resulting in higher dermal exposures).
Total doses for all types of terrestrial organisms were higher in the
western ecoregions (California Central Valley and Coastal, Southwestern
Basin and Range, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Marine Pacific Forest).
This assumed that the sparse vegetative cover in these areas allowed a
higher proportion of the spinosad bait spray to penetrate the canopy to the
level where the organism would be exposed.
Ingestion was considered to be the dominant route of exposure for all but
a few of the vertebrates. Inhalation was negligible for all taxa. Ingestion
and dermal exposure were approximately equal for most of the
invertebrates, although dermal exposure poses risk primarily to those
invertebrates that groom themselves. For invertebrates living in the soil,
dermal was usually the dominant type of exposure depending on the
amount of time spent at the soil surface.
For aquatic organisms, exposure estimates were equivalent to the

spinosad concentrations in the water body in which they occurred.
Concentration in water was correlated to water body depth; organisms
living in shallow water bodies had higher total doses than those living in
deeper habitats. The highest spinosad concentrations, and thus the
highest total doses, were observed in wetlands and shallow ponds. There
were no ecoregion differences in extreme exposure in wetlands and
ponds. The highest total doses under the routine scenario for the pond
and wetland were in the Southwestern Basin and Range and the
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregions, respectively.
Inadvertent direct spray was assumed for all aquatic habitats. Some
water bodies also received runoff from the treatment area. Spinosad
concentrations were dependent upon the amount of runoff expected
following a rain storm and the soil-specific degradation rate. Ecoregion
differences in total doses were noted for water bodies receiving runoff
water (lakes and streams). Highest total doses in the stream and lake
were predicted in the western ecoregions and in the Southwestern Basin
and Range ecoregion, respectively.
(c) Risk Assessment

from aerial spraying of spinosad bait.

The potential exposure of nontarget organisms to spinosad is less than
either malathion or SureDye. The toxicity of the active ingredients in
spinosad bait spray is less than malathion to mammals, birds, reptiles,
fish, and amphibians. As a result of low exposure and low toxicity, few,
if any, adverse effects are expected to mammals, birds, amphibians,
reptiles, and fish from spinosad bait spray applications. The reductions in
insect populations are limited and not expected to affect most species, so
insectivorous mammals (bat and shrew) and birds are expected to have
minimal, if any, increase in foraging effort. Mortality is very unlikely,
particularly for routine exposure scenarios.
Some terrestrial invertebrates are at risk throughout the treatment area

because of high exposures and toxicity. Since the primary route of
spinosad intoxication occurs through ingestion, those insects attracted to
the bait to feed are predicted to have higher mortality. In particular, this
includes the exposed invertebrate populations of midges and gnats,
pomace flies, other acalypterate muscoid flies, and some soil mites
(Troetschler, 1983). Other insects attracted to the bait may not be
affected due to high tolerance for spinosad. This includes ground beetles
and ants. Seed-feeding ants and other species not attracted to the bait are
not expected to be adversely affected. However, there are some other
terrestrial invertebrates that are predicted to have exposure and suffer
mortality. This includes all species that consume a leaf (or other surface)
with spinosad residues, some sensitive predatory species that consume an
exposed invertebrate, and all species that vigorously groom after
exposure to spray residues. This includes orb web spiders, dragonflies,
caterpillars, and other species that fit these categories. The pollinators
(honey bees) are likely to be affected if program precautions are not
taken, but parasitic wasps are not expected to have appreciable exposure
and little, if any, mortality are anticipated for these species. The number
of species and the number of individual invertebrates adversely affected
by spinosad bait spray is considerably less than those affected by
malathion bait spray and is comparable to those affected by SureDye bait
spray. The limited effects on these species relate primarily to the more
limited route of intoxication from spinosad than from malathion and the
greater tolerance of some invertebrate species.
Some terrestrial invertebrates, particularly insects exposed to bait spray,

are likely to have depressed populations for a given period of time
following spraying. The treatment area and number of treatments will
influence the ability of the population to become reestablished. The
ability to reestablish the population is also influenced by the distance
from the treatment area to similar, untreated habitats containing potential

Table 5–4. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Aerial Application of
Spinosad Bait1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American kestral <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Western box turtle N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
Toad <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tree frog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Earthworm <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Slug <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Sowbug <1.0 2.14 1.24 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Spider 9.0 13.4 11.2 4.8 1.9 3.1 N/A
Mayfly 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Dragonfly 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Grasshopper <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Lacewing <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water strider <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle, grub <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle, adult <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Butterfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Moth <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caterpillar 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Maggot 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Fly 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ant <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Honey bee 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Wasp <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
(stream)
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
(wetland)
(stream)
(wetland)
(wetland)
(stream)
Bluegill sunfish (lake) <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Largemouth bass <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(lake)
(stream)
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)
(wetland)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(lake)
Aquatic Reptiles
(wetland)
(wetland)
(wetland)
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)
Hydra (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Clam, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(pond)
Snail, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Snail, freshwater <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(wetland)
Scud (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water flea (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Dragonfly, larva (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly, larva <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(wetland)
Mayfly, larva (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly, larva (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Stonefly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Caddisfly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
Backswimmer (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Backswimmer <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(wetland)
Beetle (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito, larva <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(wetland)
1
Estimates are based on the routine exposure scenario.
2
colonists, and the ability of these potential colonists to disperse. Limiting

the bait spray either by selective applications to smaller, more critical
areas or using only ground applications allows these populations better
chances for earlier recovery to their previous population levels. These
effects on insect populations are anticipated to be less pronounced from
spinosad bait than from malathion bait. The timing and frequency of
spraying have a great impact on the species alterations. Recolonization
following these population effects from spinosad bait spray is likely to
begin within a few days after application because the residual pesticide
readily degrades in the treated areas.
Aquatic species are at very low risk of adverse effects. The concentration
of spinosad in water is several orders of magnitude less than any
concentrations known to adversely affect aquatic organisms. The water
solubility assures that residues would not bioconcentrate in tissues, so
adverse effects would not be expected from the short residual exposures.
The short half-life in water indicates that adverse effects from spinosad
would have to occur within a few hours of application and the
concentration in water is lower than would ever be expected to adversely
affect these species. Some aquatic species in very shallow ditches (1 cm
deep) could be affected, but these isolated circumstances are not expected
to affect aquatic populations.
Exposure to spinosad bait spray or to the noise made by aircraft could


(4) Ground Applications of Spinosad Bait
The toxicity and hazards of spinosad have been discussed previously in

the section on aerial application. The same formulation is used for both
aerial and ground applications. Ground applications may range from spot
treatments (part of a host tree) to full foliar coverage of the host plants.
Hazards and resultant risks would be higher for full foliar coverage
applications than for spot treatments because of the greater amount of
pesticide used. Because of the potential for using full foliar coverage
application in a future program, the risk assessment has been based on
that type of application.

and parasitic wasp).
vertebrate species. Ingestion exposure was also the primary route for
invertebrates because intoxication occurs primarily through ingestion for
most species and other than exposures through behavioral grooming,
dermal exposures are of lesser consequence. Total doses in the eastern
ecoregions were, in general, higher than in western ecoregions. The
ecoregion differences in total dose are related to differences in the
spinosad concentration in prey items, as the dermal dose did not differ
greatly among ecoregions.

spinosad bait. However, because of soil characteristics, runoff is
anticipated in the Mississippi Delta and Floridian ecoregions. This is
predicted to result in aquatic concentrations ranging from 0.008 to
0.05 µg/L spinosad in less than 2 m (6 ft) deep habitat.
(c) Risk Assessment

terrestrial species from ground spraying of spinosad bait on foliage. Of

of Spinosad Bait1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Belted kngfisher <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Nothern mockingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Toad <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tree frog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Earthworm <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Slug <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Sowbug <1.0 1.57 1.12 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Spider 5.0 7.2 6.1 2.9 1.5 2.1 N/A
Mayfly 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Dragonfly 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Grasshopper <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Lacewing <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water strider <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle, grub <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle, adult <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Butterfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Moth <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caterpillar 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Maggot 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Fly 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Ant <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Honey bee 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Wasp <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
(stream)
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
(wetland)
(stream)
(wetland)
(wetland)
(stream)
(stream)
Largemouth bass <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(lake)
(stream)
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(wetland)
(lake)
Aquatic Reptiles
(wetland)
(wetland)
(wetland)
Hydra <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Clam, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Scud <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water flea <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly, nymph <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Stonefly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caddisfly, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Backswimmer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1
Organisms.
2
N/A = Not applicable; species does not occur in area
from this treatment method. This is largely the result of selective toxicity
of this compound to those species and exposure occurring primarily
through ingestion. This exposure may occur through grooming of the body
or direct ingestion of the bait spray. Other than fruit flies, the only
invertebrates known to be attracted in large numbers to feed upon the bait
spray include the plant bugs (miridae), ground beetles (carabidae), midges

and gnats (nematocerous Diptera), pomace flies, other acalypterate
muscoid flies, some ants (formicidae), and soil mites (acari) (from a
malathion bait spray study–Troetschler, 1983). Of the species attracted,
plant bugs, ground beetles, and ants are highly tolerant of exposure to
spinosad and the exposures would probably not adversely affect these
organisms. Most terrestrial invertebrates modeled under both routine and
extreme scenarios had estimated mortality rates less than 1% except
sowbugs, orb web spiders, mayflies, dragonflies, caterpillars, maggots,
flies, and honey bees. No mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian species
analyzed had doses that exceeded the LD1 values.
Estimated mortality rates for ground applications are much lower than for
aerial applications because of the more limited nature of ground
applications, even though the maximum was modeled. Insects have a high
reproductive rate and most are ubiquitous. Because ground application of
foliar sprays cover small areas, sufficient interspersion of unaffected areas
which support invertebrates would provide a population base for
repopulating treated areas. Except for populations characterized by low
numbers, there should be sufficient numbers from neighboring untreated
areas. However, depending on the time of year, some commercially
important species, such as predators, could experience some population
reductions. Severe reductions in predatory insect populations have
resulted in an increase in some pest species. Because spinosad ground
spraying is localized, however these effects are unlikely to be widespread.
Phytotoxic effects are not expected from the low application rates of
spinosad bait. Indirect impacts on vegetation could occur because
spinosad is potentially toxic to some pollinators and some insect predators.
Effects would be expected to be limited and local, and long-term
reductions in any insect populations are not anticipated from ground
spraying due to recruitment of populations from unsprayed areas.
(5) SureDye Aerial Application
SureDye bait is a formulation of a red xanthene dye (phloxine B) and

hydrolyzed protein bait. Unlike malathion and other organophosphate
insecticides which cause intoxication through multiple routes of exposure, the
route of intoxication of xanthene dyes occurs primarily, if not entirely,
through ingestion. Acute toxicity of phloxine B to mammals and birds is
low by all routes of exposure. The acute oral toxicity of phloxine B is very
slight to mammals (Hansen et al., 1958; Webb et al., 1962; Industrial Bio-
Test Laboratories, 1962a, 1962b). The low metabolism, low toxicity, and

rapid excretion in mammals probably account for the low mortality
observed (Webb et al., 1962; Hansen et al., 1958). The mode of toxic
action and metabolism indicate low toxicity of phloxine B to birds,
reptiles, and amphibians (Heitz, 1982). Phytotoxic effects may be
observed on some plants, but most plants are not expected to show adverse
effects at the low rates of application (Perry, 1993).
The toxicity of phloxine B to invertebrates results from the ingestion of the

compound and its subsequent photoactivation under natural or artificial
light. The compound is activated within the body of the invertebrate
where it destroys tissues through an oxidation process. Intoxication to
terrestrial invertebrates has been shown for many species including some
insects with opaque exoskeletons such as boll weevil (Broome et al., 1975;
Callaham et al., 1975; Callaham et al., 1975a; Clement et al., 1980;
Fondren and Heitz, 1978; Fondren and Heitz, 1979). The limited route of
exposure (ingestion only) means that only insects that ingest the SureDye
bait will suffer mortality. This includes all species that are attracted to the
bait and feed, all species that consume a leaf with SureDye residues, and
all species that vigorously groom after exposure to spray residues. Other
than fruit flies, the only invertebrates known to be attracted in large
numbers to feed upon the bait spray include the plant bugs (miridae),
ground beetles (carabidae), midges and gnats (nematocerous Diptera),
pomace flies, other acalypterate muscoid flies, some ants (formicidae), and
soil mites (acari) (from a malathion bait spray study–Troetschler, 1983).
The hazards to these species that feed on bait exceed those of all other
terrestrial invertebrates.
Phloxine B is practically nontoxic to fish (Tonogai et al., 1979; Marking,

1969; Pimprikar et al., 1984). The toxicity of phloxine B to aquatic
invertebrates is also very low (Schildmacher, 1950) and the low
concentrations entering water from SureDye bait spray applications would
pose low hazards to all aquatic invertebrates.
From modeling, the terrestrial invertebrates were anticipated to receive the

highest total SureDye doses of any of the terrestrial organisms (most
species had total doses greater than 10 mg/kg of phloxine B). Vertebrate
insectivorous species had higher total doses than other vertebrate
omnivores, herbivores, or noninsect carnivores. Predatory invertebrates
(orb web spider, adult beetle, and parasitic wasp), invertebrates with high
metabolic requirements (caterpillars and maggots), and invertebrates with
high activity rates and frequent contact with SureDye residues (ants and
honey bees) had higher total doses than other terrestrial organisms.

Vertebrates experienced exposures to phloxine B ranging from less than
1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. Smaller species tended to have higher total doses
than larger species because small species have higher metabolic rates (and
need to consume more food per body weight) and also are more active than
large species (contacting SureDye more frequently resulting in higher
dermal exposures).
Total doses for all types of terrestrial organisms were higher in the western
ecoregions (California Central Valley and Coastal, Southwestern Basin
and Range, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Marine Pacific Forest). This
assumed that the sparse vegetative cover in these areas allowed a higher
proportion of the SureDye bait spray to penetrate the canopy to the level
where the organism would be exposed.
Ingestion was considered to be the dominant route of exposure for all but a
few of the vertebrates. Inhalation was negligible for all taxa. Ingestion
and dermal exposure were approximately equal for most of the
invertebrates, although dermal exposure only poses risk to those
invertebrates that groom themselves.
For invertebrates living in the soil, dermal was usually the dominant type
of exposure, depending on the amount of time spent at the soil surface.
For aquatic organisms, exposure estimates were equivalent to the phloxine

B concentrations in the water body in which they occurred. Dye
concentration in water was correlated to water body depth; organisms
living in shallow water bodies had higher total doses than those living in
deeper habitats. The highest SureDye concentrations, and thus the highest
total doses, were observed in wetlands and shallow ponds. There were no
ecoregion differences in extreme exposure in wetlands and ponds. The
highest total doses under the routine scenario for the pond and wetland
were in the Southwestern Basin and Range (2) and the Southeastern and
Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion (4), respectively.
Direct spray was assumed for all aquatic habitats. Some water bodies also
received runoff from the treatment area. SureDye concentrations were
dependent upon the amount of runoff expected following a rain storm and
the soil-specific degradation rate. Ecoregion differences in total doses
were noted for water bodies receiving runoff water (lakes and streams).
Highest total doses in the stream and lake were predicted in the western
ecoregions and in the Southwestern Basin and Range ecoregion (2),
respectively.

(c) Risk Assessment

from aerial spraying of SureDye bait. Some terrestrial invertebrates are at
risk throughout the treatment area because of high exposures and toxicity.
Since the route of intoxication of this xanthene dye occurs primarily
through ingestion, those insects attracted to the bait to feed are predicted to
have higher mortality. This includes the exposed invertebrate populations
of adult ground beetles, plant bugs, midges and gnats, pomace flies, other
acalypterate muscoid flies, some scavenging ant species, and soil mites
(Troetschler, 1983). Seed-feeding ants and other species not attracted to
the bait are not expected to be adversely affected. However, there are
some other terrestrial invertebrates that are predicted to have exposure and
suffer mortality. This includes all species that consume a leaf (or other
surface) with SureDye residues, all predatory species that consume an
exposed invertebrate, and all species that vigorously groom after exposure
to spray residues. This includes slugs, orb web spiders, grasshoppers,
dragonflies, water striders, some beetle adults, caterpillars, some ants, and
other species that fit these categories. The pollinators (honey bees) and
parasitic wasps are not expected to have exposure by ingestion in
appreciable amounts and little if any mortality are anticipated for these
species (Dowell, 1996). The number of species and the number of
individual invertebrates adversely affected by SureDye bait spray is
considerably less than those affected by malathion bait spray. This relates
primarily to the more limited route of intoxication from SureDye than from
malathion.
The terrestrial invertebrates, particularly insects exposed to bait spray, are

likely to have depressed populations for a given period of time following
spraying. The treatment area and number of treatments will influence the
ability of the population to become reestablished. The ability to
reestablish the population is also influenced by the distance from the
treatment area to similar, untreated habitats containing potential colonists,
and the ability of these potential colonists to disperse.
Limiting the bait spray either by selective applications to smaller more

critical areas or using only ground applications allows these populations
better chances for earlier recovery to their previous population levels.
These effects on insect populations are anticipated to be less pronounced
from SureDye bait than from malathion bait. The timing and frequency of
spraying have a great impact on the species alterations. Recolonization
following these population effects from SureDye bait spray are likely to
begin within a few days after application because the residual dye readily
degrades in the treated areas.

Table 5–6. Estimates of Percentage Mortality from Exposure to Aerial Application of SureDye
1
Bait
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Western box turtle N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
Toad <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tree frog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Earthworm <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Slug 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Sowbug <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Spider 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Mayfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Grasshopper 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lacewing <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water strider 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 25
Beetle (grub) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle (adult) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Butterfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Moth <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caterpillar 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Maggot (fly) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fly (adult) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Ant <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Honey bee <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Wasp <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
Speckled dace (stream) <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
(wetland)
(stream)
(wetland)
Swamp darter (wetland) N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Bluegill sunfish (stream) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
Largemouth bass (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Channel catfish (stream) N/A N/A <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)
Longnose gar (wetland) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 N/A
Lake chubsucker (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aquatic Reptiles
(wetland)
(wetland)
(wetland)
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)
Hydra (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Clam, freshwater (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Snail, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
(wetland)
Scud (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water flea (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly, larva (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly, larva (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Stonefly, larva (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caddisfly, larva (stream) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Backswimmer (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Backswimmer (wetland) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mosquito, larva <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(wetland)
1
Estimates are based on the routine exposure scenario;Ecoregions are: 1 - California Valley and Coastal; 2 - Southwestern
Basin and Range; 3 - Lower Rio Grande Valley; 4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian;
7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
Terrestrial vertebrates are not expected to be at risk of intoxication from

SureDye bait spray applications. The reductions in insect populations are
limited and not expected to affect most species, so insectivorous
mammals (bat and shrew) and birds are expected to have minimal, if any,
increase in foraging effort. Birds are not anticipated to suffer mortality in
the program area due to SureDye aerial spraying.
In aquatic systems, fish and aquatic invertebrates are not expected to be

at risk because the concentration of dye will be very low and the toxicity
of the dye is low to most species in these habitats. Some aquatic species
in very shallow ditches (1 cm deep) could be affected, but these isolated
circumstances are not expected to affect most individuals and most
populations.
Exposure to SureDye bait spray or to the noise made by aircraft could

(6) Ground Applications of SureDye Bait
The toxicity and hazards of SureDye have been discussed previously.

The same formulation is used for both aerial and ground applications.
Ground applications may range from spot treatments (part of a host tree)
to full foliar coverage of the host plants. Hazards and resultant risks
would be higher for full foliar coverage applications than for spot
treatments because of the greater amount of pesticide used. Because of
the potential for using full foliar coverage application in a future
program, the risk assessment has been based on that type of application.


and parasitic wasp).
vertebrate species. Ingestion exposures were also the primary route for
invertebrates, because intoxication occurs only through ingestion for
most species and other than exposures through behavioral grooming,
dermal exposures are of lesser consequence. Total doses in the eastern
ecoregions were, in general, higher than in western ecoregions. The
ecoregion differences in total dose are related to differences in the
SureDye concentration in prey items, as the dermal dose did not differ
greatly among ecoregions.

SureDye bait. However, because of soil characteristics, runoff is
anticipated in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion
(6). This is predicted to result in aquatic concentrations ranging from
0.02 to 1.54 µg/L phloxine B in less than 2 m (6 ft) deep habitat.
(c) Risk Assessment

terrestrial species from ground spraying of SureDye bait on foliage. Of
from this treatment method. This is largely the result of selective toxicity
of this compound to only those invertebrates that ingest the bait spray.
This exposure may occur through grooming of the body or direct

ingestion of the bait spray. Other than fruit flies, the only invertebrates
known to be attracted in large numbers to feed upon the bait spray
include the plant bugs (miridae), ground beetles (carabidae), midges and
gnats (nematocerous Diptera), pomace flies, other acalypterate muscoid
flies, some ants (formicidae), and soil mites (acari) (Troetschler, 1983).
Most terrestrial invertebrates modeled under both routine and extreme
scenarios had estimated mortality rates less than 1% except slugs, orb
web spiders, grasshoppers, water striders, adult ground beetles, and
caterpillars. No mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian species analyzed
had doses that exceeded the LD1 values.

of SureDye Bait1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Quail <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Killdeer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mourning dove <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Garter snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Toad <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tree frog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Earthworm <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Slug 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
Sowbug <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Spider 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
Mayfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
Grasshopper 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Lacewing <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water strider 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
Beetle (grub) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle (adult) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Butterfly <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Moth <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caterpillar 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Maggot (fly) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fly (adult) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Ant <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Honey bee <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Wasp <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fish (Habitat)
Speckled dace (stream) <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0
Goldfish (pond) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
(stream)
(wetland)
(stream)
(wetland)
Swamp darter (wetland) N/A N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Bluegill sunfish (stream) N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
Largemouth bass (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Channel catfish (stream) N/A N/A <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 N/A
(stream)
(lake)
(pond)
Longnose gar (wetland) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <1.0 N/A
Lake chubsucker (lake) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aquatic Reptiles
(wetland)
(wetland)
(wetland)
Sponge (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hydra <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Clam (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Snail (freshwater) <1.0 N/A N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Scud <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Water flea <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dragonfly (nymph) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mayfly (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Stonefly (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Caddisfly (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Backswimmer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Beetle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1
Organisms; Ecoregions are: 1 - California Valley and Coastal; 2 - Southwestern Basin and Range; 3 - Lower Rio Grande
Valley; 4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian; 7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
Estimated mortality rates for ground applications are much lower than for
aerial applications because of the more limited nature of ground
applications, even though the maximum was modeled. Insects have a
high reproductive rate and most are ubiquitous. Because ground
application of foliar sprays cover small areas, sufficient interspersion of
unaffected areas which support invertebrates would provide a population
base for repopulating treated areas.

Except for populations characterized by low numbers, there should be
sufficient numbers from neighboring untreated areas. However,
depending on the time of year, some commercially important species,
such as predators, could experience some population reductions. Severe
reductions in predatory insect populations have resulted in an increase in
some pest species. Because SureDye ground spraying is localized,
however, these effects are unlikely to be widespread.
Potential direct impacts on vegetation are limited because SureDye is

only phytotoxic to a few species at the application rates used by fruit fly
programs. Most plants are not affected at these rates of application
(Perry, 1993). Indirect impacts on vegetation could occur, because
SureDye is potentially toxic to insect predators. Effects would be
expected to be limited and local, and long-term reductions in any insect
populations are not anticipated from ground spraying due to recruitment
of populations from unsprayed areas.
Aquatic organisms are not at risk from ground spraying of SureDye under
the routine or extreme exposure scenarios. The predicted concentrations
in water are well below those associated with any mortality to fish or
aquatic invertebrates.
Nontarget organisms could be disturbed by the treatment. Mobile species

could leave the area and would suffer no adverse effect unless survival
resources could not be found elsewhere. Effects would be greater on
species or life stages (e.g., nestlings) that could not relocate. Precautions
should be taken to ensure domestic animals do not contact the treated
area.
Aquatic organisms are not at risk from ground spraying of spinosad under
the routine or extreme exposure scenarios. The predicted concentrations
in water from runoff are well below those associated with any mortality
to fish or aquatic invertebrates.
Nontarget organisms could be disturbed by noise from the treatment

applications. Mobile species could leave the area and would suffer no
adverse effect unless survival resources could not be found elsewhere.
Effects would be greater on species that could not relocate (e.g.,
nestlings). Precautions should be taken to ensure domestic animals do
not contact the treated area.

b. Soil Treatments
(1) Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic

action is primarily through AChE inhibition. AChE inhibition can cause
muscle tremors, convulsions, behavioral changes, and many other
symptoms. Death usually occurs from respiratory failure, although death
of wild animals may also be indirect, the result of behavioral changes
such as loss of ability to evade predators. EPA's 1989 registration
standard for chlorpyrifos identifies environmental toxicity data gaps for
active ingredient, typical end-use product, and degradate as well as
environmental fate.
Chlorpyrifos is moderately toxic to mammals, moderately to severely

toxic to birds, slightly to moderately toxic to adult reptiles and
amphibians, slightly to very highly toxic to tadpoles, and severely toxic to
terrestrial invertebrates. Chlorpyrifos is particularly toxic to earthworms,
bees, some other beneficial insects, and some birds including the
European starling and ring-necked pheasant. Field studies have shown
that wild bees, such as the alfalfa leafcutting bee and alkali bee, are even
more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than honey bees (Johansen, 1977).
Chlorpyrifos is very highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Important fish food species, such as scuds (Gammarus sp.) and stonefly
naiads, are the most sensitive aquatic invertebrates tested. Early instar
larvae may be even more sensitive than adults. Marine fish (striped bass
and Atlantic silverside) seem to be slightly more sensitive than
freshwater species (bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout). Field tests of
chlorpyrifos in ponds, streams, and wetlands have confirmed its toxicity
to mosquitofish, killifish, and aquatic invertebrates (Smith, 1987).
Cyanobacteria and fish bioaccumulate or bioconcentrate chlorpyrifos up
to 1,000 times, which means that secondary poisoning could be a
problem although it has not been documented.
Exposure of nontarget organisms to chlorpyrifos depends on the

proximity of the individual organism to the limited area in which the soil
drench chemical is applied. Because the chlorpyrifos-treated area is
small, the majority of individuals in a program area are unlikely to come
into contact with this chemical.

For terrestrial vertebrate species who feed in, traverse, or inhabit areas
treated with chlorpyrifos, the primary route of exposure is ingestion,
usually of insects killed or incapacitated by the chemical. For the insects
themselves, both dermal exposure as well as ingestion of contaminated
plant materials or prey contribute substantially to the chlorpyrifos dose.
Among the various groups of terrestrial organisms, invertebrates and
small mammals received the highest doses. Exposure of terrestrial
species to chlorpyrifos is generally higher in the eastern ecoregions.
Aquatic organisms will have extremely limited exposure to chlorpyrifos

because it is not used in aquatic areas. In an extreme case modeled (a
ditch adjacent to an orchard treated with chlorpyrifos), rainfall washed
some chlorpyrifos into aquatic areas in two of the seven ecoregions. In
the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion (6), fish,
invertebrates, and other aquatic species could be exposed to substantial
concentrations of chlorpyrifos (35.5 to 221.8 µg/L) washed into a ditch.
(c) Risk Assessment
Chlorpyrifos represents a risk (greater than 1% mortality) to: small

mammals (shrews, mice, and bats); birds except for aquatic feeders and
higher predators; and all terrestrial reptiles, amphibians, and terrestrial
invertebrates (table 5–8). Population mortality is projected to be low for
all species in the treatment area because of the limited use of the
pesticide.
Chlorpyrifos represents more of a risk to aquatic species than does

diazinon or fenthion. All aquatic species exposed via runoff into a ditch,
in the extreme scenario, are at risk except for fish exposed to the lower
application rate in the Floridian ecoregion (6).
If chlorpyrifos were part of the fruit fly program, its applications would
most likely be subject to the same restrictions that apply to diazinon.
Because of the limited use, it is projected that a maximum of 0.14% of
the program area could be treated. Although chlorpyrifos represents a
substantial risk to exposed individuals, nontarget populations as a whole
are not at risk. Local conditions determine degradation and affect the
time required for repopulation.

Table 5–8. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Chlorpyrifos Soil
Treatment1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew 98.2 98.5 98.6 99.1 99.6 99.5 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.1 22.6 22.6 <1.0
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse 32 33.3 34.1 34.1 45.5 39.9 32.7
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American kestrel 70.6 70.6 N/A 71.8 73 73 70.6
Quail 7.5 12.5 31.4 32.5 33.5 33.5 N/A
Killdeer 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9
Mourning dove 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird 20.8 20.8 20.8 32.9 43.8 43.8 20.8
Belted kngfisher <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Northern flicker 38.1 37.1 N/A 41.7 46 45.9 37.1
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin 98.9 99 99.1 99 99.2 99.1 99
Nothern mockingbird 96.3 96.3 96.3 96.8 97.2 97.2 96.3
European starling 96.8 96.8 96.8 97.4 97.8 97.8 96.8
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow 94.3 94.3 94.3 95.9 97 97 94.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Desert iguana 65.2 65.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Side-blotched lizard 98.6 98.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 98.6
Carolina anole N/A N/A 98.5 99.2 99.5 99.5 N/A
Eastern fence lizard N/A N/A 99.4 99.7 99.9 99.8 N/A
Western fence lizard 99.1 99.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.2
Canyon lizard N/A N/A 98.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gopher snake 13.3 18.3 13.6 6 6.3 6.2 15.8
Garter snake 24.3 24.4 24.4 26.6 28.8 28.8 24.4
Desert tortoise 29.5 29.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Eastern box turtle N/A N/A N/A 97.4 98.2 97.9 N/A
Western box turtle N/A 83.3 83.3 89.9 N/A N/A N/A
Hognose snake N/A 73.8 74.2 73.4 74.3 73.7 N/A
Toad 12.3 13 14.4 13.8 15.9 14.9 12.7
Tree frog 3.9 3.9 3.2 4.1 5.1 5.1 3.9
Earthworm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Slug 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sowbug 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Spider 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.6 97.8 97.8 97.4
Mayfly 98.7 98.7 98.7 99.4 99.6 99.6 98.7
Dragonfly 94.5 94.5 94.5 93.2 95.2 95.2 94.5
Grasshopper 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Lacewing 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8
Water strider 34.8 34.8 34.8 39.4 42.9 42.9 34.8
Beetle, grub 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.9 99.1 99.1 98.6
Beetle, adult 98.2 98.3 98.3 98.7 99 99 98.3
Butterfly 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Moth 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Caterpillar 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Maggot 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Fly 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ant 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Honey bee 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Wasp 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Fish
Mosquito fish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 60.9 41.4 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aquatic Reptiles
Snapping turtle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 N/A
Water snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 N/A
Bullfrog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 N/A
Tiger salamander <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
Amphiuma <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 N/A
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
Snail, freshwater <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
Dragonfly, nymph <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
Mosquito, larva <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 100 <1.0
1
4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian; 7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
(2) Diazinon
Diazinon is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action is

primarily through AChE inhibition. AChE inhibition can cause muscle
tremors, convulsions, behavioral changes, and other symptoms. Death
usually occurs due to respiratory failure, but death of wild animals may
also be the result of behavioral changes (i.e., loss of ability to evade
predators).
Diazinon is very slightly to moderately toxic to mammals, severely toxic to

birds, slightly toxic to reptiles and terrestrial amphibians, severely toxic to
terrestrial invertebrates, and of low phytotoxicity to most plants. Field
studies have shown that all birds are sensitive to diazinon including
songbirds and other birds commonly found in backyard settings (Smith,
1987).
Diazinon is moderately to highly toxic to fish and very highly toxic to

aquatic invertebrates. Field studies of fish communities exposed to
diazinon are few.

The aquatic invertebrate populations as a whole have been shown to
remain constant in numbers following spraying, but the species diversity
shifts in favor of those insects more tolerant of diazinon.
Diazinon degrades rapidly on plants with a typical half-life of less than

14 days. Diazinon can translocate from soil into roots and leaves, but due
to its rapid degradation, bioaccumulation is not generally a concern in
plants.
Exposure of nontarget organisms to diazinon depends on one major

factor—whether or not the individual organism is in or near the limited
area in which the soil drench chemical is applied. Because the area treated
with diazinon is small, the majority of individuals in a program area will
not contact this chemical.
For those terrestrial species that feed in, traverse, or inhabit areas treated
with diazinon, the primary route of exposure is ingestion (usually of
insects killed or incapacitated by the chemical). For insects, both dermal
exposure and ingestion of contaminated plant material or prey contribute
substantially to diazinon dose. Invertebrates and small mammals received
the highest doses and the carnivorous birds received the lowest doses.
Exposures of terrestrial species to diazinon were generally higher in the
eastern ecoregions.
Aquatic organisms will have extremely limited exposure to diazinon

because it is not used in aquatic areas. Even under the extreme scenario (a
ditch adjacent to an orchard treated with diazinon), rainfall will not wash
any appreciable amount of diazinon into aquatic areas in five ecoregions.
However, in the Mississippi Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion
(6), fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic species in an adjacent ditch could
be exposed to low concentrations (0.1 to 12.2 µg/L) of diazinon due to
runoff.
(c) Risk Assessment
Diazinon presented a risk (greater than 1% mortality) to most of the

exposed populations that were considered under the assumptions of this
analysis. Exposed terrestrial species within this analysis that were at risk
from diazinon include many mammals, most of the birds, all of the
terrestrial reptiles and amphibians, and all terrestrial invertebrates. Insects,
small mammals, insectivorous lizards, and insectivorous birds are likely to
suffer the highest mortality of those individuals exposed to diazinon

(table 5–9). However, population mortality in the treated area is not
anticipated to be high for any species analyzed. Aquatic invertebrate
species are at risk from diazinon washed into a ditch in the Mississippi
Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion (6) only under the extreme
scenario.
Diazinon use in most recent programs has been restricted (by EPA) to no
more than 10 gallons per year per State; actual usage has been
substantially less in most programs. Opportunity for exposure is minimal
and only species that use or traverse treated areas are exposed. Those
include territorial birds, tree lizards, small mammals with limited mobility,
and insects. The primary effect of diazinon on nontarget species is high
mortality of soil invertebrate fauna, possibly resulting in lower fertility and
soil aeration. Effects would be localized.
(3) Fenthion
Fenthion is an organophosphate insecticide whose mode of toxic action is

primarily through AChE inhibition. AChE inhibition can cause muscle
tremors, convulsions, behavioral changes, and other symptoms. Death
usually occurs due to respiratory failure, but death of wild animals may
also be the result of behavioral changes (i.e., loss of ability to evade
predators). EPA's registration standard for fenthion (1988) lists data gaps
for environmental fate, acute and chronic toxicity, and environmental
toxicity for active ingredient, typical end-use product, and degradation
product.
Fenthion is moderately toxic to mammals, severely toxic to birds, and

severely toxic to terrestrial invertebrates. Its toxicity to reptiles and
amphibians is uncertain, but it is probably moderately toxic. Animals such
as bullfrog tadpoles and carp can bioaccumulate fenthion up to 2,300 times
and retain about half of that residue for several weeks. Fenthion is most
toxic to birds, aquatic invertebrates and honey bees. Of particular concern
with respect to birds is the demonstrated capacity for secondary poisoning
via treated or poisoned diet items.
Fenthion is highly toxic to fish and very highly toxic to aquatic

invertebrates. Of the aquatic invertebrates, mysid and pink shrimp as well
as first instar larvae of water fleas are the most sensitive. Field studies in
Florida estuaries have confirmed fenthion's toxicity to aquatic
invertebrates (Clark et al., 1987a).

Table 5–9. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Diazinon Soil
Treatment1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum 9.5 11.3 9.9 10.5 15.2 11.8 10.4
Shrew 99.8 99.9 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A2
Bat 48.7 48.7 48.7 75.0 87.4 87.4 48.7
Cottontail rabbit 15.4 15.4 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 N/A
Squirrel 49.6 N/A 49.6 61.4 70.4 70.4 49.6
Mouse 80.1 81.2 80.3 76.7 85.1 77.6 80.7
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.6 4.6 4.6 2.9
American kestrel 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Quail 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A
Killdeer 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mourning dove 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.4
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird 2.6 2.6 2.6 8.0 16.0 16.0 2.6
Northern flicker 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin 59.6 62.8 60.4 62.7 <1.0 65.8 61.2
Northern mockingbird 64.1 64.1 64.1 67.4 68.6 70.3 64.1
European starling 62,8 62.8 74.5 68.2 72.6 72.6 62.8
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table V-9, continued.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake 10.4 11.4 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.5 10.9
Garter snake 27.5 27.5 27.5 29.4 31.2 31.2 27.5
Toad 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.3 7.4 6.8 5.3
Tree frog 3.8 3.8 3.2 4.1 5.0 5.0 3.8
Earthworm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Slug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sowbug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Spider 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mayfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dragonfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Grasshopper 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lacewing 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Water strider <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.2 7.5 7.5 <1.0
Beetle (grub) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Beetle (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Butterfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Moth 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Caterpillar 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Maggot (fly) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fly (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Honey bee 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wasp 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fish
Mosquito fish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aquatic Reptiles
Snapping turtle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.6 <1.0 N/A
Water snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.6 <1.0 N/A
Bullfrog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.6 <1.0 N/A
Tiger salamander <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.6 <1.0 <1.0
Amphiuma <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 27.6 <1.0 N/A
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 99.7 1.8 <1.0
Snail (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 99.7 1.8 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100.0 24.2 <1.0
Dragonfly (nymph) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 23.4 <1.0 <1.0
Mosquito (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 23.4 <1.0 <1.0
1
4 - Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain; 5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian; 7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
Exposure of nontarget organisms to fenthion depends on one major

factor—whether or not the individual organism is in or near the limited
area in which the soil drench chemical is applied. Because the area
treated with fenthion is small, the majority of individuals in a program
area will not be exposed.
For those terrestrial vertebrate species who do feed in, traverse, or inhabit
areas treated with fenthion, the primary route of exposure is ingestion,
usually of insects killed or incapacitated by the chemical. Both dermal
exposure as well as ingestion of contaminated plant material or prey
contribute substantially to fenthion dose to insects. Among the various
groups of terrestrial organisms, invertebrates and small mammals
received the highest doses, whereas the carnivorous birds received the
lowest doses (our exposure modeling did not include bioconcentration).
Exposure of terrestrial species to fenthion is generally higher in the
eastern ecoregions.
Aquatic organisms will have extremely limited exposure to fenthion

because it is not used in aquatic areas. Under the extreme scenario,
rainfall will wash some fenthion into aquatic areas in two of the seven
ecoregions from a ditch adjacent to a treated orchard. In the Mississippi
Delta ecoregion (5) and Floridian ecoregion (6), fish, invertebrates, and
other aquatic species could be so exposed to moderate concentration of
fenthion (8.1 to 22.1 µg/L).
(c) Risk Assessment
Fenthion may represent a greater risk to birds than chlorpyrifos or

diazinon (table 5–10). Other exposed terrestrial species at high risk from
fenthion include all reptiles, amphibians, and most terrestrial
invertebrates modeled. Fenthion represents a risk to fewer aquatic
species than does chlorpyrifos if exposure occurs.
If fenthion were a part of the fruit fly program, its use could be subject to
the same restrictions that apply to diazinon. For fenthion and all soil
drenches, soil fauna in treated areas are at great risk. Actual disturbances
and time to return to pre-treatment conditions are site-specific. Although
fenthion represents a substantial risk to exposed individuals, the
nontarget species populations as a whole are not at risk because of the
limited use of soil drenches.
c. Fumigation
(I) Methyl Bromide
Methyl bromide is acutely toxic. Although the mode of action is not well
understood, methyl bromide is an alkylating agent, a substance that
deactivates enzymes and disrupts nucleic acid synthesis. A NOEL of
0.065 mg/L (17 ppm) was determined for an 8-hour daily inhalation
exposure over 6 months for the rabbit, the most sensitive laboratory
animal species tested (Alexeeff and Kilgore, 1983). The rat LD50 is
2,700 ppm for a 30-minute exposure. The Colorado potato beetle LD50 is
1,058 ppm for a 2-hour exposure at 25 oC (Bond and Svec, 1977).
Because methyl bromide is heavier than air, the gas can collect in isolated
pockets, which could create hazardous conditions when there is little air
circulation. Data on the concentrations of methyl bromide in the air
outside of a fumigation site are few, and a qualitative risk assessment
follows.

Table 5–10. Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed Individuals from Fenthion Soil
Treatment1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrestrial Mammals
Opossum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Shrew 83.0 87.6 83.3 91.8 96.9 95.8 N/A2
Bat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.7 15.2 15.2 <1.0
Cottontail rabbit 91.5 91.5 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 N/A
Squirrel <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Mouse 11.9 13.7 12.0 10.2 16.9 11.0 12.8
Raccoon <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Fox <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Coyote/Dog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cat <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Deer <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Terrestrial Birds
Great blue heron <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cattle egret <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Duck <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Turkey vulture <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Red-tailed hawk 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 4.0 4.0 <1.0
American kestrel 99.9 100.0 N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Quail 76.9 76.8 96.8 97.0 97.1 97.1 N/A
Killdeer 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8
Mourning dove 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3
Great horned owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Burrowing owl <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A <1.0 <1.0
Nighthawk <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Hummingbird 96.0 96.0 96.0 98.2 99.1 99.1 96.0
Northern flicker 97.8 97.8 N/A 98.4 98.7 98.7 97.8
Kingbird <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
American robin 98.7 99.0 98.7 98.9 99.3 99.0 98.9
Northern mockingbird 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.9 99.1 99.1 98.8
European starling 98.9 98.9 98.9 99.1 99.3 99.3 98.9
Meadowlark <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
House sparrow 91.0 91.0 91.0 93.2 94.7 94.7 91.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gopher snake 91.6 93.9 91.6 84.8 85.2 84.9 92.8
Garter snake 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.9 97.3 97.3 96.5
Toad 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tree frog 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Earthworm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Slug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sowbug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Spider 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mayfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dragonfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Grasshopper 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lacewing 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Water strider 32.5 32.5 32.5 52.8 67.6 67.6 32.5
Beetle (grub) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Beetle (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Butterfly 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Moth 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Caterpillar 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Maggot (fly) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fly (adult) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Honey bee 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wasp 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fish
Mosquito fish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aquatic Reptiles
Snapping turtle <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Water snake <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Bullfrog <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Tiger salamander <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Amphiuma <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A
Leech <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 83.6 48.5 <1.0
Snail (freshwater) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 83.6 48.5 <1.0
Crayfish <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 20.5 3.3 <1.0
Dragonfly (nymph) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 94.6 72.4 <1.0
Mosquito (larva) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 94.6 72.4 <1.0
1
Organisms; Ecoregions are: 1 - California Valley and Coastal; 2 - Southwestern Basin and Range; 3 - Lower Rio Grande Valley;4
- Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain;5 - Mississippi Delta; 6 - Floridian; 7 - Marine Pacific Forest.
2
The highest concentrations of methyl bromide will occur when the gas is
expelled from a fumigation chamber through a vent and allowed to
disperse into open air. This process is facilitated by fans (capable of
blowing 5,000 cubic feet per minute). The majority of the gas will be
expelled within the first 5 minutes, but some pockets of gas may be
partially trapped and will take longer to dissipate. When expelled, the
gas is diluted by the ambient air. Concentrations will be greatest near the
source. Standard operating procedures require a barrier for 30 feet (about
10 m) around the fumigation site to protect the general public from
exposure to unsafe levels of fumigant. This barrier also helps keep out
many nontarget species.
(c) Qualitative Risk Assessment
Fumigations will have little effect on vertebrate nontarget species

because methyl bromide is likely to dilute rapidly outside the fumigation
chambers. Human noise and activity involved in setting up the
fumigation are expected to repel most vertebrate nontarget animals from
the vicinity of the fumigation site. The safety precautions for methyl
bromide fumigations make exposures possible for only those species in
close proximity to the venting area outside the fumigation chamber or
stack. The high acute toxicity of methyl bromide gas makes it likely that
any nontarget organisms near the vent opening would be at risk of
mortality. This is likely to include some aboveground arthropods and
soil invertebrates near the vent to the fumigation chambers.
The sticky, bright colored panel traps used for attracting and entrapping
male fruit flies should pose little threat to nontarget plants and animals.
The surface is coated with a sticky substance and lure, both of which pose
a negligible toxicologic risk to nontargets. The panels are placed at
elevated locations out of reach of the public, usually in trees. Other than
a few arthropod species that are attracted to the panels and get caught,
most nontargets are unlikely to even contact the panels. The small
number of arthropods that are caught on these traps is anticipated to have
minimal effect on the overall populations of these species with only
temporary decreases in populations following placement of panels in
program areas.
Exposures to trap chemicals are most likely for insects or small birds that
enter the traps. Quantitative assessment of the exposures to birds would
not be meaningful, because birds are not routinely attracted by the traps
or trap contents. Unless the bird chose to nest in the trap, the exposure
would not be expected to adversely affect the animal. The small number
of insects lured and trapped would not be expected to result in any
substantial changes in the overall population of these species.
The usage pattern (small spots applied, with large untreated intervals) for
male annihilation spot treatments relies on a bait to attract the target pest.
Most nontarget species of insects would not come into contact with the
pesticide. Other than the target fruit flies, the attracted insect species
would be very few and no substantial changes in the overall population of
these species would be expected. Any random contact by mammals,
birds, reptiles, or amphibians would not be expected to adversely affect
their survival. The amount of chemical washed off the applied spots
would not be sufficient to accumulate in any bodies of water, so aquatic
species would not be affected by these treatments.
Cordelitos and wood fiberboard squares are attractive only to some of the
fruit fly species and a few other insects. The small number of nontarget
insects attracted to these baited materials would not be expected to have
any substantial effect on the overall population size. The random
exposure to other organisms would not be expected to affect their
populations.

3. Principal a. Habitats or Ecological Associations of Concern
Related
Issues The analysis gave special consideration to habitats or ecological
associations of concern. These habitats or ecological associations are
important in that they: (1) are unique and valuable resources, (2) serve as
indicators of environmental quality, (3) are being diminished through
human exploitation, and (4) may be the subject of special regulations and
conservation initiatives. This section considers the potential effects of
the control methods on habitats or ecological associations of concern.
(a) Sterile Insect Technique
The release of sterile fruit flies should cause little disruption to plant or
vertebrate animal communities. The addition of large numbers of fruit
flies should also cause little disruption to the insect community; any
population composition changes are likely to be of short duration. Debris
from the releases could be a visual disturbance, but is unlikely to cause
problems in sensitive habitats because the containers biodegrade. Noise
from vehicles or aircraft dispensing the flies could disrupt sensitive
nesting birds, but a single disturbance is unlikely to have major
consequences.
(b) Physical Control
Host elimination could affect sensitive habitats such as tropical tree

hammocks and areas adjacent to the Everglades if host removal were
required in such areas.
(c) Cultural Control
Because cultural control would be restricted to the agricultural areas and

not natural ecosystems, it is not likely that any habitats or ecological
associations will be affected.
(d) Biological Control
Damage by biological control agents for fruit fly control would be limited
to invertebrate prey items, hosts of insect parasites, and organisms
susceptible to insecticidal microorganisms. Habitat, per se, would
probably not be at risk, but ecological associations could be at risk to the
extent that trophic interactions or pollination systems are disrupted. It is
unlikely that any species critical to the structure of ecological

communities would be at serious risk (see Biodiversity subsection), but
precise effects are not known.
(e) Biotechnological Control
Effects of biotechnological methods for fruit fly control are specifically

designed to impact either agricultural crops or insects. As such, habitats
are not at risk. However, as with biocontrol agents, biotechnological
agents place ecological associations at risk to the extent that they disrupt
community structure.
(f) Cold Treatment

likely to continue to limit the use of this treatment. The treatment
chambers are sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species during cold
treatment. Habitats or ecological associations of concern are not
expected to be affected by program cold treatments.
(g) Irradiation Treatment

from the exposure and poses no risks to nontarget species. The
irradiation equipment is sealed to prevent entry of species of nontarget
wildlife to the irradiation chamber. Habitats or ecological associations of
concern are not expected to be affected by program irradiation treatments.
(h) Vapor Heat Treatment
during vapor heat treatment. Habitats or ecological associations of
concern are not expected to be affected by program vapor heat
treatments.
(a) Bait Spray Applications
Shallow aquatic habitats, such as wetlands, are of concern for

applications of malathion bait spray. Small shallow ponds, ditches, and
canals prevalent in some of the ecoregions could receive high
concentrations of malathion (e.g., an estimated 59.17 µg/L in
southeastern wetlands) if they are located within a treatment area. The
lower application rate and lower toxicity of SureDye and spinosad make
it less likely that applications of these formulations would affect these
habitats. Loss of invertebrates and fish from these habitats from
malathion toxicity could affect the many organisms dependent upon these
fish and invertebrates species for food. Acidic water habitats, such as
saltwater marshes, are of particular concern because malathion does not
degrade as rapidly in acidic waters as in alkaline waters, and could affect
the habitat for a longer period of time. Migratory bird refuges, where
large concentrations of birds could be expected to consume invertebrates,
are also of concern.
Terrestrial habitats of concern include scrub, South Florida rockland

forests, and riparian areas because of the high concentration of
invertebrates and species depending on invertebrates for pollination or
food. Adverse effects to these areas are of greater concern for
applications of malathion bait spray with multiple routes of toxic action
than SureDye and spinosad bait spray which require ingestion to affect
the species present.
(b) Soil Treatments
The three soil drench chemicals—chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and

fenthion—have the potential to affect sensitive areas because of the
toxicity of these chemicals to a number of nontarget species. However,
these chemicals are used only in limited areas and are not very mobile in
the environment. The adverse effects are anticipated to be limited to
those soil organisms in the treated areas under the host plants. Therefore,
a sensitive area would only be affected in the unlikely event of a soil
drench chemical being applied to that area.

(c) Fumigation
Fumigations associated with the fruit fly program are normally conducted
where commodities are gathered or stored. These areas are usually in
disturbed habitats that are not near sensitive sites. Fumigation activities
are not anticipated to pose any risk to sensitive habitats or ecological
associations of concern.
(d) Trapping Chemicals and Other Methods
Trapping chemicals are designed to attract certain fruit fly species. The
small number of other species that are trapped or exposed to trap
chemicals is not anticipated to affect the long-term species composition
of the local site or present any impact to sensitive areas. The slight
disruption of sensitive plants and nesting birds during servicing of traps
is not expected to have lasting adverse effects.
The fruit fly male annihilation spot treatments and traps have lures that
are designed to specifically attract certain fruit fly species. The small
number of other species that contact the lure is not anticipated to affect
the species composition of the local site or present any impact to
sensitive areas. The slight disruption of sensitive plants and nesting birds
during treatments or servicing of traps is not expected to have lasting
adverse effects.
Cordelitos and wood fiberboard squares are designed to attract only

certain fruit fly species. As with male annihilation and trapping
chemicals, the small number of other species that are affected is not
anticipated to affect the species composition of the local site or present
any impact to sensitive areas. The slight disruption of sensitive plants
and nesting birds during treatments is not expected to have lasting
adverse effects.
b. Endangered and Threatened Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), mandates that "all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to
conserve endangered species and threatened species." Its purpose, in
part, is "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved."
Under ESA, the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce is required to
determine which species are endangered or threatened and to issue
regulations to protect those species.

Section 7 of ESA required Federal agencies to consult with the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the U.S.
Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2)).
The endangered and threatened (E&T) species within the potential

program areas include plants, birds, fish, mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
crustaceans, mollusks, and insects. The number of listed species in
potential program areas currently exceeds 200 and will continue to grow.
APHIS has worked closely with FWS to ensure that these species will not
be affected by fruit fly programs. APHIS will continue to consult with
FWS as part of the ongoing process.
A Biological Assessment (BA) (APHIS, 1993) was prepared for the

Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program. The BA constitutes APHIS'
programmatic evaluation of the potential consequences to E&T species
and is incorporated by reference in this EIS. It provides protection
measures to ensure the E&T species will not be adversely affected by the
program activities. These measures have allowed APHIS to determine
that E&T species will not be affected by the Medfly program. FWS
concurred with the BA with the understanding that, before implementing
a program, APHIS will confer with FWS to ensure that the protective
measures provided in the BA remain sufficient to eliminate any potential
adverse effect on an E&T species. Comparable consultation is underway
for the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program.
c. Biodiversity
(a) Sterile Insect Technique
Sterile insect releases are unlikely to have an effect on biodiversity

because the fruit flies are infertile and are short-lived. Biodiversity could
be affected, however, if fertile flies were released unintentionally. An
established exotic fruit fly population could affect not only insect
diversity, but plant and perhaps vertebrate diversity as well.

(b) Physical Control
Fruit stripping is not expected to affect biodiversity. Host elimination

could affect terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity if hosts were eliminated
from a large area. Depending on the magnitude of the affected area,
landscape diversity could be affected. Aquatic biodiversity would
decline as turbidity and siltation from soil erosion associated with host
elimination increased. Terrestrial biodiversity would change as well, as
more species of plants invaded disturbed areas created by host removal.
(c) Cultural Control
Cultural controls would alter cultivated species diversity in agricultural

areas. Indirect effects to those species utilizing this disturbed habitat
could occur and alter species diversity locally. Trap cropping could have
effects on biodiversity similar to some chemical controls.
(d) Biological Control
Potential effects of biological control on biodiversity may not be

predicted with great accuracy, given the present state of fruit fly
biocontrol technology. Although the biocontrol agents considered for use
against fruit flies could damage populations of a variety of invertebrate
species, it is highly unlikely that any of these biocontrol agents would be
capable of eliminating populations or causing major fluctuations in
community structures. Biodiversity of nontarget plant species would be
at risk to the extent that pollination systems may be disrupted.
(e) Biotechnological Control
Potential effects of biotechnological control on biodiversity also may not

be predicted with great accuracy, given the present state of fruit fly
biotechnological control. It is not likely that biotechnological control
methods, should they become available to the program, will have a
recognizable or major impact on biodiversity.
(f) Cold Treatment

likely to continue to limit the use of this treatment. The treatment
chambers are sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species during cold

treatment. Biodiversity is not expected to be affected by program cold
treatments.
(g) Irradiation Treatment

from the exposure and poses no risks to nontarget species. The
irradiation equipment is sealed to prevent entry of nontarget species to
the irradiation chamber. Biodiversity is, therefore, not expected to be
affected by program irradiation treatments.
(h) Vapor Heat Treatment
during vapor heat treatment. Biodiversity is not expected to be affected
by program vapor heat treatments.
(a) Bait Spray Applications
Invertebrate species diversity is anticipated to decrease within the

treatment area following applications of malathion bait and to a lesser
extent, SureDye and spinosad bait. Insectivorous mammals and
amphibians are predicted to experience declines as a result of aerial
applications of malathion bait spray, but not aerial applications of
SureDye and spinosad bait spray. Changes in macroinvertebrate species
composition to favor more tolerant species could be expected in areas
receiving malathion-containing runoff (CDFG, 1982). Depending on
site-specific circumstances, the effects could be brief or protracted. Loss
of pollinator species would decrease the number of offspring produced by
some species of plants. Because the program is temporary, no plant

species should be eliminated from the treatment area, although genetic
diversity may be affected. Although individuals of many taxa may be
lost from malathion bait spray applications, vertebrate population
reductions are anticipated to be minor, except for perhaps amphibians.
The loss of any individual can reduce biodiversity, but at the anticipated
rate, differences between program losses and natural mortality would be
difficult to detect for noninsectivorous vertebrates.
Invertebrate taxa would experience the greatest effects, particularly with

malathion bait spray. Community structure alterations have been
observed and, depending on the aerial spraying regime, could last 1 year
or more (Troetschler, 1983). Genetic diversity has been altered by the
use of pesticides as evidenced by resistance: malathion is less toxic to
mosquitoes than to most other invertebrate taxa. Effects on biodiversity,
at all levels, will be less with ground spraying than aerial spraying and
will be less with SureDye than malathion. The lesser effect of ground
applications relates directly to less exposure of invertebrates due to
application directly to fruit fly host plants. SureDye and spinosad will
affect those species that are attracted by the bait and feed, but most
invertebrate are not attracted by the bait. There will be some
phytophagous invertebrate species that consume leaves with residue from
SureDye and spinosad bait spray applications. These insects will also
have higher mortality, but the number of individuals that feed on treated
leaves will be considerably less than those attracted by the bait and the
few individual phytophagous invertebrates lost from this feeding are not
expected to have permanent effects on species survival or biological
diversity.
(b) Soil Treatments
The three soil drench chemicals—chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and

fenthion—have the potential to affect biodiversity because of the toxicity
of these chemicals to a number of nontarget species. However, these
chemicals are used only in limited areas and are not very mobile in the
environment. Under these limited-use conditions, alterations in
biodiversity would be limited. For example, the diversity of the soil
invertebrate population in the treated areas would most likely be severely
decreased, but untreated areas would still be a source of species for
repopulation.
(c) Fumigation
Methyl bromide fumigation associated with the program is unlikely to

impact species diversity except in the immediate vicinity of the vent for

the fumigation chambers. On rare occasions where invertebrates might
be exposed to lethal concentrations of methyl bromide (as in flying
through a fumigation chamber's aeration plume), loss of individuals
should not affect diversity at the species or population level.
(d) Mass Trapping and Other Methods
Trapping chemicals will affect those species attracted by the lure and the
local populations of these species may be temporarily eliminated.
Repopulation from untreated surrounding areas is anticipated for these
species. The small number of other species that are trapped or
unintentionally get exposed to trap chemicals is not anticipated to affect
the survival of local populations of those species. The slight disruption
of sensitive plants and nesting birds during servicing of traps is not
expected to have lasting adverse effects.
The fruit fly male annihilation spot treatments, bait stations, and traps
have lures that are designed to specifically attract certain fruit fly species.
The biodiversity within the program area will be temporarily decreased
by those species attracted by the lure. Repopulation from untreated
surrounding areas is anticipated for these species. The small number of
other species that unintentionally contact the lure is not anticipated to
affect the survival of the local populations of those species. The slight
disruption of sensitive plants and nesting birds during treatments or
servicing of traps is not expected to have lasting adverse effects on
biodiversity.
Cordelitos and wood fiberboard squares are attractive to only a few

invertebrate species. The biodiversity within the program area will be
decreased by those species attracted, but repopulation from untreated
surrounding areas is anticipated for these species. The small number of
other species that unintentionally contact the cordelitos or wood
fiberboard squares is not anticipated to affect the survival of the local
populations of those species. The slight disruption of sensitive plants and
nesting birds during treatments is not expected to have lasting adverse
effects.
E. Cumulative Effects
1. Non- The effects of nonchemical control methods on human health and safety
chemical have been evaluated and found to have little, if any, impact. Therefore,
Control long-term or cumulative impacts are not expected. Some of the
Methods nonchemical control methods may cause temporary disturbances to
nontarget habitats or ecological associations, but because the effects are
of short duration and reversible, long-term or cumulative effects on
populations are unlikely. Because immediate effects of biological control
and biotechnological control are not well established, it is impossible to
predict cumulative impacts to nontarget species from these control
methods.
The potential cumulative effects of the combined control methods would

depend on the component control methods used, but are substantially
influenced by the use of control methods using pesticides. These
components have been analyzed separately.
2. Chemical Cumulative effects or impacts are defined as those effects or impacts that
Control result from the incremental impact of a program action when added to
Methods other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Cumulative effects may result from direct effects which are caused by the
action and occur at the same time and place, or are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. The potential
cumulative effects of the Fruit Fly Cooperative Eradication Program are
related principally to the program's use of chemical control methods.
Such effects could result from accumulation of pesticide(s) in the
environment or within organisms, interactions of program pesticides with
other pesticides or chemicals, or repeated exposures of humans or
nontarget organisms to pesticides (incremental effects).
No environmental accumulation or bioaccumulation is foreseen for

program use of malathion; malathion degrades readily and the interval
between expected treatments is such that little residue of malathion from
previous applications would remain or have the potential to exacerbate
the risk of subsequent applications. Although soil drench pesticides are
expected to have limited usage over a minimal portion of the treatment
area, short-term accumulation in soil is possible (half-lives in soil range
from 1 day for fenthion to as long as 10 weeks for diazinon); however,
residues should not persist long in the environment under usual
conditions. Methyl bromide is volatile and is not expected to accumulate
in the vicinity of treatments, although there is concern that halogens
(including bromine) may accumulate in the atmosphere and contribute to
ozone depletion in the stratosphere. However, the small amounts of
bromine in the atmosphere are not believed to be important causes of
ozone depletion.
Cumulative chemical risks may include synergistic toxic effects resulting

from the adverse effects of exposure to pesticides that have combined
with the adverse effects of other pesticides or chemicals. Although
organophosphates may have the potential to interact, the program

organophosphate pesticides usually are not applied simultaneously. Even
though an individual may be exposed to two organophosphates within the
same exposure interval, the implications of such an exposure are unclear.
There also is some potential for synergistic effects resulting from the
combination of program pesticides and pesticides or chemicals used by
the public. Chemicals routinely used by the public include pesticides,
household cleaners, lawn and garden chemicals, amd home maintenance
products. There is no way to predict with certainty the use of such
products, the extent of their synergism, the potential for exposure to
synergistic products, or the consequences of that exposure. Public
notification will help to minimize exposure and resultant risk of any
synergistic effects.
Exposure to chemicals can lead to allergy or hypersensitivity (EPA, 1984;

Calabrese, 1978). Effects, such as hypersensitivity, often depend on
cumulative or multiple exposures. Groups that may be hypersensitive to
organophosphate pesticides include: individuals with immature enzyme
detoxification systems (embryos, fetuses, neonates, and children to
3 months of age), pregnant females, individuals with highly sensitive
cholinesterase variants, individuals low in dietary protein, individuals
with liver disease or impaired immune function, alcoholics, and drug
users. All people at some time during their lives are at increased risk
from one or more commonly encountered environmental contaminants.
Effects that could result from repeated exposures to environmental
contaminants include dermal sensitivities, respiratory effects, and (rarely)
some life-threatening conditions. In order to minimize exposure for
individuals who could be sensitive or become sensitive to the
organophosphate pesticides, program operational procedures are designed
to protect sensitive areas (including hospitals) and provide public
notification of planned applications.
Cumulative effects may result from the incremental use of program

pesticides. Other pesticides have been implicated in the decline of
amphibian and bird species. Theoretically, adverse effects on nontarget
species' populations may be exacerbated and the population permanently
impacted if the treatment intervals are shorter than the time required for
regeneration and the population cannot recover. Long-term effects to
nontarget species could also result from minor population changes from
treating the same area in different programs in successive years; the long-
term effects of individual losses from a population are difficult to predict.
Also, even though the program pesticides are not persistent, their
temporary presence could contribute to the overall pesticide load of an
area, especially if nonprogram pesticide use is involved.

FQPA has placed responsibility on EPA to review potential pesticide
exposure to assess the overall aggregate chemical risk of pesticides based
upon all of their approved uses as well as the common mechanisms of
toxic action (same class of pesticides). The regulation of individual
pesticides by EPA will, therefore, be determined partly by the aggregate
chemical risks associated with all potential exposures to the pesticide or
the specific class of pesticide. The future approval by EPA of specific
use patterns for given pesticides is expected to be based upon the overall
aggregate chemical risk for the pesticide class. The aggregate chemical
risk is generally referred to as the "risk cup" and FQPA calls for EPA to
regulate use patterns to ensure that risks from exposures do not exceed
the safety thresholds delimited by the "risk cup." Although exposures to
pesticides from APHIS program applications may pose low risks and may
not add substantially to the overall risk, FQPA generally requires new
registrations or exemptions to meet the aggregate risk safety standard. It
is the responsibility of EPA to ascertain if the cumulative chemical risk is
within safety thresholds and their decisions determine the registration and
availability of future pesticides for program uses. It is uncertain what
effect this issue will have on the registration and regulation of future
program chemical uses. EPA is currently reviewing the organophosphate
pesticide class for regulation under FQPA guidelines. Several program
chemicals (malathion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, fenthion, naled, dichlorvos)
are in this class. Many of the regulatory decisions at EPA about how to
implement FQPA for cumulative chemical risk and aggregate chemical
risk standards are still under review. Ultimately, the decision to support
registration of a given use pattern for these chemicals is generally made
by the manufacturers or registrants. The registrants' decision is usually
based upon economic considerations, and the cost of externalities, such
as registration support, are important factors. It is beyond the scope of
this document to determine whether the implementation of any or all
program use patterns will maintain exposures within the aggregate risk
standard under FQPA, but it is APHIS policy to continue to seek safer
and more effective pesticide use patterns to mitigate any potential for
adverse human health effects from implementation of agency programs.
3. Principal a. Cumulative Effects of Increasing Travel and Trade

Related
Issues The primary factor in the decision to begin a fruit fly eradication program
is the detection of the introduction of a non-native fruit fly in the
mainland United States. The recent increases in international travel and
the pressure to increase world trade result in greater movement of host
commodities which have the potential to introduce quarantine-significant
species of fruit flies. Although the exclusion methods may prevent

outbreaks from occurring most of the time, adherence to required
inspections and confiscation of regulated host commodities by APHIS
inspectors does not ensure that all introductions will be prevented. There
will always be some infested host commodities that are not stopped
before entry. The increasing amounts of travel and trade result in greater
pressure on existing inspection resources to prevent entry of infested host
materials. Although the failure to prevent entry of infested host
commodities has probably remained fairly constant on a per inspection
basis, the cumulative impact of greater trade and travel has resulted in
more frequent introductions of quarantine-significant species of fruit
flies.
Although most of the more recent introductions can be attributed to

passenger travel, the increasing trade (whether the commodities are
regulated or not) poses certain risks of pest introduction. The constant
risk of pest introduction is cumulative, in that the frequency of
introductions of quarantine-significant species of fruit flies can be
expected to increase commensurate with the increases in frequency of
travel and trade. This increase is expected to occur whether these
introductions result from accidental or intentional (smuggling) human
interventions. This trend toward increasing pest risk can be expected to
increase, particularly with increasing efforts toward free trade agreements
and duty-free zones. There has been recent concern raised about the
potential for increased pest risk from increased movement of regulated
commodities. Although the risks from regulated commodities are
diminished through inspection procedures and regulatory control
methods, the cumulative risk of pest introduction does increase
commensurate with increasing movement of potentially infested
commodities. This continuing increase in pest risk through the growth of
trade and travel is acknowledged as an ongoing challenge to APHIS,
which can only be addressed qualitatively with the knowledge that
exclusion of quarantine-significant species of fruit flies will depend
heavily on the stringency of phytosanitary regulations.
F. Unavoidable Environmental Effects
1. Non- Use of the nonchemical control methods may result in localized

chemical unavoidable environmental effects, such as inducing flight in some birds
Control due to use of vehicles. Minimal physical habitat alteration may occur
Methods from vehicular traffic and equipment employed to implement program
treatments. Some soil compaction and erosion and aquatic habitat
disruption could result if physical controls are widespread. Although not

immediately applicable to the program, biological and biotechnological
controls are usually not species-specific and could have unintended
effects.
Regulatory controls will result in noise and air pollution and will add to
the waste stream. Chemical components of regulatory control will have
the effects described above. Integrated pest management will combine
effects from chemical controls and nonchemical controls and will have
all the effects thus far described.
The combination of control techniques anticipated in the program are not

unlike many agricultural activities, and the effects will be similar.
Unavoidable effects from chemical control methods have been identified
above. An important earlier consideration is the rapid implementation of
these activities. The earlier an infestation is detected and treatments
started, the fewer the environmental effects will be. If, on the other hand,
an infestation covers a broad area, many techniques may have to be
employed over a larger area for a longer time period, with subsequent
increases in detrimental effects.
2. Chemical Unavoidable environmental consequences of the program chemical

Control control methods would vary with the pesticide, the pesticide's mode of
Methods action, the pesticide's application rate and regime, the size of the
treatment area, site-specific environmental factors, and temporal
considerations including timing and length of the program. Program
pesticide usage will increase pesticide load to the environment. Effects
may vary according to pesticide residence time, persistence, and
transmigration, but because those pesticides used in the program are not
fruit fly-specific, many nontarget species will be affected.
Individual humans exposed to pesticides vary with respect to their

responses. People who are sensitive to pesticides could be affected from
even small quantities of pesticides in the environment if they do not take
measures to minimize their exposure. Similarly, applicators who do not
follow established safety procedures could be affected from repeated
exposures.
Aerial spraying of malathion bait has the potential for the most
unavoidable effects because of its broadscale application. Many
invertebrate species may suffer high mortality and secondary pest
outbreaks, which have occurred in the past, are anticipated in future
efforts. Insect species diversity will be reduced. Without proper
protective measures, honey bee and other pollinator losses would occur.
Some indirect effects to plant species may result from effects on

invertebrate pollinators (including possible reduction in genetic
diversity), but those consequences are restricted spatially and should
diminish over time and with repopulation from surrounding areas.
Vertebrate insectivores would also be affected due to loss of food supply

and secondary poisonings which could occur, particularly in immature
populations and other susceptible life stages.
Aerial applications of SureDye and spinosad bait have the potential for
some unavoidable effects, but those effects are considerably less than for
malathion bait spray. All species of invertebrates that are attracted to the
bait and feed can be expected to suffer high mortality. There are some
plant species that are known to show signs of phytotoxic effects from
exposure to the dyes at application rates, so some leaf markings and leaf
fall can be expected for sensitive plants. Other nontarget species would
not be expected to show adverse effects from the applications of SureDye
and spinosad bait.
The physical aspects of aerial application, including noise, will disrupt

activities of some populations of nontarget species. Although the effects
should be temporary, nest abandonment may occur with more sensitive
avian species. A segment of the human population is also greatly
disturbed by the physical aspects of the treatment and opposition will be
voiced in many areas. Vehicular emissions from engine combustion will
contribute to air pollution.
Although larger water bodies are avoided during aerial application,

smaller ponds and riparian zones usually are sprayed or receive drift.
Depending on the amount of spray reaching these aquatic habitats, water
quality criteria may be exceeded and invertebrates, fish, and amphibians
will be affected. Repeated sprays will increase the adverse consequences.
Although soil drenches are hazardous to many vertebrate species, few

individuals will be exposed because of the limited nature of those
treatments. Localized alterations in populations of soil microorganisms
are unavoidable with soil drenches. Depending on soil characteristics,
soil drench chemicals can be relatively persistent. Wild and domestic
animals that utilize the treated area could be affected for weeks to months
after treatment. Humans, particularly children, who contact treated soil
also will be affected. Although runoff is not predicted in most regions,
where it occurs, aquatic habitats could receive concentrations that exceed
water quality criteria (chlorpyrifos).

Methyl bromide fumigations will release bromine into the atmosphere.
Organisms that enter the fumigation chamber during treatment will suffer
mortality.
There will be a small number of nontarget invertebrates that will be

adversely affected when they are attracted to lures in traps, fruit fly male
annihilation spots, cordelitos, and wood fiberboard squares. Most
nontarget species will not be attracted or affected by these control
techniques. Minor unavoidable effects (e.g., soil disturbance) are
anticipated from these control methods.

VI. Risk Reduction
A. Introduction
The increasing frequency and greater magnitude of outbreaks of exotic

species of fruit flies in the United States in recent years are placing an
increasing burden on program resources to accomplish basic objectives
and limit risks. The continuing need to resolve issues related to
cooperative fruit fly control programs suggests that additional efforts are
needed in fruit fly programs to address potential risks. Standard program
protective measures historically have provided good risk reduction for
control aspects of fruit fly programs. Improved communication of
program activities, potential risks, and risk reduction remains a high
priority of APHIS. APHIS recently has begun to focus more efforts on
exclusion and early detection to reduce the need for control methods.
Consistent with its ongoing goal of preventing fruit fly infestations,
APHIS is committed to continually reexamine the fruit fly programs for
the purpose of achieving maximum risk reduction. APHIS intends to
improve the efforts of exclusion and early detection of fruit flies so as to
minimize or reduce the need for control measures. The risk reduction
strategies are directed toward improved risk communication and
implementation of other options designed to reduce risks from program
activities.
The pesticide malathion has been used effectively against fruit flies for
many years. It has been a mainstay in many recent fruit fly eradication
programs because of its proven ability to quickly eliminate pest
populations and thereby reduce the likelihood that the infestations would
grow larger or be transported to other locations. It also has been used as
a means of reducing the wild pest populations to a level where SIT could
then be effective. As a result of their review of the 1997 Cooperative
Medfly Eradication Program in Central Florida, EPA has communicated
to APHIS its concerns relative to the program use of malathion bait. The
basis for this concern related primarily to their concerns about potential
risks to human health and the environment. APHIS has been seeking and
working toward development of alternatives to malathion for use in fruit
fly programs for several years, but the development of other effective,
lower risk chemicals and techniques requires considerable investment in
time, effort, and research funds. There are, however, certain strategies
that can be applied to program activities to reduce potential risks from
program actions and these are considered carefully in this chapter.
VI. Risk Reduction 235

An overview of potential risk reduction activities is provided in table 6–1
to assist the reader. The ability to apply any of these will depend
primarily upon their development, availability, effectiveness, and funding
resources.
Table 6–1. Potential Risk Reduction Activities At A Glance

Exclusion Strategy More X-ray Equipment
More Canine Detector Teams
Improved Computer Tracking Technology
Increased Airline Inspection
Caribbean Basin Plant Protection Initiative
Enhancement of Plant Quarantine Laws
Pathway Study
Improved Cooperative Funding
Detection and Strengthened Detection Trapping
Prevention Strategy Improved Cooperative Program
NEFFTP Guideline Adherence
Strengthened Delimitation Trapping
Permanent Infrastructure
Integrated Control Technologies
Broad Prophylactic SIT Program
Control Strategy Sterile Release Program (SIT)
Increased SIT Production
New Sources of Funding for SIT
Malathion
Re-evaluate Uses if a Carcinogen
Expanded Research into Replacements
Chemical Alternatives to Malathion
Registration for Use Against fruit flies
Use as Substitute for Malathion Bait
Restrict to Ground Operations, Where Appropriate
Communication Comprehensive Package
Strategy Risk Communication
Information Resources Communicated
Description of Program’s Planned Response Actions
Notification Procedures
Complaint Processing
B. Standard Program Protective Measures
APHIS has developed standard program protective measures as part of an

ongoing effort to eliminate or reduce environmental impacts of its fruit
fly programs. These measures include standard operational procedures
and recommended program mitigative measures. Standard operational
procedures are routine procedures that are required of the program and its
employees for the purpose of safeguarding human health and the natural
environment. Program mitigative measures are recommended for the
purpose of avoiding, reducing, or remediating environmental impact.
The standard operational procedures (table 6–2) reflect: (1) the emphasis
that APHIS and the program cooperators place on establishing and
236 VI. Risk Reduction

maintaining technical competency in their personnel, (2) the degree of
control that must be exercised over program operations, and (3) the
monitoring that is done to ensure the environmental soundness of the
program. Through a combination of technical competency and
environmental awareness, program personnel minimize the potential for
environmental impact.
Program mitigative measures (table 6–3) have been recommended to

negate or reduce potential impact on humans, nontarget species, and the
physical environment. In general, the mitigative measures represent
modifications to the control program or extra steps taken to negate or
reduce environmental impact.
C. Options for Further Risk Reduction

None of the program alternatives considered in this EIS (no action, the
nonchemical program, and the integrated program) are without risk. The
no action alternative would be likely to cause substantial damage to the
agricultural industry, with collateral damage to the environment from the
uncoordinated use of pesticides. The nonchemical program alternative
would involve methods acceptable to the public and causing minimal
direct impact, but would result in substantial indirect impact to industry
and the environment. The integrated program alternative would protect
the agricultural industry and minimize net impact to the environment, but
use chemical control methods that many of the public deem unacceptable.
The objective of reducing risk appears best attained through a program

modification that would vary program components (and add new ones)
within an overall program strategy. By putting more resources into
exclusion, it is more likely that fruit flies would be kept out of the
United States and, thus, control methods would never have to be
employed. However, because it is not possible to eliminate all risk of
fruit fly introductions, control methods would have to remain a part of the
strategy. Control methods would be rearranged and minimized in a way
designed to greatly reduce risk. An emergency response communication
plan (employed in previous programs) also ensures that the members of
the public remain fully aware of program operations and are capable of
reducing their personal risk.

Table 6–2. Standard Operational Procedures
A. General
1. All applicable environmental laws and regulations will be followed.
2. All program personnel will be instructed on procedures and proper use of equipment and materials. Field
supervisors will emphasize these procedures and monitor the conduct of program personnel.
3. All materials will be used, handled, stored, and disposed of according to applicable laws so as to minimize
potential impacts to human health and the environment.
4. All applications will be made and timed in such a manner as to minimize potential impact to the public and
nontarget organisms, including endangered and threatened species.
5. Environmental monitoring of fruit fly programs will be according to individual site-specific monitoring plans
that take into account the characteristics of the specific program areas. Monitoring components may vary from
program to program.
B. Chemical Applications
1. All pesticides will be applied by certified applicators according to label instructions and applicable quarantine
or emergency exemptions.
2. All pesticides will be stored according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and local
regulations. Pesticide storage areas will be inspected periodically.
3. All mixing, loading, and unloading will be in an area where an accidental spill will not contaminate a stream or
other body of water.
4. To the degree possible, pesticides will be delivered and stored in sealed bulk tanks, and then pumped
directly into the tank of the aircraft or ground equipment.
5. Any pesticide spills will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of in a manner consistent with the label
instructions and applicable environmental regulations.
6. All program personnel will be instructed on emergency procedures in the event of accidental pesticide
exposure. Equipment necessary for emergency washing procedures will be available.
7. All APHIS employees who plan, supervise, recommend, or perform pesticide treatments are also required to
know and meet any additional State and local qualifications or requirements of the area where they perform duties
involving pesticide use.
8. All pesticide applicators will meet State licensing requirements for the program area State; reciprocal
Federal/State licensing agreements may be honored for this program.
9. Pilots, loaders, and other personnel handling pesticides will be advised to wear proper safety equipment and
protective clothing.
10. Manufacturers’ Safety Data Sheets for program pesticides will be made available for program personnel.
11. Program officials will notify hospitals and public health facilities of pesticide treatment schedules and the
types of pesticides used.
C. Aerial Operations
1. Prior to beginning operations, aerial applicators will be briefed by program staff regarding operational
procedures, application procedures, treatment areas, local conditions, and safety considerations.
2. All lead aircraft will use loran RNAV-R-40 guidance systems or an equivalent system to assure the accurate
placement of insecticide. All aircraft used in aerial insecticide application will use the Pathlink System or an
equivalent system which provides a permanent record of the flight and applications.

3. Program personnel will use dye cards (cards sensitive to malathion bait spray), as needed, to determine
swath width during calibration and monitoring. Dye cards are used in monitoring to validate swath width and droplet
size, and for evaluation of the potential for drift.
4. Aircraft, dispersal equipment, and pilots that do not meet all contract requirements will not be allowed to
operate.
D. Ground Operations
1. Ground applications of chemical pesticides will be made to fruit fly host environments only.
Table 6–3. Recommended Program Mitigative Measures

A. Protection of Human Health
Workers
1. Applicators, mixers, and loaders of chemical pesticides will be advised to have periodic cholinesterase
testing.
2. Unprotected agricultural workers will be advised of the respective reentry periods following treatment in
agricultural crop areas.
The Public
1. Program personnel shall notify area residents by at least 24 hours (but in practice, often as much as
1 week) in advance of the date and time of planned pesticide treatment.
a. Notifications will be in English, Spanish, or other languages as necessary, based on the ethnic structure
of the community.
b. The notification shall include basic information about the program and, if applicable, procedures to
prepare residents for the presence of aircraft.
2. Any residents within the treatment area who are listed on State public health registries as hypersensitive to
chemical exposure will be informed of the planned times and locations of all applications of malathion bait spray.
They will also be advised that they may contact their physicians regarding ways to minimize their exposure to
program chemicals.
3. Residents will be advised to remain indoors, take pets indoors (or provide cover for them), and cover garden
fish ponds during spraying operations.
4. Residents will be advised to cover cars to protect them from possible damage caused by the bait spray.
5. A telephone hot line will be established before an eradication program and maintained during the program to
keep the public informed of the most current and complete information available.
B. Protection of Nontarget Species
1. Honey Bee Protection
a. APHIS or a State cooperator will notify registered beekeepers of program treatments before chemical
applications are conducted.
b. Information describing protection measures which can be taken by beekeepers to protect their colonies
will be made available through beekeeper associations and State Agricultural Extension Agents.
c. The telephone hot line will describe protective procedures for beekeepers in addition to its primary
function of informing the general public and answering questions concerning the fruit fly eradication program.

2. Beneficial species
a. Program managers will consult with State plant protection officials regarding programs involving the use
or release of beneficial species and biocontrol agents and will adhere to any recommendations provided by the State
officials.
3. Endangered and Threatened Species
a. APHIS or its designated non-Federal representative will consult with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish
and Wildlife Service, under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, Section 7, for the protection of
endangered and threatened species.
b. APHIS will implement measures mutually agreed upon with the Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection
of endangered and threatened species.
4. Wildlife, Livestock, and Pets
a. All control operations will be conducted with appropriate concern for potential impact on nontarget
organisms, including wildlife, livestock, and pets.
b. Homeowners and agriculturalists will be advised by written notification and telephone hot line of the ways
in which they can protect livestock and pets.
C. Protection of the Physical Environment
1. Program activities will take into account site-specific aspects of the program area and will be tailored
accordingly to maximize program efficiency and minimize potential adverse effects.
2. Treatment areas will be inspected before any treatment to determine the presence, location, and nature of
sensitive areas. Where aerial applications could result in an unacceptable potential risk to a sensitive area, the
program manager(s) will determine the need for approved alternative controls, as described in this analysis.
3. Aerial chemical applications will not be made where water contamination poses a major concern. Buffers
with no aerial treatment (i.e., ground applications only) will be maintained around “major” water bodies (those named
on 1:24,000 USGS Quadrangles) unless monitoring results and/or consultations with the State and EPA conclude
otherwise.
4. Applications may be made by helicopters to enhance accurate delivery of pesticides, as well as increase
safety for applicator pilots.
5. To minimize drift, volatilization, and runoff, pesticide applications will not be made when any of the following
conditions exist in the treatment area: wind velocity exceeding 10 mph (or less if required by State law), rainfall or
imminent rainfall, foggy weather, air turbulence that could seriously affect the normal spray pattern, or temperature
inversions that could lead to off-site movement of spray.
6. Sensitive areas (including reservoirs, lakes, parks, zoos, arboretums, schools, churches, hospitals,
recreation areas, refuges, and organic farms) near treatment areas will be identified. The program will take
appropriate action to ensure that these areas are not adversely affected.
7. To the maximum extent possible, program managers will coordinate with other programs to reduce potential
for cumulative impacts.
The potential risk reduction “Activities” described next identify

components that can be varied or added so as to reduce risk, and identify
which of those components are likely to have the greatest relative benefit
in reducing risk. To a certain degree, site-specific factors will influence
the ability to choose from these components in the future, and
operational triggers will have to be devised in response to the situation.

It is not possible, at this time and within the context of this EIS, to
identify those triggers.
1. Exclusion Consideration of the distances involved leads to an immediate

Strategy conclusion that fruit fly introductions to the United States are wholly the
result of human activities. In the United States, the opportunity for those
introductions increases as a consequence of high volume international
travel, smuggling (in commercial or private shipments), agricultural
product marketing and importation strategies, agricultural industry
demands, and international trade agreements. Unfortunately, we seem
unable to maintain a corresponding increase in new technologies, legal
authorities, funding or staffing, in a timely manner to keep up with the
continuous and increasing movement of potentially infested host
material.
Fruit fly introductions occur at ports of entry and outbreaks frequently

occur in metropolitan areas. Exclusion activities, either prior to arriving
or at the first port of entry, are the primary line of defense against fruit
flies. Risk may be reduced by applying more resources to exclusion
activities and by “working smarter.” Introductions of exotic pests from
Caribbean countries could be reduced if cooperative relationships with
those countries were effective in diminishing their pest problems and
tightening their exclusion capabilities. Similarly, the risk of some fruit
fly introductions has already been reduced by a cooperative partnership
between the United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. That partnership,
MOSCAMED (Spanish for Medfly), has eradicated Medfly from Mexico
and is working on eradicating it from Guatemala.
In general, resources and inspection technologies can be improved at the

ports of entry. Additional X-ray machines, inspectors, detector dogs, and
other resources will reduce risk. Heavier fines to smugglers and
additional restrictions on host material imports would also reduce risk.
However, much additional resources would improve risk reduction,
those resource needs must be weighed in balance with the resource needs
of other important programs in an atmosphere of government
streamlining and cost-cutting.

Figure 6–1. X-ray machines are used to screen passenger
baggage at some of the larger air terminals.
Activities
? Purchase and deploy X-ray equipment to check baggage at high-risk

ports of entry.
? Increase anti-smuggling efforts at U.S. border stations (on
U.S./Canada and U.S./Mexico borders).
? Establish and maintain canine teams at high-risk ports of entry.
? Develop and maintain computer technology for tracking illegal
importations.
? Increase inspection on low-risk flights (e.g., Canadian flights that
could include transshipped host material).
? Develop and improve plant protection technologies and infrastructure
(such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative) for foreign countries, thereby
lowering the risk of exotic fruit fly importations from them.
? Explore cooperative funding with industry for fruit fly exclusion
efforts.
? Complete a pathway study to identify the most likely avenue of
introduction for fruit flies and commit resources and improve the
technology to block those pathways.

? Maintain efforts and cooperation to suppress and eradicate global
fruit fly populations, to further reduce risk of their introduction into
the United States.
2. Detection a. Strengthened Detection Trapping Program

and
Prevention Effective detection programs are required to limit the impacts to industry
Strategy and the environment from the introduction of fruit flies and other exotic
pests. International travel, trade, and pest interceptions at ports of arrival
all show upward trends.
The National Exotic Fruit Fly Detection Program is a cooperative

program between APHIS and several States that are susceptible to fruit
fly establishment. A network of traps and attractants are used to detect
Mediterranean, Mexican, Queensland, guava, melon, oriental, and other
exotic fruit flies. APHIS and State officials developed the “National
Exotic Fruit Fly Trapping Protocol” (NEFFTP), a set of guidelines that
provides information on fly biology, traps to use, type and dosage of the
attractants, trap density, trap inspection, baiting interval, trapping season,
selection of trap site, and host plants. Although the Protocol is
comprehensive and considered adequate by most experts, it needs to be
revised to include new information and to add quality assurance
guidelines.
Activities
? Enhance the current cooperative/co-managed detection program for

fruit flies and other pests to provide an appropriate level of
protection.
? Ensure that NEFFTP guidelines are followed, in that the appropriate
number of traps are placed and inspected, and that the trapping
program is managed properly.
b. Strengthened Delimitation Trapping Program
To the extent possible, the delimitation trapping program (trapping to

determine the boundaries of the infestation) should be strengthened by
shortening the time frame for implementation, ensuring that Emergency
Response Guidelines are met with respect to trap density and
management, and implementing newly developed control and detection
technologies. A program infrastructure must be maintained that can
mobilize as rapidly as possible to deploy delimitation traps. Also, any
regulatory controls (quarantines, inspection, and regulatory treatments)
should be brought to bear as quickly as possible. Finally, delimitation

trapping may be combined with other types of control technologies (such
as male annihilation) to minimize the opportunity for the infestation to
grow or move.
Activities
? Cooperatively establish and maintain resources for a permanent

infrastructure to implement a biologically sound delimitation
trapping program.
? Explore use of mass trapping (male annihilation, “cordelitos,” or
other control technologies) that can be implemented along with
delimitation trapping
c. Broad Prophylactic Sterile Release (SIT) Program
There are three possible ways in which to use SIT: (1) in prophylactic
(preventative) area-wide release programs, (2) in suppression programs,
and (3) in emergency eradication programs. There are advantages,
disadvantages, and constraints associated with each. At this time, SIT
techniques have been developed for and applied only to the most serious
and frequent of fruit fly pests—the Medfly and Mexican fruit fly. There
are technical and economic issues to be overcome before the technology
can be applied for control of other species.
Using SIT in a prophylactic area-wide release program could greatly

reduce the potential for fruit fly infestations. Such programs would
blanket an area with enough sterile fruit flies to provide competition in
mating that, through attrition, results in the elimination of fruit fly
introductions while they are still small. However, such area-wide SIT
programs are costly and probably could not be implemented in all areas
of the country that are susceptible to fruit fly invasion. The use of SIT in
all susceptible areas becomes even more complicated when one realizes
that there are susceptible areas in each of our 50 States that should be
protected from fruit flies. Accordingly, such area-wide release programs
probably should be limited to high risk areas (areas where fruit flies are
detected on a recurring basis).
The availability of sterile insects for such programs is severely limited by

production technologies, geographical constraints, and program logistics.
Laboratory insect populations must be reared and checked for quality
before their release. APHIS is extremely concerned about the danger of
accidental release from sterile insect production facilities and only
allows sterile fly production in areas of the U.S. where the fruit fly
species is established, such as Medfly in Hawaii or Mexican fruit fly in

the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Facilities also must be
maintained in high risk areas to facilitate the management and rapid
distribution of sterile fruit flies.
Activities
? Develop and refine SIT technology, and develop more effective and
efficient strains for use in preventative programs.
? Develop and approve broad, prophylactic SIT programs for
areas where fruit flies are detected often on a recurring basis.
? Increase fruit fly production at SIT insect production facilities.
? Explore and secure new sources of funding for prophylactic
programs.
3. Control a. Sterile Release Program (SIT)

Strategy
In addition to prophylactic area-wide release programs (discussed
above), SIT can also be used in suppression programs or in emergency
eradication programs. SIT has been used successfully for many years to
suppress populations of the Mexican fruit fly that exist in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley. It is also integrated into many emergency eradication
programs, such as the Medfly eradication programs in California and
Florida.
The same constraints apply to suppression and eradication SIT programs

that apply to prophylactic area-wide SIT programs. The technology is
expensive and complex, it is difficult to produce the quantities required
for large-scale programs, and special precautions must be taken for
sterile production laboratories.
Activities
? Develop and refine SIT technology for additional species of fruit

flies.
? Increase sterile fruit fly production for suppression and emergency
response activities.
? Explore and secure new sources of funding for SIT suppression and
emergency eradication programs.
b. Use of Malathion Only When Appropriate
The pesticide malathion has been used effectively against fruit flies for
many years. It has been a mainstay in most recent Medfly eradication
programs because of its proven ability to quickly eliminate pest

populations and thereby reduce the likelihood that the infestations would
grow larger or be transported to other locations. It also has been used as
a means of reducing the wild pest populations to a level where SIT could
then be effective.
EPA has communicated their concerns to APHIS that malathion bait

aerial applications should be used only as a last resort. In typical
eradication programs, where infestions were small and focused, APHIS
has successfully limited the use of malathion and maximized the use of
SIT. The 1997 Florida Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program
constituted an unusual emergency situation in which the initial use of
less effective control measures was not appropriate. APHIS program
officials acknowledge the concerns of EPA and of the public over the use
of malathion and will employ suitable discretion regarding its use.
Activities
? Consider all options prior to using aerially-applied malathion in

emergency eradication programs.
? Re-evaluate the uses of malathion (aerial and ground), if registration
status of malathion is reclassified.
? Accelerate research into replacement emergency eradication tools for
fruit flies.
c. Chemical Alternatives to Malathion
APHIS and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have

committed substantial resources and personnel to fruit fly research and
methods development work. Research has been done on a variety of
alternative chemicals, including: plant-derived pesticides (pyrethrins),
permethrin, horticultural oils (d-Limonene), gibberellic acid, boron,
rotenone, Neem, Avermectin B, Capsaicin oil and soap. Unfortunately
most of those chemicals have unproven efficacy, are inapplicable to
broad-scale programs, or have more adverse environmental impacts than
malathion. Two chemicals which may serve as alternatives to malathion
are SureDye and spinosad. APHIS and ARS have intensified research on
the efficacy and effects of these chemicals and, as appropriate, will work
with the manufacturers and EPA to expedite their approval for future use
patterns.
SureDye is a mixture of fluorescein dyes that are U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved for use in cosmetics and drug products.
SureDye bait applications have been proposed as a replacement

technology for malathion bait. The dye appears effective against the
Medfly and several other fruit flies, but it has not been proven to be as
effective as malathion. SureDye is not currently proposed for use by
APHIS; however, researchers continue to develop bait formulations and
application methodology to improve its effectiveness. The
environmental effects of SureDye were analyzed in two APHIS studies,
“Risk Assessment: SureDye Insecticide Trials, January 1995" and
“SureDye Insecticide Applications Human Health Risk
Assessment—May 1995.” In general, SureDye appears to have minimal
risk to human health, nontarget species (other than insects), and the
physical environment. One constraint to the use of SureDye is its
property to stain fabrics and other surfaces.
Spinosad is a metabolite that results from the fermentation of a

bacterium; it is in a new class of pesticides, called naturalytes. It is being
studied by APHIS and ARS for use against fruit flies, and by other
organizations for use against other plant pests, including some
lepidoptera. Spinosad has been used by APHIS and its cooperators in
some fruit fly control programs. Field studies of spinosad and SureDye’s
ingredient, phloxine B, have been conducted in California, Florida,
Hawaii, Texas, and Guatemala. APHIS has completed a human health
risk assessment of spinosad (APHIS, 1999a) and a nontarget species risk
assessment of spinosad (APHIS, 1999b). Like SureDye, spinosad
appears to have minimal risk to human health, nontarget species, and the
physical environment.
One of the limiting factors in the use of pesticide-baits is the relative

strength of the attractant. Not all fruit fly species are strongly attracted to
the baits that have been developed, therefore pesticide baits may not be
the control method of preference for some species. ARS is looking for
more effective and specific fruit fly attractants. Of particular interest is
the development of attractants for use in bait stations, to enable use of
minimum concentrations of pesticides under conditions which represent
minimal exposure to humans, livestock, pets, or the rest of the
environment.
Activities
? Support and secure pesticide registrations for effective alternatives

against fruit flies.
? Develop alternative bait formulations and evaluate their use as
substitutes for malathion bait.

4. Communi- A communication strategy is a vital part of any emergency action, such
cation as a fruit fly eradication program. Such a strategy is used to inform the
Strategy public of program actions, communicate information about
environmental risk, and inform the public of ways to reduce risk. The
communication strategy for the 1997 Florida Medfly Cooperative
Eradication Program was relatively effective in that it provided public
announcements of program decisions and actions, provided personal
notification of pesticide applications to people on the State’s list of
chemically sensitive people (and anyone else who wanted to be notified
about applications), and provided recommendations for protection
measures.
In spite of media announcements, emergency phone banks, and a variety

of other public information mechanisms, many of the public commented
that they did not know where to go to get information. APHIS program
managers responded to those comments by improving on that
communication strategy and packaging it in a format that communicates
its content more efficiently to the public. The “Emergency Response
Communication Plan—Fruit Flies” (appendix C) contains APHIS’ most
recent emergency response communication strategy for fruit fly
programs. Review of that document indicates that the following risk-
reducing activities for communications strategy have already been met.
Activities
? Provide a complete, comprehensive package detailing

communications policies to the public.
? Describe how members of the public may obtain information
pertaining to program risks.
? Describe actions that will take place upon the implementation of an
eradication program and the implementation of pesticide
applications.
? Describe notification procedures and explain how chemically
sensitive members of the public may avail themselves of direct
notification.
? Describe established procedures for receiving and resolving
complaints.

VII. Monitoring
A. Introduction
cooperators will monitor fruit fly program areas in order to determine the
environmental consequences and efficacy of program treatments.
Environmental monitoring is done in accordance with responsibilities
under certain environmental statutes. Efficacy monitoring (also called
quality control monitoring) is done to confirm the efficacy of the
treatments. Monitoring is a cooperative effort involving Federal, State,
and county personnel.
B. Environmental Monitoring
Environmental monitoring is done in compliance with the following

statutes or their implementing regulations: the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA); and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NEPA monitoring
is designed to assess the effectiveness and validity of mitigative
measures, such as buffers around sensitive sites, outlined in
environmental assessments (EAs) and this environmental impact
statement (EIS). Environmental monitoring compares residue levels
found in the environment with expected residue levels used in the risk
analyses used by the EIS. Monitoring under FIFRA is sometimes
required as a condition of special use permits for pesticide applications,
issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Monitoring under ESA is designed to assess the effectiveness of program

protection measures for endangered and threatened species or their
habitats. Those protection measures ordinarily are developed by APHIS
and its cooperators, or through consultations with the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Often, because of the emergency nature of fruit fly
control programs, program managers need to consult by phone with the
FWS and with local fish and game offices to confirm the presence or
absence of endangered or threatened species, identify sensitive sites, and
confirm the use of protection measures.
APHIS recognizes that it cannot predict the exact locations,

characteristics, or severity of future infestations, and cannot, therefore, be
very specific in this discussion about the kinds or levels of monitoring
that must be done for each program. A specific monitoring plan will be
developed for each individual program, based on the site-specific
VII. Monitoring 249

characteristics of that program. The monitoring plan will describe the
purpose of the monitoring and the nature of the samples to be collected.
In fruit fly programs (which usually occur in suburban areas), the

emphasis of the environmental monitoring will be on the protection of
human health. Monitoring (with dye cards, water, and vegetation
samples) may be used to ensure that spray buffers adequately protect
sensitive sites from spray drift or misapplications. Specific
environmental components may be sampled in response to complaints
about perceived impacts of treatments or lack of effectiveness of
mitigative measures.
Figure 7–1. Monitoring samples are tagged and sent

for laboratory analysis. (Photo credit
USDA, APHIS)
An APHIS environmental monitoring coordinator oversees the collection,

packaging, and shipment of samples to the National Monitoring and
Residue Analysis Laboratory (NMRAL) in Gulfport, Mississippi (or to
another private, accredited laboratory, if the workload exceeds NMRAL’s
capacity). The results of the laboratory’s residue analyses are associated
with environmental data recorded at the time of the treatment and
sampling, and are interpreted by APHIS’ environmental monitoring staff.
The data are reported at the end of the program, or intermittently during
the program, as required.
250 VII. Monitoring

C. Efficacy Monitoring (Quality Control Monitoring)
For chemical treatments (malathion, spinosad, SureDye, diazinon,

chlorpyrifos, fenthion, and methyl bromide), the purity of the chemical
and the precision of the formulation will be determined. Program
pesticide applicators will follow standard operating procedures described
in this EIS and in the guidelines, policies, and manuals of APHIS and
program cooperators.
Figure 7–2. Quantitative analysis of residue samples at

the laboratory. (Photo credit USDA, APHIS)
Efficacy monitoring will be done also to confirm accurate placement and

delivery of pesticides. The spray equipment on individual aircraft is
calibrated to ensure precise metering of pesticide quantities and droplet
size. Dye cards are used on the ground to verify the size and distribution
of pesticide droplets at the target. Dye cards are also used to verify the
placement of pesticide in proximity to boundaries of the treated areas,
identify areas that were skipped, and estimate the amount of drift.
VII. Monitoring 251

252 VII. Monitoring

VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program,
and the EIS
A. Introduction
In the planning and implementation of its programs and actions, the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) complies with a
variety of environmental statutes and regulations. Most of those statutes
and regulations have the underlying objective of forcing Federal
managers to consider comprehensively the environmental consequences
of their actions before making any firm decisions. In addition, the
statutes and regulations provide guidance in the procedures that must be
followed, the analytical process itself, and the ways of obtaining public
involvement. This environmental impact statement is prepared
specifically to meet the needs of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
B. APHIS Environmental Policy
APHIS strives to comply with environmental regulations and statutes as

an integral part of the decisionmaking process to identify and consider
available alternatives that lead to more successful programs. NEPA is
the origin of current APHIS environmental policy. It requires each
Federal agency to publish regulations implementing its procedural
requirements. APHIS originally published the “APHIS Guidelines
Concerning Implementation of NEPA Procedures” (44 FR 50381–50384,
August 28, 1979). Subsequently, it published the APHIS “National
Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” (7 CFR. 372),
which superseded its earlier guidelines. APHIS bases its current
procedures on: NEPA itself; the Council on Environmental Quality’s
“Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act,” 40 CFR 1500, et seq.; the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s “NEPA Regulations,” 7 CFR 1b, 3100; and the APHIS
“National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.”
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider environmental consequences

in their planning and decisionmaking processes. It requires them to
prepare detailed statements (environmental impact statements) for major
Federal actions which significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. These statements must consider the environmental impact
VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS 253

of the proposed action, adverse effects which cannot be avoided should
the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the proposed action, the
relationship between local and short-term uses of the human
environment, and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources necessary to implement the action. NEPA provided the basis
for many other statutes and environmental regulations within the
United States.
NEPA established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality,

which published regulations for the implementation of NEPA that
became effective in 1979. Those regulations were designed to
standardize the process that Federal agencies must use to analyze their
proposed actions. Those regulations have been the models for the NEPA
implementing regulations that have been promulgated by Federal
agencies.
D. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 4332, et seq., was
passed to provide for a Federal mechanism to protect endangered and
threatened species. This act provides for an analysis of the impact of
Federal programs upon listed species. Under ESA, animal and plant
species must be specifically listed in order to gain protection. Federal
agencies proposing programs which could have an effect on listed or
proposed endangered and threatened species prepare biological
assessments for those species. Those biological assessments analyze
potential effects and describe any protective measures the agencies will
employ to protect the species. A consultation process, section 7
consultation (after that section of the Act), is employed as needed. Such
consultation is important to APHIS’ environmental process and then
becomes an integral part of the proposed program.
E. Executive Order 12898—Environmental Justice
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations," focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority and low-income communities, and
promotes community access to public information and public
participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. The
executive order requires Federal agencies to conduct their programs,
policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the
254 VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS

environment in a manner so as not to exclude persons and populations
from participation in or benefitting from such programs. It also enforces
existing statutes to prevent minority and low-income communities from
being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects.
F. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks
E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks,” acknowledges that children may suffer
disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks because of
their developmental stage, greater metabolic activity levels, and behavior
patterns, as compared to adults. This E.O. (to the extent permitted by law
and appropriate, and consistent with the agency’s mission) requires each
Federal agency to identify, assess, and address environmental health risks
and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. It also
established a task force, requires the coordination of research and
integration of collected data, gives guidelines for the analysis of effects,
and directed the establishment of an “Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics.”
G. Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species
E.O. 13112, “Invasive Species,” directs Federal agencies to use their

programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control populations
of alien species that cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to
human health. Alien species are, with respect to a particular ecosystem,
any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material
capable of propagating that species that is not native to that ecosystem.
The fruit flies considered for regulation in this cooperative programmatic
environmental impact statement (EIS) are all classified as invasive, alien
species. Identification of these species and the proposed alternatives to
control and prevent the spread of these invasive species in the EIS serves
to fulfill obligations under NEPA as well as this.
H. Miscellaneous Federal Environmental Statutes
APHIS complies with a number of other environmental acts, statutes, and

regulations. Examples of these include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
Bald and Golden Eagle Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Resource Conservation
VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS 255

and Recovery Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; Clean Air Act; Clean Water
Act; and the Food Quality Protection Act.
I. State Environmental Statutes
The potential program States all have various environmental statutes and
regulations. Many of the regulations and regulatory organizations that
enforce them are direct parallels of the Federal regulations and regulatory
organizations. California, for example, has the California Environmental
Quality Act and has formed the California Environmental Protection
Agency.
For the proposed Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program, APHIS will
work with State and/or other Federal agencies to implement eradication
programs within various States. APHIS will rely on its State cooperators
to identify applicable State environmental regulations, take the lead for
their procedures, and ensure full compliance with State laws.
256 VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS

Appendix A. Public Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
I. Introduction
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wishes to thank all who reviewed the
“Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement–1999" (draft
EIS) and provided their comments, via the mail or orally at meetings. APHIS welcomes public
involvement and considers public perspectives in its decision processes. During the scoping
period, APHIS requested and received oral and written comments which were considered fully in
the planning for the draft EIS. Those comments are available for public review at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Reading Room,
14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1141, South Building, Washington, DC,
20250.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the notice of availability for the
draft EIS in the Federal Register on July 30, 1999. In addition, APHIS published its own
Federal Register notice of availability on August 12, 1999, which (1) provided background
information about the draft EIS, (2) identified major issues, (3) invited public comment,
(4) provided notice of public meetings, and (5) provided guidance on commenting. The official
comment period ran until October 12, 1999. Public meetings were held in Washington, DC, on
August 16, 1999; Tampa, Florida, on August 18, 1999; Miami, Florida, on August 20, 1999; and
Los Angeles, California, on August 25, 1999. A meeting scheduled for Brownsville, Texas, on
August 23, 1999, was canceled because of a hurricane and was not rescheduled because of the
lack of interest shown for a previous meeting in that city for the the previous Medfly EIS.
Despite the national scope of the draft EIS, there was not a large response to our request for
comments. There was minimal attendance at meetings and only 83 pieces of mail (65 postcards
and 18 letters) were received. The postcards were all alike and served no helpful review purpose,
only conveying the following message, “Use Sterile Medflies and spinosad. No Malathion.” The
18 letters, however, ranged from brief to extraordinarily comprehensive (incorporating other
reports and even Internet literature reviews), and were considered extremely helpful. All are
available for review at the APHIS Reading Room.
Because the information was voluminous and it would have been impractical to try to respond on
a point-by-point basis to each of the letters, APHIS has summarized the respondents’ comments,
as provided by 40 CFR 1503.4. This appendix concisely summarizes the public comments and
provides APHIS’ responses to the major issues contained within those comments. The major
issues fell within two categories–human health risks and the EIS process. All who sent letter
responses during the comment period are listed at the end of this appendix, along with their State
and organization, as shown on their correspondence. Respondents’ complete addresses have
been added to our Distribution List, appendix G.
Appendix A. Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement A–1

1
II. Summarization of Comments and Responses to
Comments
The majority of concerns raised by the public are associated with the program use of pesticides
and the estimation of human health risks from that use. The comments also identified issues
relating to the EIS process. Specific concerns are summarized and addressed in this section.
A. Human Health Risk
Issue 1: Some commenters share a concern that malathion, a widely-used program insecticide,
its metabolic byproducts, or its degradation products, may be carcinogens (agents that
cause cancer). They have identified studies and researchers which seem to
corroborate their perspective, and noted that EPA has recharacterized malathion’s
carcinogenic risk.
Response: APHIS shares the public’s concern over the effects of the materials used in its
cooperative programs for control of fruit flies, and for this reason delayed the
preparation of this EIS, pending the results of an ongoing carcinogenicity study of
malathion by EPA.
Malathion’s potential for carcinogenicity has been studied thoroughly by a Cancer

Assessment Review Committee (CARC) of the EPA’s Health Effects Division. The
independent FIFRA/FQPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) is considering the
CARC’s findings and preparing recommendations to EPA regarding management of
the potential risk. EPA has indicated that it will consider the recommendations of the
SAP in its final risk management decision. The narrative descriptors that EPA uses to
define the carcinogenic risk of pesticides were revised according to guidelines
proposed in 1999. CARC, based upon those 1999 guidelines, has classified malathion
as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human
carcinogenic potential.” That classification was based on: (1) occurrence of liver
tumors in rats only at excessive doses; (2) the occurrence of other tumors in rats, also
at excessive doses and/or considered unrelated to treatment; and (3) rare tumors in
oral palate mucosa and nasal respiratory epithelium of rats which could not be
distinguished as either treatment related or due to random occurrence. This
classification indicates that EPA considers any potential carcinogenic risk of
malathion to be too low to quantify based upon their weight of evidence
determination. Similarly, CARC studied the potential carcinogenicity of malaoxon, a
primary degradation and metabolic byproduct. CARC indicated that malaoxon is “not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based upon its review of chronic rodent assays
and other research studies.
A–2 Appendix A. Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EPA’s classification of malathion’s carcinogenic risk potential suggests that any
carcinogenic response from exposure to program malathion applications would be
indistinguishable from the background frequency of carcinogenic response. In
APHIS’ perspective, based on a thorough review of EPA’s new classification of
malathion, there is virtually no change in the carcinogenic risk associated with
proposed program use of malathion that was reported in the draft EIS.
Notwithstanding its perspective on malathion, APHIS continues to seek new and safer
pesticide alternatives for use in cooperative fruit fly programs.
Issue 2. Potential health risks (especially for people with unusual immunological responses
such as allergy, hypersensitivity, or multiple chemical sensitivity) are highly variable.
The risks to such persons are so great that they outweigh the potential benefits of the
program.
Response: Potential health effects, especially the immunological responses noted, are subject to
considerable variability within a human population. Such immunological responses
may occur at low exposures, may vary considerably in intensity, and may be
nonspecific. They also may arise from chemicals in the environment that are not
pesticides (e.g., perfumes, inks, plastics, and solvents). Because of the individual
variation, the effects on hypersensitive individuals from program pesticide
applications can not be assessed quantitatively with any degree of precision. Such
variability in response to exposures has also made it difficult for the medical
community to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a hypersensitive response
or what diagnostic features are needed to identify multiple chemical sensitivity.
APHIS reviewed reports that examined the linkage between the programs’ use of
chemical pesticides and adverse health effects in chemically sensitive individuals.
That information, in the current literature and in the reports of health practitioners,
was found to be equivocal (with both support for, and opposition to, a causal
relationship). An individual diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity (incurred
from nonprogram exposures to chemicals in a laboratory) studied this issue, for the
preparation of the Medfly EIS (USDA, APHIS, 1993). Based upon his
recommendations and APHIS’ experience in previous programs, APHIS has
concentrated its efforts on providing timely and adequate notification of program
activities to those individuals.
There are some State and private medical registries of individuals diagnosed with
chemical hypersensitivity. Such individuals and any other individuals reporting a
chemical hypersensitivity condition are notified in advance of application methods
and times of application to provide them the opportunity to take whatever measures
they deem appropriate to protect themselves against any potential personal health
effects from exposure. Program managers are capable of providing information about
ways of avoiding exposure, but individuals should use their own judgment (based on

their own conditions) in choosing the most appropriate measures for protecting
themselves from exposure and potential adverse effects.
Issue 3. Commenters have questioned the risk assessment methods used in the assessments
that were incorporated by reference in the draft EIS. Some believe the risk
assessments were not conservative enough and others believe that they were too
conservative. Some believe that when the data is equivocal or when uncertainty is
involved, we must be conservative.
Response: EPA, as part of its pesticide registration process, has primary responsibility for
assessing the risk associated with pesticide use. Following EPA’s leadership in risk
assessment technology, APHIS employed comparable approaches to toxicologic
analyses for its fruit fly programs. Impacts were assessed in the EIS according to the
relative risks of specific health outcomes from program methodology. The EIS
employs realistic exposure scenarios that would be expected to result from program
actions. Those scenarios were developed to accurately reflect routine, extreme, and
accidental circumstances. The extreme and accidental scenarios assume a level of
human negligence that is expected to occur infrequently. These scenarios are
described in detail in the human health risk assessments. Although control methods
have been proposed for use based primarily on their demonstrated effectiveness, the
EIS estimates risks based on projected program use patterns, so that decisionmakers
will be able to weigh the environmental factors in developing control strategies for
site-specific conditions.
Selection of acceptable toxicological endpoints and application of uncertainty factors

in the assessment of potential adverse human health effects is a technical decision.
Potential adverse toxicological effects from the use of program chemicals were
considered for parent compounds, degradation products, metabolites, inert
ingredients, and various contaminants. Quantitative assessments are possible when
there is sufficient data. Quantitative risk assessment requires an accurate assessment
of potential exposure and a clear understanding of the relationship between dose and
response. A quantitative assessment of risk for the parent compounds is usually
straightforward. Exposure to degradation products or metabolic byproducts is
relatively lower, and the relationships between dose and response for these
compounds usually are not as well defined as for the parent compound. Although
some of the compounds present in the formulated pesticide may be more toxic than
the parent compound, their contribution to overall toxicity is often less due to lower
concentrations and the resulting lower exposure.
When there was uncertainty, the quantitative risk assessments were conservatively
designed to err on the side of safety. APHIS generally accepts those studies that meet
criteria set by EPA and uses reference dose values when appropriate. The continuing
development of applications of new pesticides to fruit fly control has required APHIS
to calculate regulatory reference values (RRVs) for some compounds not yet analyzed

by EPA for reference dose calculation. It has been APHIS’ practice to select the RRV
for the adverse health endpoint at the lowest exposure as the basis for quantification
of hazard quotients for given exposure scenarios when EPA reviews have not been
conducted. The RRV values may be modified after EPA reviews are completed. The
selection of RRVs may be based upon the most sensitive indicator of exposure rather
than the most sensitive indicator of adverse effect. For example, the RRV selected for
malathion is based upon a human study that determined the minimal exposure that
resulted in inhibition of plasma cholinesterase or butyrylcholinesterase (an indicator
of exposure but not adverse effect). The exposure from this study was considerably
less than would be required for detection of any adverse effects which require
moderate inhibition of red blood cell cholinesterase or acetylcholinesterase. APHIS
continues to review studies to ensure that the most appropriate RRVs are selected for
given pesticide exposure.
Comments on the draft EIS have expressed widely diverging views about the human
health risk assessments prepared for this document. Some respondents stated that the
risk assessments were not conservative enough and that actual risks from certain
health outcomes were understated. Others stated that the risk assessments were
overly conservative and that actual risks from health outcomes were overstated.
Issues of disagreement among respondents included what constitutes an appropriate
exposure scenario, how likely a given exposure is, when quantitative analysis is
appropriate, what human health outcomes should be considered, what the likelihood
of a given health outcome is, what constitutes an acceptable laboratory outcome for
risk assessment, whether hypersensitivity is a valid health effect, how environmental
justice issues should be analyzed, and how meaningful the risk scores are. Although
each of these subjects was covered in the revision of the EIS, it is clear that APHIS
can not resolve these areas of disagreement to the mutual satisfaction of all.
Issue 4. New compounds have been identified for fruit fly control. It isn’t clear why older,
more harmful chemical insecticides (with known risks) are being used instead of these
new compounds.
Response: APHIS and its cooperators in fruit fly programs continually search for effective and
less harmful methods (chemical and nonchemical) for controlling fruit flies. As they
are discovered, new compounds are tested for use and developed further when field
and laboratory tests show promise. Chemicals, such as spinosad, are integrated into
programs when they become available, and as research on their efficacy and potential
environmental effects is completed. Although the development of spinosad was
recent and the analysis was presented in an appendix in the draft EIS, spinosad
received consideration that was comparable to that of the other bait spray
applications–malathion and SureDye. Any new pesticides or other treatments that
show promise as effective substitutes for bait spray applications, soil treatments, or
commodity treatments will be analyzed thoroughly when their availability, efficacy,
and effects have been determined for APHIS programs.

Completion of an EIS does not end the environmental process, but facilitates further
action. Following completion of this EIS, there will be monitoring (a NEPA
requirement) to determine whether the program effects on the environment were
consistent with the analyses. This monitoring data will be used to either reinforce
current understanding or to justify changes in future program actions. New data about
the pesticides, new methods of risk analysis, and new control techniques are
continually being researched and developed. As relevant information applicable to
fruit fly programs becomes available, future site-specific environmental assessments
will apply this information to new programs and associated risk assessments. It is
noteworthy that several major developments have occurred since the beginning of
preparations for this EIS. One development that has directly affected this EIS is the
use of the insecticide, spinosad, which had not been developed for fruit fly control.
Other major developments relate to the review of EPA risk assessments to comply
with the Food Quality Protection Act. The revised risk assessments have altered
classification of some pesticides. The results of these risk assessments have affected
the approval for some applications and have placed restrictions on some use patterns.
Completion of this EIS without the results of some EPA risk assessments would have
been inappropriate. It should also be recognized that any future revisions of EPA risk
assessments for the pesticides used in fruit fly programs will be considered as part of
the preparation of APHIS risk assessments for site-specific programs. The likelihood
of regulatory and technological changes requires that the risk assessments for an EIS
be revisited as pertinent new information becomes available.
Issue 5. A uniform treatment strategy is not available for all of the species. This makes it
difficult to comprehend the cumulative risk for all fruit fly control, as well as the risk
for individual programs.
Response: Each of the individual control methods described in this EIS is not applicable for the
control of all 80 species of fruit flies and to all site-specific conditions. For example,
the fruit fly male annihilation technique is quite effective against the Oriental fruit fly,
but the efficacy of this methodology has not been developed for some other species.
Although methods have been developed for some fruit fly species, the most
efficacious methods for control of many of the fruit flies species have not yet been
ascertained. For example, methods for control of the olive fruit fly were perfected
only after the first infestation in the United States was detected. The control methods
adopted for the olive fruit fly control program are similar to those applied for other
tephritid species. It is not possible to identify precisely all the methods for each fruit
fly species at all locations in the United States, or the potential distribution of many of
the species if their introduction were to occur. Therefore, this EIS concentrates on the
most likely locations of introduction, those fruit fly species most likely to be
introduced, and those methods proven to be effective against those species at those
locations.

B. The EIS Process
Issue 1. Some commenters have registered concern that the EIS is not complete, it doesn’t
answer all the human health questions, or it doesn’t take into account new data.
Response: APHIS does review all environmental and human health reports related to fruit fly
programs that are received. The draft and final Florida Department of Health
monitoring report for the Medfly Eradication Program in 1998 has been reviewed.
APHIS has accepted the findings of the final monitoring report as an indicative
assessment of the reported potential cases of adverse health effects for the program in
1998. The report acknowledged the difficulties of epidemiological analysis in
ascertaining whether reported individual health outcomes are the result of exposure to
program pesticides or the result of other unrelated causation. The lack of any
clinically verified cases of poisoning attributed to the program pesticide applications
illustrates the limitations of these studies to demonstrate meaningful evidence of any
cause-effect relationships. The limitations of the findings are acknowledged and
recommendations for improvements to health monitoring are being taken under
advisement.
Issue 2. The EIS is too broad and lacks critical site-specific information that managers need to
make informed decisions.
Response: This EIS is programmatic and not site-specific; its discussions and analysis must be
broad enough to accommodate all fruit fly program areas nationwide. Individual
programs and associated local conditions are considered within the context of
additional, individual site-specific environmental assessments that are prepared for
those individual programs. Some site-specific examples may be provided in this EIS
to help clarify certain issues or provide a perspective of the relative impacts, but this
EIS is neither intended, nor required, to provide encyclopedic data about all possible
sites and all possible effects at those sites.

III. Commenters
Name Organization State
1. Elaine Holmes FL
2. Joel Nelson CA
3. [Handwritten name illegible] FL
4. Sandra Ross, Ph.D. Health & Habitat CA
5. Dr. Omar Shafey FL Department of Health FL
6. Kenneth W. Holt Centers for Disease Control & Prevention GA
7. Betty Greenwood FL
8. Robert Fawley FL
9. Julie Sternfels FL
10. Richard & Lora Ann Sigler CA
11. Juanita Fawley FL
12. Marc Lappé, Ph.D. CA
14. Willie R. Taylor DC
15. Bob Crawford FL
16. Cheryl A. Gross Sarasota County Health Department FL
17. Eric Waldo FL
18. April Post CA
19. Cheriel Jensen CA
20. Richard E. Sanderson DC
21. Pat Minyard CA
22. Alice Suncloud HI
23. Richard G. Hunter FL
24. Michael J. DiBartolomeis, Ph.D. State of CA Environmental Health & Hazard CA
25. Edgar Hirshberg FL
26. Vernetta Ross FL
27. Marie R. Breakey FL
28. Mary Ann Walters FL
29. Frank Ferlita FL
30. J.C. Roberts FL
31. David B. Smith FL
32. Bettye Honeywell FL
33. Terrie Smith FL
34. James J. Clinton FL
35. Dorothy Frazer FL
36. Terry Giff FL
37. William C. Quenan, Jr. FL
38. Callie Manning FL

40. Leri Johnson FL
41. Cynthia P. Glee FL
42. Patricia Turner FL
43. Brenda Baltbo FL
44. Arte J. Franz FL
45. Rev. Federick J. Bushby FL
46. K. Kampfe FL
47. Marjorie Hodgen FL
48. A. Izquierdo FL
49. Patricia H. Latshaw FL
50. Terry Jaffe FL
51. George Latshaw FL
52. JoAnn Wren FL
53. Gladys M. Gerlik FL
54. Marion Everson FL
55. James M. Vardar FL
56. Drexel Jackson FL
57. Ronald Brown FL
58. Jamie Starr FL
59. Ben Faulkner FL
60. Glenda Faulkner FL
61. Dana G. Leavengood FL
62. Minnie Wiggins FL
63. Astmea Brooks FL
64. Hannah Nelson FL
65. Barry Smits FL
66. Edward Ferguson FL
68. June K. Arnhym FL
69. Ray Pineda FL
71. Lillion Ferlita FL
72. Tammy L. Mee FL
73. Virginia Casey FL
74. H.W. Melton FL
75. R. Gonzalez, Jr. FL
76. Fran Darley FL
77. Shelia Hogan FL
78. Bruce V. Sewell FL
80. Shirley Gregoire FL

81. Cynthia Laurence FL
82. Marsha J. Weaver FL
84. Del A. Fernandez FL
85. Joan Strauman FL
86. Oliver Stewart FL
87. Benjamin Colvino FL
88. Hally Rubin FL
89. Brenda Costillo FL
90. Albert M. Valentine FL
91. Patricia A. Lawes FL
94. John M. Coil FL
95. Mariette Coulter FL
96. W.E. Weber FL
97. Robert D. Berrett FL
98. Patricia B. Berrett FL
99. Anne Marie de Moret FL
100. A. Bowen FL
101. J.A.W., Jr. FL
102. Carole Mihlman FL
103. Emil Assily FL
104. Richard E. Sanderson DC

Appendix B. Site-specific Procedures
cooperators would like to implement fruit fly programs in a manner that
achieves the exclusion and/or control objectives while preserving the
quality and diversity of the human environment. This programmatic
environmental impact statement (EIS) estimates in a generic way the
range of impacts that might be expected for various program alternatives.
It cannot, however, predict the exact locations of future programs or
precisely estimate the potential impacts of an individual program. In
compliance with the objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), APHIS will conduct a site-specific evaluation and implement
site-specific procedures at the local level which are designed to reduce
the potential for environmental impact.
A. Site-specific Evaluation
Before a program is implemented, program managers will take an

in-depth look at the site-specific characteristics of the program area (local
geographic features, human health, and nontarget species), the program’s
proposed operational procedures, and the proposed control methods. The
site-specific evaluation process considers characteristics such as:
(1) unique and sensitive aspects of the proposed program area,
(2) applicable environmental and program documentation, and
(3) applicable new developments in environmental science or control
technologies.
In addition to complying with NEPA’s objectives, the site-specific

evaluation will determine if the general findings of this programmatic
EIS remain equally applicable to each individual program’s specific
situation and whether additional or new concerns exist. In cases where
major changes are apparent, a supplement to the EIS or a new EIS may be
required.
B. Site-specific Procedures
Prior to and during a fruit fly program, APHIS and/or its cooperators will
follow standard procedures for environmental assessment,
communication of risk information, and reduction of environmental risks.
This EIS is expected to influence those procedures and the timetable,
which may vary, depending upon the characteristics of the area, the
specific pest, and the availability of vital information. The operational
Appendix B. Site-specific Procedures B-1

roles of APHIS and its cooperators may vary from State to State, also
influencing that timetable.
The site-specific procedures include tasks related to quarantines

(detection of infestations, designation of quarantine areas, and notices of
quarantine), environmental assessments (review of the EIS, preparation
of site-specific assessments, publication of notices, and public review),
consultation with other Federal and/or State agencies, risk
communication and public notification (the chemically sensitive,
hospitals and police, residents, and beekeepers), and program adjustment.
Detailed information about the status of programs and these activities is
available from program officials or telephone hotlines that are established
for individual programs.
B-2 Appendix B: Site-specific Procedures

Appendix C: Emergency Response Communication
Plan—Fruit Flies
Appendix C. Emergency Response Communication Plan–Fruit Flies C–1

1
Emergency Response Communication
Plan—Fruit Flies
As an agency concerned about pest and disease situations that can occur or change rapidly, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has a vital need to effectively communicate
program activities to its target audiences using a wide variety of informational materials. During
emergency situations, such as fruit fly outbreaks, effective and timely communication becomes
even more crucial. APHIS provides onsite support during fruit fly outbreaks, serving along with
State officials as primary liaisons with the news media to provide accurate information to
stakeholders, industry, and the public.
Audiences:
? Media
? State, city and county governments
? Industry/stakeholders
? Environmental groups
? General public
? Special interest groups
? Trading partners
? Congress
? Other Federal government counterparts
? Agency headquarters personnel
Goals:
1. To provide accurate, timely information to all identified audiences.
2. To proactively inform and involve identified audiences about program activities.
3. To be responsive to inquiries from various audiences about program activities.
4. To create and disseminate informational materials on program activities to increase awareness.
5. To communicate information to all identified audiences about program risks and risk-reducing
measures.
C–2 Appendix C. Emergency Response Communication Plan–Fruit Flies

Ongoing Communications Actions:
? APHIS conducts an ongoing national educational campaign aimed at increasing awareness

about the importance of protecting American agriculture from foreign pests and diseases, such
as Medfly. The campaign receives funding annually to support various communications
activities, such as developing informational materials, staffing industry shows, and holding
press conferences, designed to increase awareness and ultimately prevent agriculture pest and
disease outbreaks.
? APHIS will explore forming an information technology response team that will identify
personnel and equipment needed to establish effective and timely communication at an
emergency project site in the event of an outbreak. The option of using video teleconferencing
to better link field program activities to headquarters will be reviewed.
? APHIS continually updates existing informational materials such as fact sheets, photos, pre-
written advisory letters, and video footage on potential pests, such as Medfly, so accurate
information can be distributed in a timely manner in case an outbreak occurs.
? APHIS continually maintains and updates lists of national and local industry and State
representatives, as well as cooperators, so contact can be made quickly to the appropriate
people should an outbreak occur.
Actions Occurring Upon Detection of a Fruit Fly Outbreak:

(It should be noted that whether State or federal officials take the primary responsibility for the
following actions will depend on circumstances and resources at the time of the outbreak.)
? Establishes immediately an onsite emergency response team with a public affairs contact, who
acts as liaison between the program and State information and program officers, industry, the
public, media, and other interested parties. Additional project personnel should be identified
immediately to assist with public communications efforts.
? Establishes immediately all technology links onsite, including obtaining and setting up
equipment, to expedite communication efforts.
? Establishes a phonebank staffed by project personnel to answer inquiries about ongoing

program activities and provides general training for those answering phones.
[See the attached appendix for more in-depth information on the subject.]
? Provides local city and government officials and Congressional representatives with pertinent
program information and continual updates.
? Issues a joint press release that has been approved by the project leader announcing the area of
the outbreak, any actions taken, and the potential impact.

? Updates and distributes informational materials such as fact sheets, radio and television public
service announcements, photographs, exhibits, brochures, and feature articles to appropriate
audiences in appropriate languages, if needed, to inform them of program activities.
? Sets up an Internet Web page with continually updated information on the progress of the
program and any new information or press releases.
? Holds a meeting with major industry/stakeholder groups, including public interest groups and
members of the public health community, to inform them of current and planned program
activities and potential impacts.
? Establishes immediate, regular briefings (daily at first, then on an as needed basis) where
interested stakeholders and the media can obtain current program information.
? Establishes contact with federal and State airport authorities and their public affairs personnel
to increase outreach efforts, such as a press conference and amnesty bins, that are aimed at
advising those traveling outside the quarantine area not to take agricultural products with
them.
? Compiles daily reports on all aspects of program activities that are circulated to internal
audiences and used to update media.
? Maintains chronology of program events, documenting all-important activities.
Actions Occurring with the Commencement of Fruit Fly Chemical Treatments:

(These actions will be in addition to the above actions, which will continue to occur.)
? Ensures that notices announcing the publishing of environmental documents, such as an

environmental assessment and environmental impact statement, are published prior to any
treatment procedures.
? Coordinates with State officials to identify appropriate spokespersons to respond to inquiries

about the program from target audiences and reviews handouts for accuracy.
? Obtains a list of chemically sensitive individuals from the appropriate State Health Agency and
ensures these individuals are personally notified of program treatment activities a minimum of
24 hours in advance. APHIS maintains this list of individuals and adds any individuals that
indicate they should be included.
? Ensures all identified audiences are notified at least 24 hours in advance via various
informational tools, such as local access cable channels, normal media outlets, phone calls, or
door-to-door visits, of the program’s intent to treat a specific area. Specific audiences, such as
chemically sensitive individuals, are also given additional information, such as medical
information describing expected health effects of the treatment, means to mitigate impact of the

treatment, the program hotline number, questions and answers about the program, and
information listing risk involved in the treatment.
? Holds a public meeting/gathering for all audiences to proactively explain program activities
and give those impacted an opportunity to express concerns or opinions.
? Notifies all local hospitals, public health centers, local veterinarians, schools, day care centers,
police, fire agencies, physicians, and other special needs audiences of pesticide treatment
schedules and the type of pesticides being used in treatments.
? Provides target audiences with a hotline number or an entity, such as a poison control center,
where they can express their health and environmental concerns about the program. These
concerns are gathered and provided to identified entities for evaluation of adverse impacts of
program activities. Provides assistance to these entities in setting up data-gathering
instruments, such as a questionnaire. Solicits weekly evaluations from these entities and uses
them to appropriately mitigate potential problems.
? Establishes a network with appropriate local entities to address local health and environmental
issues. Provides assistance to these entities in setting up data-gathering instruments, such as a
questionnaire.
? If aerial applications are necessary, the project will allow time (minimally 48 hours, optimally
up to 10 days) to make necessary public announcements, conduct press conferences, and hold
public meetings. The project will work with local public health agencies to establish data-
gathering capabilities on possible public health effects within the same time period.
Operationally, this time period should allow the project to have the public notices printed and
distributed door-to-door, transport the chemical to the operations base, locate an airport that
has the necessary facilities and security, and work with the contractor to install the specialized
guidance and spray equipment.
Appendix
I. Phone Banks
In a effort to answer basic questions about program activities, a prerecorded message will run on
all phone bank “hotline” lines, with callers having the immediate option to speak with a person
about various concerns, such as environmental, health, or property damage, or select other
options from a system menu. The general message will be time dated so callers will know that the
information is current. The “hotline” is staffed by personnel trained to answer questions from the
public about treatment schedules and pesticide usage. Written material is provided that
anticipates common questions and details the history and protocol of the project as well as the
biology of the pest. Specialists, such as a toxicologist/epidemiologist, are identified at the outset
and are available during treatment to answer questions throughout the business day and at least

1 hour before treatment begins and several hours after treatment ends. Standardized forms and
routing are used to document complaints and threats. The recorded message will take calls after
office hours that will be returned the next day. The phone bank will remain operational during the
entire period that pesticides are being applied.
Callers are provided with appropriate phone numbers or an entity, such as a poison control center,
where they can express their health and environmental concerns about the program. These
concerns are gathered and provided to identified entities for evaluation of adverse impacts of
program activities. The project solicits weekly evaluations from these entities and uses them to
appropriately mitigate potential problems
II. Press Releases
Both national and local project joint press releases will be issued in the event of a fruit fly
outbreak. Those to be issued at the national level include the initial detection of a fruit fly
outbreak, the declaration of an emergency situation, the initial decision to conduct aerial treatment
to combat the outbreak, and the eradication of the outbreak. All other program developments
will be publicized in joint press releases distributed locally.
The overall procedure for press releases will be as follows:
1. The project federal or State information officer prepares a daily release detailing the impact of
the pest, the mode of treatment, treatment area boundaries, scheduling and duration of
treatment, and appropriate referral phone numbers. Information will be verified by the
treatment management staff and approved by the project leader.
2. Releases will be distributed to local media, particularly those that cover the treatment area.
Foreign language releases will be prepared if a significant portion of the resident population in
the treatment area does not speak English.
3. In each release, a media contact is named with a phone number. This person supplies the
press with regular progress reports or information on significant developments.
4. Daily press briefings will be held and local interviews, stock footage, photos, graphics, and
other special requests generated by the press release will be filled by the information officer.
III. Media Contact
Creating a rapport with local media results in accurate coverage of a program. To avoid
conflicting and confusing statements, all outgoing information should be processed through a
central clearinghouse or designated spokespersons from either the county, federal, or State
government. The spokesperson’s job is to be thoroughly briefed and current on particular aspects
of the program, such as treatment, regulatory activities, or public health issues. Specialists, such

as a toxicologist/epidemiologist, are identified at the outset and are available to answer questions
throughout the program. All program personnel should refer questions to these spokespersons.
IV. Information Collection and Reporting
Project leaders will initiate timely daily staff meetings in order to provide accurate and current
information for daily project reports that are disseminated throughout internal audiences and are
used to brief the media. An administrative officer is identified at the outset to gather and
coordinate program information into the daily report of activities by 9:00 a.m. each day and
write/update the project chronology. These reports summarize the previous day’s activities as
well as progress made in various program areas. Topics include: trapping, regulatory activities,
entomology, treatment, environmental monitoring, public health issues, and media. Information
gleaned from reports is used to keep impacted trading partners and other stakeholders apprised of
program activities.
V. Notification
The purpose of notification is to comply with federal and/or State law and present accurate
information in an understandable and nonthreatening format to all concerned groups. Local and
State elected representatives of the residents in the treatment area will be notified and apprised of
major developments before and during treatment. Any resident whose property will be treated
with foliar sprays or soil drenches will be notified 24 hours in advance.
Treatment notices include the name of the pest to be eradicated, the material to be used, the
boundaries and a phone number to call in case of additional questions on project operations, and
the numbers of local health/environmental entities. Following treatment, a completion notice is
left detailing any precautions the homeowner should take, including harvest intervals on treated
fruit. Treatment without prior notification may be necessary on a small number of properties if
active larvae are detected. However, reasonable efforts will be made to contact the homeowner.
Notification of aerial treatment will be given in compliance with State law or at least 24 hours
before the first pesticide application begins, whichever is greater. Notification can occur by
various information tools, such as mass mailing or door-to-door contact.
VI. Public Meetings/Gatherings
Public meetings/gatherings need to be scheduled prior to the target date for treatment. Door-to-
door or direct mail notification of affected residences prior to the meeting is preferable to notices
published in local papers. Prior to a meeting, any special political, social, economic, and
environmental concerns of the community should be identified in order to select a suitable panel.
A suggested formula for a panel is:

1. A moderator who can ensure orderly conduct of the meeting and direct questions to
appropriate persons for answers.
2. Representatives from the local government office who are familiar with local concerns.
3. A representative from the project who can answer specific questions about the biology of the
pest, the detection history, quarantine restrictions, proposed treatment, and its impact.
4. Specific area experts, especially from public health, toxicology, environmental hazards
assessment, fish and game, water resources, and private industry.
Issues that usually surface at meetings are pesticide usage (toxicity, drift, and persistence);
alternatives to pesticides; human health and environmental concerns; public water supply
contamination; hazards to bees and wildlife; damage to homes, cars, and crops; hazards to pets
and livestock; and organic farming concerns. The panel should be prepared to effectively address
these concerns.
Meeting sites should be centrally located and have accommodations for physically challenged,
translations, adequate parking, seating, electrical outlets, lighting, ventilation, and audio
equipment. A suggested procedural format begins with the moderator’s statement of purpose and
announcement of the time allotment (2 to 3 hours) followed by short presentations by each panel
member addressing obvious questions. Members of the public are then allotted 5 minutes to
express their concerns or ask questions. The ability of the moderator to restrict outbursts is
critical.
All concerns expressed at the meeting will be thoroughly evaluated and the project will respond
appropriately, such as by publishing an editorial in local papers, airing a commentary piece on
local television, or issuing a press release. Another possible follow-through to a public meeting is
to have spokespersons from small groups with specific concerns meet again with the project
management to discuss those concerns. Meetings with community leaders may also foster
cooperation with the project.
Another option to holding a public meeting is to hold more of an informal gathering where the
Federal and State officials proactively inform audiences about program activities, such as
treatment, trapping, regulatory, environmental monitoring, animal health, and human health. The
gathering should also have a place where audiences can express and register their complaints and
concerns, whether verbally or in writing, about all aspects of the program.
VII. Complaints & Concerns
The project should immediately identify appropriate county and State agencies and entities that
will address complaints with regard to the project, such as environmental and health concerns and
property damage. All identified audiences will be provided with phone numbers of these agencies

and entities so they can express their concerns appropriately. The project is responsible for
obtaining weekly reports from these entities, evaluating the data, and taking appropriate action to
mitigate program activities, if necessary. They will also provide these entities with any needed
tool for gathering information that will be useful for evaluating program effects.


Appendix D. Endangered and Threatened Species
(Listed Species As of September 1, 2000)
(Proposed Species As of September 1, 2000)
APHIS is consulting in advance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on endangered
and threatened species (E&T species) and their habitats that may be present in the four States
which are considered to be most at risk of fruit fly invasion: California, Florida, Texas, and
Washington. This appendix provides the current list of E&T species (and proposed E&T species
in those States). APHIS will consult with FWS should an outbreak occur in any of the low risk
States, before any program is implemented.
State Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

California Albatross, short-tailed Phoebastria albatrus Endangered
Beetle, Delta green ground Elaphrus viridis Threatened
Beetle, Mount Hermon June Polyphylla barbata Endangered
Beetle, Ohlone tiger Cicindela ohlone Proposed
Endangered
Beetle, valley elderberry longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Threatened
Butterfly, bay checkerspot Euphydryas editha bayensis Threatened
Butterfly, Behren's silverspot Speyeria zerene behrensii Endangered
Butterfly, callippe silverspot Speyeria callippe callippe Endangered
Butterfly, El Segundo blue Euphilotes battoides allyni Endangered

Butterfly, Lange's metalmark Apodemia mormo langei Endangered
Butterfly, lotis blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Endangered
Butterfly, mission blue Icaricia icarioides missionensis Endangered
Butterfly, Myrtle's silverspot Speyeria zerene myrtleae Endangered
Butterfly, Oregon silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened
Butterfly, Palos Verdes blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus Endangered
palosverdesensis
Butterfly, Quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino Endangered
Butterfly, San Bruno elfin Callophrys mossii bayensis Endangered
Butterfly, Smith's blue Euphilotes enoptes smithi Endangered
Chub, bonytail Gila elegans Endangered
Chub, Cowhead Lake tui Gila bicolor vaccaceps Proposed
Endangered
Chub, Mohave tui Gila bicolor mohavensis Endangered
Chub, Owens tui Gila bicolor snyderi Endangered
Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus Endangered
Crayfish, Shasta (=placid) Pacifastacus fortis Endangered
Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Appendix D. Endangered and Threatened Species D–1

Appendix D, continued.
Fairy shrimp, Conservancy Branchinecta conservatio Endangered
Fairy shrimp, longhorn Branchinecta longiantenna Endangered
Fairy shrimp, Riverside Streptocephalus woottoni Endangered
Fairy shrimp, vernal pool Branchinecta lynchi Threatened
Fairy shrimp, San Diego Branchinecta sandiegonensis Endangered
Fly, Delhi Sands flower-loving Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Endangered
Flycatcher, Southwestern willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered
Fox, San Joaquin kit Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered
Frog , California red-legged Rana aurora draytonii Threatened
Frog, mountain yellow-legged Rana muscosa Proposed
Endangered
Gnatcatcher, coastal California Polioptila californica californica Threatened
Goby, tidewater Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered
Goose, Aleutian Canada Branta canadensis leucopareia Threatened
Grasshopper, Zayante Trimerotropis infantilis Endangered
band-winged
Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered
Kangaroo rat, Fresno Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Endangered
Kangaroo rat, giant Dipodomys ingens Endangered
Kangaroo rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys heermanni morroensis Endangered
Kangaroo rat, San Bernardino Dipodomys merriami parvus Endangered
Kangaroo rat, Stephens' Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) Endangered
Kangaroo rat, Tipton Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Endangered
Lizard, blunt-nosed leopard Gambelia silus Endangered
Lizard, Coachella Valley Uma inornata Threatened
fringe-toed
Lizard, Island night Xantusia riversiana Threatened
Moth, Kern primrose sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe Threatened
Mountain beaver, Point Arena Aplodontia rufa nigra Endangered
Mouse, Pacific pocket Perognathus longimembris pacificus Endangered
Mouse, salt marsh harvest Reithrodontomys raviventris Endangered
Murrelet, marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened
marmoratus
Otter, southern sea Enhydra lutris nereis Threatened
Owl, northern spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened
Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis Endangered
D–2 Appendix D. Endangered and Threatened Species

Plover, mountain Charadrius montanus Proposed
Threatened
Plover, western snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened
Pupfish, desert Cyprinodon macularius Endangered
Pupfish, Owens Cyprinodon radiosus Endangered
Rabbit, riparian brush Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Endangered
Rail, California clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus Endangered
Rail, light-footed clapper Rallus longirostris levipes Endangered
Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered
Salamander, California tiger Ambystoma californiense Endangered
Salamander, desert slender Batrachoseps aridus Endangered
Salamander, Santa Cruz Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum Endangered
long-toed
Salmon, chinook Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Endangered
Salmon, coho Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Threatened
Seal, Guadalupe fur Arctocephalus townsendi Threatened
Sea-lion, Steller (=northern) Eumetopias jubatus Endangered
Sheep, bighorn (Peninsular Ovis canadensis Endangered
Ranges pop.)
Shrew, Buena Vista Lake ornate Sorex ornatus relictus Proposed
Endangered
Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Endangered
Shrimp, California freshwater Syncaris pacifica Endangered
Skipper, Laguna Mountains Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Endangered
Smelt, delta Hypomesus transpacificus Threatened
Snail, Morro shoulderband Helminthoglypta walkeriana Endangered
(=banded dune)
Snake, giant garter Thamnophis gigas Threatened
Snake, San Francisco garter Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Endangered
Sparrow, San Clemente sage Amphispiza belli clementeae Threatened
Splittail, Sacramento Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Threatened
Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered &
Threatened
Stickleback, unarmored Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Endangered
threespine
Sucker, Lost River Deltistes luxatus Endangered
Sucker, Modoc Catostomus microps Endangered
Sucker, razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered

Sucker, Santa Ana Catostomaus, santaanoe Threatened
Sucker, shortnose Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered
Tadpole shrimp, vernal pool Lepidurus packardi Endangered
Tern, California least Sterna antillarum browni Endangered
Toad, arroyo Bufo microscaphus californicus Endangered
Tortoise, desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened
Towhee, Inyo California (=brown) Pipilo crissalis eremophilus Threatened
Trout, bull (Columbia R. pop.) Salvelinus confluentus Proposed
Threatened
Trout, bull (Klamath R. pop.) Salvelinus confluentus Proposed
Endangered
Trout, Lahontan cutthroat Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki Threatened
henshawi
Trout, Little Kern golden Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) aguabonita Threatened
whitei
Trout, Paiute cutthroat Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki Threatened
seleniris
Vireo, least Bell's Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered
Vole, Amargosa Microtus californicus scirpensis Endangered
Whipsnake (=striped racer), Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Threatened
Alameda
Woodrat, riparian (= San Joaquin Neotoma fuscipes riparia Endangered
Valley)
San Diego thornmint Acanthomintha ilicifolia Threatened
San Mateo thornmint Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii Endangered
Munz's onion Allium munzii Endangered
Sonoma alopecurus Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Endangered
Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila Proposed
Endangered
Large-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia grandiflora Endangered
Hoffmann's rock-cress Arabis hoffmannii Endangered
McDonald's rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana Endangered
Bear Valley sandwort Arenaria ursina Proposed
Threatened
Santa Rosa Island manzanita Arctostaphylos confertiflora Endangered
Ione manzanita Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Threatened
Presidio (=Raven's) manzanita Arctostaphylos hookeri (=pungens) Endangered
var. ravenii
Morro manzanita Arctostaphylos morroensis Threatened
Pallid manzanita Arctostaphylos pallida Threatened

Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered
Bear Valley sandwort Arenaria ursina Threatened
Cushenbury milk-vetch Astragalus albens Endangered
Braunton's milk-vetch Astragalus brauntonii Endangered
Clara Hunt's milk-vetch Astragalus clarianus Endangered
Lane Mountain (=Coolgardie) Astragalus jaegerianus Endangered
milk-vetch
Coachella Valley milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. Endangered
coachellae
Shining (=shiny) milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans Proposed
Threatened
Fish Slough milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. Threatened
piscinensis
Sodaville milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. Proposed
sesquimetralis Threatened
Peirson's milk-vetch Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii Threatened
Mlk-vetch, Ventura Marsh Astragalus pycnostachyus Proposed
lanosissimus Endangered
Coastal dunes milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. titi Endangered
Triple-ribbed milk-vetch Astragalus tricarinatus Endangered
San Jacinto Valley crownscale Atriplex coronata var. notatior Endangered
(=saltbush)
Encinitis baccharis (=Coyote Baccharis vanessae Threatened
bush)
Nevin's barberry Berberis nevinii Endangered
Island barberry Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Endangered
Truckee barberry Berberis sonnei Endangered
Sonoma sunshine (=Baker's Blennosperma bakeri Endangered
stickyseed)
Thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia Threatened
Chinese Camp brodiaea Brodiaea pallida Threatened
Tiburon mariposa lily Calochortus tiburonensis Threatened
Mariposa pussypaws Calyptridium pulchellum Threatened
Stebbins' morning-glory Calystegia stebbinsii Endangered
San Benito evening-primrose Camissonia benitensis Threatened
White sedge Carex albida Endangered
Tiburon paintbrush Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Endangered
Fleshy owl's-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Threatened
Ash-gray Indian paintbrush Castilleja cinerea Threatened

San Clemente Island Indian Castilleja grisea Endangered
paintbrush
Soft-leaved paintbrush Castilleja mollis Endangered
California jewelflower Caulanthus californicus Endangered
Coyote ceanothus (=Coyote Ceanothus ferrisae Endangered
Valley California-lilac)
Vail Lake ceanothus Ceanothus ophiochilus Threatened
Pine Hill ceanothus Ceanothus roderickii Endangered
Spring-loving centaury Centaurium namophilum Threatened
Catalina Island Cercocarpus traskiae Endangered
mountain-mahogany
Hoover's spurge Chamaesyce hooveri Threatened
Purple amole Chlorogalum purpureum var. Threatened
purpureum
Howell's spineflower Chorizanthe howellii Endangered
Orcutt's spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana Endangered
Ben Lomond spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. Endangered
hartwegiana
Monterey spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Threatened
Robust spineflower (includes Chorizanthe robusta Endangered
Scotts Valley spineflower)
Sonoma spineflower Chorizanthe valida Endangered
Chorro Creek bog thistle Cirsium fontinale obispoense Endangered
Fountain thistle Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Endangered
Suisun thistle Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Endangered
La Graciosa thistle Cirsium loncholepis Endangered
Presidio clarkia Clarkia franciscana Endangered
Vine Hill clarkia Clarkia imbricata Endangered
Pismo clarkia Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Endangered
Springville clarkia Clarkia springvillensis Threatened
Salt marsh bird's-beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Endangered
maritimus
Palmate-bracted bird's-beak Cordylanthus palmatus Endangered
Pennell's bird's-beak Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Endangered
Soft bird's-beak Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis Endangered
Santa Cruz cypress Cupressus abramsiana Endangered
Gowen cypress Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Threatened
Baker's larkspur Delphinium bakeri Endangered
Yellow larkspur Delphinium luteum Endangered

San Clemente Island larkspur Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense Endangered
Slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras Endangered
Conejo dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva Threatened
Marcescent dudleya Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens Threatened
Santa Monica Mountains dudleya Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Threatened
Santa Cruz Island dudleya Dudleya nesiotica Threatened

Santa Clara Valley dudleya Dudleya setchellii Endangered
Laguna Beach liveforever Dudleya stolonifera Threatened
Santa Barbara Island liveforever Dudleya traskiae Endangered
Verity's dudleya Dudleya verityi Threatened
Kern mallow Eremalche kernensis Endangered
Santa Ana River woolly-star Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Endangered
Hoover's woolly-star Eriastrum hooveri Threatened
Parish's daisy Erigeron parishii Threatened
Indian Knob mountain balm Eriodictyon altissimum Endangered
Ione (=Irish Hill) buckwheat Eriogonum apricum (incl. vars. Endangered
apricum, prostratum)
Lompoc yerba santa Eriodictyon capitatum Endangered
Southern mountain wild Eriogonum kennedyi var. Threatened
buckwheat austromontanum
Cushenbury buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Endangered
San Mateo woolly sunflower Eriophyllum latilobum Endangered
San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Endangered
Loch Lomond coyote-thistle Eryngium constancei Endangered
Contra Costa wallflower Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Endangered
Menzies' wallflower Erysimum menziesii Endangered
Ben Lomond wallflower Erysimum teretifolium Endangered
Pine Hill flannelbush Fremontodendron californicum ssp. Endangered

decumbens
Mexican flannelbush Fremontodendron mexicanum Endangered
Island bedstraw Galium buxifolium Endangered
El Dorado bedstraw Galium californicum ssp. sierrae Endangered
Monterey gilia Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Endangered
Hoffmann's slender-flowered gilia Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii Endangered

Ash Meadows gumplant Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Threatened
Island rush-rose Helianthemum greenei Threatened
Otay tarplant Hemizonia conjugens Threatened
Gaviota tarplant Hemizonia increscens ssp. villosa Endangered
Marin dwarf-flax Hesperolinon congestum Threatened

Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia Threatened
Water howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened
Burke's goldfields Lasthenia burkei Endangered
Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens Endangered
Beach layia Layia carnosa Endangered
San Joaquin wooly-threads Lembertia congdonii Endangered
San Bernardino Mountains Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina Endangered
bladderpod
San Francisco lessingia Lessingia germanorum (=L. g. var. Endangered
germanorum)
Western lily Lilium occidental Endangered
Pitkin Marsh lily Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Endangered
Butte County meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica Endangered
Sebastopol meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans Endangered
San Clemente Island Lithophragma maximum Endangered
woodland-star
San Clemente Island broom Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae Endangered
Nipomo Mesa lupine Lupinus nipomensis Endangered
Clover lupine Lupinus tidestromii Endangered
San Clemente Island Malacothamnus clementinus Endangered
bush-mallow
Santa Cruz Island bush-mallow Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. Endangered
nesioticus
Santa Cruz Island malocothrix Malacothrix indecora Endangered
Island malacothrix Malacothrix squalida Endangered
Willowy monardella Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Endangered
Navarretia, spreading (=prostrate) Navarretia fossalis Threatened
Navarretia, few-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Endangered
pauciflora (=N. pauciflora)
Navarretia, many-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Endangered
plieantha
Colusa grass Neostapfia colusana Threatened
Amargosa niterwort Nitrophila mohavensis Endangered

Dehesa bear-grass Nolina interrata Proposed
Threatened
Eureka Valley evening-primrose Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Endangered
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Endangered
Bakersfield cactus Opuntia treleasei Endangered
California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica Endangered
San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass Orcuttia inaequalis Threatened
Hairy orcutt grass Orcuttia pilosa Endangered
Slender orcutt grass Orcuttia tenuis Threatened
Sacramento orcutt grass Orcuttia viscida Endangered
Cushenbury oxytheca Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana Endangered
Lake County stonecrop Parvisedum leiocarpum Endangered
White-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora Endangered
Lyon's pentachaeta Pentachaeta lyonii Endangered
Island phacelia Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis Endangered
Yreka phlox Phlox hirsuta Endangered
Yadon's piperia Piperia yadonii Endangered
Calistoga allocarya Plagiobothrys strictus Endangered
San Bernardino bluegrass Poa atropurpurea Endangered
Napa bluegrass Poa napensis Endangered
San Diego mesa mint Pogogyne abramsii Endangered
Otay mesa mint Pogogyne nudiuscula Endangered
Hickman's potentilla Potentilla hickmanii Endangered
Hartweg's golden sunburst Pseudobahia bahiifolia Endangered
San Joaquin adobe sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii Threatened
Gambel's watercress Rorippa gambellii Endangered
Layne's butterweed Senecio layneae Threatened
Santa Cruz Island rockcress Sibara filifolia Endangered
Keck's checkermallow Sidalcea keckii Endangered
Kenwood Marsh checker-mallow Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Endangered
Pedate checker-mallow Sidalcea pedata Endangered
Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Endangered
Tiburon jewelflower Streptanthus niger Endangered
California seablite Suaeda californica Endangered
Eureka Dune grass Swallenia alexandrae Endangered
California taraxacum Taraxacum californicum Endangered
Slender-petaled mustard Thelypodium stenopetalum Endangered

Kneeland Prairie penny-cress Thlaspi californicum Endangered
Santa Cruz Island fringepod Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Endangered
(lacepod)
Hidden Lake bluecurls Trichostema austromontanum ssp. Threatened
compactum
Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum Endangered
Monterey clover Trifolium trichocalyx Endangered
Greene's tuctoria Tuctoria greenei Endangered
Solano grass Tuctoria mucronata Endangered
Red Hills vervain Verbena californica Threatened
Big-leaved crownbeard Verbesina dissita Threatened
Florida Bankclimber (mussel), purple Elliptoideus sloatianus Threatened
Bat, gray Myotis grisescens Endangered
Butterfly, Schaus swallowtail Heraclides (=Papilio) aristodemus Endangered
ponceanus
Caracara, Audubon's crested Polyborus plancus audubonii Threatened
Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus Endangered
Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okaloosae Endangered
Deer, key Odocoileus virginianus clavium Endangered
Falcon, American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Scrub-jay, Florida Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened
Kite, Everglade snail Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered
Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered
Moccasinshell, Gulf Medionidus penicillatus Endangered
Moccasinshell, Ochlockonee Medionidus simpsonianus Endangered
Mouse, Anastasia Island beach Peromyscus polionotus phasma Endangered
Mouse, Choctawhatchee beach Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Endangered
Mouse, Key Largo cotton Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola Endangered
Mouse, Perdido Key beach Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Endangered
Mouse, southeastern beach Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Threatened
Mouse, St. Andrew beach Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis Endangered
Panther, Florida Felis concolor coryi Endangered
Pigtoe, oval Pleurobema pyriforme Endangered
Pocketbook, shinyrayed Lampsilis subangulata Endangered
Plover, piping Charadrius melodus Threatened
Rabbit, Lower Keys Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Endangered

Rice rat, silver Oryzomys palustris natator Endangered
Salamander, flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened
Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave Palaemonetes cummingi Threatened
(=Florida cave)
Skink, bluetail mole Eumeces egregius lividus Threatened
Skink, sand Neoseps reynoldsi Threatened
Slabshell, Chipola Elliptio chipolaensis Threatened
Snail, Stock Island tree Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas) Threatened
Snake, Atlantic salt marsh Nerodia clarkii taeniata Threatened
Snake, eastern indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened
Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Endangered
Sparrow, Florida grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Endangered
Stork, wood Mycteria americana Endangered
Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened
Tern, roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Threatened
Threeridge, fat Amblema neislerii Endangered
Turtle, green sea Chelonia mydas Endangered &
Threatened
Turtle, hawksbill sea Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered
Turtle, leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea Endangered
Turtle, loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Threatened
Vole, Florida salt marsh Microtus pennsylvanicus Endangered
dukecampbelli
Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis Endangered
Woodrat, Key Largo Neotoma floridana smalli Endangered
Crenulate lead-plant Amorpha crenulata Endangered
Four-petal pawpaw Asimina tetramera Endangered
Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora Threatened
Brooksville (=Robins') bellflower Campanula robinsiae Endangered
Fragrant prickly-apple Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans Endangered
Deltoid spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Endangered
Garber's spurge Chamaesyce garberi Threatened
Pygmy fringe-tree Chionanthus pygmaeus Endangered
Florida golden aster Chrysopsis floridana Endangered
Florida perforate cladonia Cladonia perforata Threatened
Pigeon wings Clitoria fragrans Threatened

Short-leaved rosemary Conradina brevifolia Endangered
Etonia rosemary Conradina etonia Endangered
Apalachicola rosemary Conradina glabra Endangered
Avon Park harebells Crotalaria avonensis Endangered
Okeechobee gourd Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Endangered
okeechobeensis
Beautiful pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus Endangered
Rugel's pawpaw Deeringothamnus rugelii Endangered
Garrett's mint Dicerandra christmanii Endangered
Longspurred mint Dicerandra cornutissima Endangered
Scrub mint Dicerandra frutescens Endangered
Lakela's mint Dicerandra immaculata Endangered
Scrub buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium var. Threatened
gnaphalifolium
Snakeroot Eryngium cuneifolium Endangered
Telephus spurge Euphorbia telephioides Threatened
Small's milkpea Galactia smallii Endangered
Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii Threatened
Harper's beauty Harperocallis flava Endangered
Highlands scrub hypericum Hypericum cumulicola Endangered
Beach jacquemontia Jacquemontia reclinata Endangered
Cooley's water-willow Justicia cooleyi Endangered
Scrub blazingstar Liatris ohlingerae Endangered
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Scrub lupine Lupinus aridorum Endangered
White birds-in-a-nest Macbridea alba Threatened
Britton's beargrass Nolina brittoniana Endangered
Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea Threatened
Key tree-cactus Pilosocereus robinii (=Cereus r.) Endangered
Godfrey's butterwort Pinguicula ionantha Threatened
Lewton's polygala Polygala lewtonii Endangered
Tiny polygala Polygala smallii Endangered
Wireweed Polygonella basiramia Endangered
Sandlace Polygonella myriophylla Endangered
Scrub plum Prunus geniculata Endangered
Chapman rhododendron Rhododendron chapmanii Endangered

Miccosukee gooseberry Ribes echinellum Threatened
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Florida skullcap Scutellaria floridana Threatened
Fringed campion Silene polypetala Endangered
Gentian pinkroot Spigelia gentianoides Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
Florida torreya Torreya taxifolia Endangered
Wide-leaf warea Warea amplexifolia Endangered
Carter's mustard Warea carteri Endangered
Florida ziziphus Ziziphus celata Endangered
Texas Amphipod, Peck's cave Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki Endangered
Bat, Mexican long-nosed Leptonycteris nivalis Endangered
Bear, Louisiana black Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened
Beetle, Coffin Cave mold Batrisodes texanus Endangered
Beetle, Comal Springs riffle Heterelmis comalensis Endangered
Beetle, Comal Springs dryopid Stygoparnus comalensis Endangered
Beetle, ground (unnamed) Rhadine exilis Endangered
Beetle, ground (unnamed) Rhadine infernalis Endangered
Beetle, Helotes mold Batrisodes venyivi Endangered
Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave mold Texamaurops reddelli Endangered
Beetle, Tooth Cave ground Rhadine persephone Endangered
Crane, whooping Grus americana Endangered
Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Endangered
Darter, fountain Etheostoma fonticola Endangered
Falcon, northern aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis Endangered
Flycatcher, Southwestern willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered
Gambusia, Big Bend Gambusia gaigei Endangered
Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia heterochir Endangered
Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis Endangered
Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia georgei Endangered
Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave Texella reddelli Endangered
Harvestman, Bone Cave Texella reyesi Endangered
Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered

Jaguarundi Felis yagouaroundi cacomitli Endangered
Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered
Minnow, Devils River Dionda diaboli Threatened
Minnow, Rio Grande silvery Hybognathus amarus Threatened
Ocelot Felis pardalis Endangered
Owl, Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened
Plover, mountain Charadrius montanus Proposed
Threatened
Plover, piping Charadrius melodus Threatened
Prairie-chicken, Attwater's greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri Endangered
Pseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave Tartarocreagris (=Microcreagris) Endangered
texana
Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans Endangered
Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus Endangered
Pupfish, Pecos Cyprinodon pecosensis Proposed
Endangered
Salamander, Barton Springs Eurycea sosorum Endangered
Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana Threatened
Salamander, Texas blind Typhlomolge rathbuni Endangered
Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Threatened
Snake, Concho water Nerodia paucimaculata Threatened
Spider, Government Canyon cave Neoleptoneta microps Endangered
Spider, robber baron cave Cicurina baronia Endangered
Spider, Tooth Cave Neoleptoneta (=Leptoneta) myopica Endangered
Spider, vesper cave Circurina vespera Endangered
Spider (unnamed) Circurina venti Endangered
Tern, least Sterna antillarum Endangered
Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis Endangered
Turtle, Kemp's (=Atlantic) ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered
sea
Turtle, loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Threatened
Vireo, black-capped Vireo atricapillus Endangered
Warbler, golden-cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia Endangered
Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis Endangered
Large-fruited sand-verbena Abronia macrocarpa Endangered
South Texas ambrosia Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Endangered

Tobusch fishhook cactus Ancistrocactus tobuschii Endangered
Star cactus Astrophytum asterias Endangered
Texas ayenia Ayenia limitaris Endangered
Texas poppy-mallow Callirhoe scabriuscula Endangered
Nellie cory cactus Coryphantha (=Escobaria) minima Endangered
Bunched cory cactus Coryphantha ramillosa Threatened
Sneed pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Endangered
Terlingua Creek cats-eye Cryptantha crassipes Endangered
Chisos Mountain hedgehog Echinocereus chisoensis var. Threatened
cactus chisoensis
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus Echinocereus lloydii Endangered
Black lace cactus Echinocereus reichenbachii Endangered
(=melanocentrus) var. albertii
Davis' green pitaya Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Endangered
Lloyd's Mariposa cactus Echinomastus (=Sclerocactus) Threatened
mariposensis
Johnston's frankenia Frankenia johnstonii Endangered
Pecos (=puzzle) sunflower Helianthus paradoxus Threatened
Slender rush-pea Hoffmannseggia tenella Endangered
Texas prairie dawn-flower Hymenoxys texana Endangered
(=Texas bitterweed)
White bladderpod Lesquerella pallida Endangered
Zapata bladderpod Lesquerella thamnophila Endangered
Walker's manioc Manihot walkerae Endangered
Texas trailing phlox Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Endangered
Little Aguja pondweed Potamogeton clystocarpus Endangered
Hinckley's oak Quercus hinckleyi Threatened
Navasota ladies'-tresses Spiranthes parksii Endangered
Texas snowbells Styrax texanus Endangered
Ashy dogweed Thymophylla tephroleuca Endangered
Texas wild-rice Zizania texana Endangered
Washington Albatross, short-tailed Phoebastria albatrus Endangered
Bear, grizzly Ursus arctos Threatened
Butterfly, Oregon silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened
Caribou, woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou Endangered
Catchfly, Spalding’s Silene spaldingii Proposed
Threatened

Deer, Columbian white-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Endangered
Goose, Aleutian Canada Branta canadensis leucopareia Threatened
Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened
Murrelet, marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened
marmoratus
Owl, northern spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened
Plover, western snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened
Salmon, chinook Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Endangered
Salmon, chum Oncorhynchus keta Threatened
Salmon, sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka Endangered
Sea-lion, Steller (=northern) Eumetopias jubatus Endangered
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered &
Threatened
Trout, bull (Coastal - Puget Salvelinus confluentus Threatened
Sound pop.)
Trout, bull (Columbia R. pop.) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened
Trout, coastal cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Proposed
Threatened
Wolf, gray Canis lupus Endangered
Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered
Golden paintbrush Castilleja levisecta Threatened
Stickseed, showy Hackelia venusta Proposed
Endangered
Water howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened
Bradshaw's desert-parsley Lomatium bradshawii Endangered
(=lomatium)
Kincaid's lupine Lupinus sulphureus var. kincaidii Threatened
Polygonum, Scotts Valley Polygonum hickmanii Proposed
Endangered
Nelson's checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened
Wenatchee Mountains Sidalcea oregana var. calva Endangered
(=Oregon), checkermallow
Does not include all marine mammals
Does not include sea turtles unless nesting in State coastal areas

Appendix E. Preparers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road
Riverdale, MD 20737
Principal EIS Harold T. Smith

Preparers Environmental Protection Officer
B.S. Microbiology
M.A. Biology
Background: Senior Project Leader in Environmental Services (ES).

Twenty-seven years service with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) in positions involving pest exclusion, pest control,
regulatory activities, and environmental protection. Experience
coordinating and preparing environmental documents for other major
APHIS programs.
EIS Responsibility: Project Manager - overall responsibility for the EIS,

coordination of supportive analysis efforts, and management of the
interdisciplinary team. Wrote chapters 1, 2, and 8; wrote sections of
chapters 3, 6, and 7.
David Bergsten
Toxicologist
B.S. Environmental Science
M.S. Entomology
M.P.H. Disease Control
Ph.D. Toxicology
Background: Toxicologist in ES. Expertise in pesticide research and

environmental toxicology. More than 10 years experience with APHIS;
experience in preparing environmental documents for other major APHIS
programs.
EIS Responsibility: Assistant Project Manager/Toxicologist. Managed

and wrote majority of chapters 4 and 5; wrote sections of chapters 3 and
6; wrote and/or contributed to risk assessments incorporated by reference
in the EIS; contributed to some of the appendices.
Appendix E. Preparers E–1

Nancy E. Sweeney
Environmental Protection Officer
B.A. Biology
Background: Experience as a wildlife biologist with the Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and APHIS. A
principal author of the regulations for implementation of section 7
(Consultation) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Has
coordinated section 7 consultation activities for a variety of major APHIS
programs.
EIS Responsibility: Fruit Fly Program ESA Coordinator; contributed to

chapter 5 and prepared appendix D.
Mike Stefan
Agriculturalist
B.S. Agriculture
M.S. Botany/Plant Ecology
Background: Operations Officer in Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ). Expertise in pest management programs. Formerly National
Coordinator for Fruit Fly Programs.
EIS Responsibility: Provided fruit fly program information and data;

assisted in planning, coordination, and review of EIS.
Betsey Garver
Writer/Editor
B.A. Sociology
Background: Over 10 years service with APHIS, with administrative and

clerical experience with PPQ, and Policy and Program Development.
Currently serving as writer/editor with ES.
EIS Responsibility: Desktop publishing of the EIS (including editing,

format, and document security); and supportive coordination and
planning.
Judy Lee
Program Assistant
Background: Manager of APHIS Reading Room. Expertise in

administration and data base development and implementation.
E–2 Appendix E. Preparers

EIS Responsibility: Development and maintenance of data base for the
EIS distribution; preparation of appendix F.
Mary Biddlecome
Secretary/OA
Background: Secretarial and administrative support to ES staff for 5

years.
EIS Responsibility: Clerical duties, as needed, in connection with the

preparation and distribution of the EIS.
EIS Ralph Ross

Contributors Biological Scientist
B.S. Chemistry
M.S. Chemistry
Ph.D. Chemistry
Retired: Formerly Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, PPQ.

Expertise in pesticide and chemical research. Has done in vivo and in
vitro work on pesticides’ mode of action for the Center for Disease
Control.
EIS Responsibility: EIS Project Liaison with the Deputy Administrator’s

Office, PPQ. Assisted in developing the EIS’ focus and communicating
program objectives; reviewed EIS.
Ronald G. Berger
Biological Scientist
A.B. Biochemistry
M.S. Immunobiology
Background: Team Leader, Environmental Monitoring. Expertise in

pesticide and biochemical research.
EIS Responsibility: Contributed description of environmental

monitoring that will be conducted for fruit fly control programs;
reviewed EIS.
Appendix E. Preparers E–3

Teung F. Chin
Biological Scientist
B.S. Food Technology
M.S. Food Technology
Ph.D. Food Technology
Background: Pesticides/toxic substances regulation and risk
management with the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy.
EIS Responsibility: Leader, Pesticide Registration Team. Acted as

liaison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in registration
processes; contributed to chapter 3; reviewed EIS.
E–4 Appendix E. Preparers

Appendix F. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation
The following individuals have cooperated in the development of this
environmental impact statement (EIS), were consulted on critical issues
that have been addressed in this EIS, or reviewed draft sections of the
EIS. The expertise and concerns of these individuals were considered
during the development of this EIS. There may be some aspects of the
EIS or its incorporated analyses which are not endorsed by all of the
cooperators and consultants.
Principal Federal
Federal and
State Dan Rosenblatt Federal Activities Liaison
Cooperators U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mail Stop A-104
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Ken Vick National Program Leader

Post-harvest Entomology
NAL Program Staff
Agricultural Research Service
Beltsville, MD 20705
State
Dr. Robert Dowell Primary State Entomologist

California Department of Food and Agriculture
1220 N Street, P.O. Box 942871
Sacramento, CA 94271-0001
Dr. Shashank Nilakhe Director, Agri-Systems Programs

Texas Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 12847
Austin, TX 78711
Connie Riherd Assistant Director

Florida Department of Agriculture
& Consumer Services
Division of Plant Industry
P.O. Box 147100
Gainesville, FL 32614-7100
Appendix F. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation F–1

Dr. Clinton Campbell Managing Entomologist
Washington State Department of Agriculture
3939 Cleveland Avenue, SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Principal Michael J. Shannon Florida State Plant Health Director

Reviewers USDA, APHIS, PPQ
7022 NW 10th Place
Gainesville, FL 32605-3147
Charles Bare Senior Staff Officer

USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Regulatory Coordination
4700 River Road, Unit 141
Riverdale, MD 20737
Carl Bausch Deputy Director

USDA, APHIS, PPD
Environmental Services
4700 River Road, Unit 149
Riverdale, MD 20737
F-2 Appendix F. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation

Appendix G. Distribution List
David Adam Dr. Abdeljelil Bakri

Coordinator, Vector Control Insect and Pest Control Section, NAFA
State of New Jersey c/o International Atomic Energy Agency
Department of Health & Senior Services Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100
Infectious and Zoonotic Disease A–1400 Vienna, Austria
P.O. Box 369 Europe
Trenton, NJ 08625
Carlos Balderi
Jose Luis Alcudia University of Florida
Agricultural Minister Cooperative Extension Service
Embassy of Mexico 18710 SW 288th Street
1911 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Homestead, FL 33030
Brenda Baltbo
Mary Ambrose 4715 W. Anita Blvd.
Senior Environmental Specialist Tampa, FL 33611
State of Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission Charles Bare
Water Policy & Regulations Division Operations Officer
P.O. Box 13087 USDA, APHIS, DEO
Austin, TX 78711 4700 River Road, Unit 134
Riverdale, MD 20737
June K. Arnhym
16333 Heathrow Drive Celio Humberto Barreto
Tampa, FL 33647 Medico Veterinario-Director
O.I.R.S.A
Marty Asolas Calle Ramon Belloso, Final Pje.
6345 Cardale Street Isolde, Col-Escalon
Lakewood, CA 90713–1704 San Salvador, El Salvador
Emil Assily Bonnie Bator

6804 Seaview Way P.O. Box 565
Tampa, FL 33615 Kurtistown, HI 967760
Bryan Baker Carl Bausch, Deputy Director

State of Florida USDA, APHIS, ES
Department of Environmental Protection 4700 River Road, Unit 149
2600 Blair Stone Boulevard Riverdale, MD 20737
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Appendix G. Distribution List G-1

Carol Beauregard Marie R. Breakey
11714 S. Laurel Drive, Apt. 3–B 3304 W. Grace Street
Laurel, MD 10708 Tampa, FL 33607
Rachael Benton Stephen Brittle, President

7301 Coarsey Avenue Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc.
Tampa, FL 33604 6205 S. 12th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85040
Patricia B. Berrett
355 22nd Avenue, NE Astmea Brooks
St. Petersburg, FL 33704 2004 E. Clinton
Tampa, FL 33610
Robert D. Berrett
335 22nd Avenue, NE Louie Brown
St. Petersburg, FL 33704 Director, National Affairs
California Farm Bureau Federation
Jane Besen, Secretary 2300 River Plaza Drive
United Democratic Club of Monterey Park Sacramento, CA 95833
1540 Arriba Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754 Lura Brown
5102 N. Fratis Drive
Awinash P. Bhatkar, Coordinator Temple City, CA 91780
State of Texas
Department of Agriculture Ronald Brown
Plant Quality Programs 7501 142nd Avenue, N. #493
P.O. Box 12847 Largo, FL 33771
Austin, TX 78711
Dr. Kristen Brugger, Research Biologist
Miguel Borges DuPont Agricultural Products
USDA, ARS, PSI Barley Mill Plaza 15–1288
West, B–007, Room 301 Wilmington, DE 19880
Beltsville, MD 20705
Dean Buchinger
Doug Bournique Ag-Vue Consulting
Executive Vice President P.O. Box 4537
Indian River Citrus League Blue Jay, CA 92317
P.O. Box 690007
Vero Beach, FL 32969 Meg Bundick
4450 Beauvais Avenue
A. Bowen Los Angeles, CA 90065
6501 Cheltown
Tampa, FL 33610 Rev. Federick J. Bushby
3902 Tudor Court Apt. 182
Tampa, FL 33614
G-2 Appendix G. Distribution List

Dr. Geoff Calvert Hillary & Daryl Chambers
National Institute for Occupational P.O. Box 721
Safety and Health Stinson Beach, CA 94970
4676 Columbia Parkway, R–21
Cincinnati, OH 45226 Frieda Chan
1704 E. Norfolk Street
Dr. Clinton Campbell Tampa, FL 33610
Managing Entomologist
Washington State Dept. of Agriculture Cynthia Chapman, Director
3939 Cleveland Avenue, SE Frontera Audubon Society
Olympia, WA 98501 P.O. Box 8124
Weslaco, TX 78599
Leslie Campbell
Environmental Protection Commission of Jim Chapman
Hillsborough County Sierra Club
1900 9th Avenue 200 East 11th Street
Tampa, FL 33605 Weslaco, TX 78596
Virginia Carey Whit Chase, Jr.

11605 Casey P.O. Box 562
Tampa, FL 33624 Monticello, FL 32345-0562
Gloria Case Mary Chernesky

6403 Berkshire Place University of Florida
University Park, FL 34201 Cooperative Extension Service
5339 South County Road 579
S. Casey Seffner, FL 33624
P.O. Box 1377
Bushnell, FL 33513 Citizens Against Noise
Box 27705
Brenda Castillo Honolulu, HI 96827
3316 W. Pine Street
Tampa, FL 33607 Richard A. Clark
Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Svcs.
John A. Cavalier, Jr., Mayor Division of Plant Industry
City of Miami Springs P.O. Box 147100
201 Westward Drive Gainesville, FL 32614
Miami Springs, FL 33166
James J. Clinton
J. Peter Chaires 3608 S. Hubert Avenue
Associate Vice President Tampa, FL 33629
Florida Gift Fruit Shippers Association
521 N. Kirkman Road
Orlando, FL 32808

Benjamin Cobrino Philip Cutler
3570 S. Waverly Orange County Citizens Against
Tampa, FL 33629 Malathion Spraying
3290 Turlock Drive
John M. Coil Costa Mesa, CA 92626
8012 Sharon Drive
Tampa, FL 33617 Donald L. Dahlsten
Professor, Associate Dean
J. Ron Conley, Assistant Commissioner University of California, Berkeley
State of Georgia Center for Biological Control
Department of Agriculture 201 Wellman Hall
19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Berkeley, CA 94720
Atlanta, GA 30334
Muriel Dando, President
Conservation Council for Hawaii Human Ecology Action League, Inc.
P.O. Box 2923 P.O. Box 29629
Honolulu, HI 96802 Atlanta, GA 30359
Paul Conzelmann Fran Darley

Ecologist/Contaminant Specialist 16333 Heathrow Drive
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Tampa, FL 33647
646 Cajundome Blvd. #400
Lafayette, LA 70506–4290 Janet Dauble, Executive Director
Share, Care, and Prayer, Inc.
Brenda Costillo P.O. Box 2080
3316 W. Pine Street Frazier Park, CA 93225
Tampa, FL 33607
Maxine Davi
M.A. Coulter P.O. Box 1182
6812 Diana Court Conifer, CO 80433
Tampa, FL 33610
Greg Davis
Joan Sullivan Cowan Bay News 9
5219 Fairfax Drive, NW 4400 W. Martin Luther King
Albuquerque, NM 87114 Tampa, FL 33614
Ruth V. Cubbage Carolyn Dean, MD

105 S Francisca Ave. Apt. 103 311 East 91st Street, Suite 7
Redondo Beach, CA 90277–3378 New York, NY 10128
Anne Marie de Moret

14750 Morning Drive
Lutz, FL 33549

Sharon Delchamps Erik DuMont
Contaminates Specialist Citizens Campaign for the Environment
U.S. Department of the Interior 225 A Main Street
Fish & Wildlife Service Farmingdale, NY 11735
1208-B Main Street
Daphine, AL 36526 Carlos Dunque
5700 Mariner Street, Room 805–W
Dr. Michael J. DiBartolomeis, Chief Tampa, FL 33609
State of California
Environmental Health & Hazard Mary Duprey
Pesticide & Food Toxicology Creative Resources Guild
2151 Berkeley Way, Annex II 420 Pico Boulevard, Room 102
Berkeley, CA 94794 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Everett J. Dietrick Lisa Edgar, Chief Analyst

Entomologist, BEC State of Florida
Rincon-Vitrovas Insectaries, Inc. Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 1555 Department of Environmental Policy
Ventura, CA 93001 1501 Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Randy Dominy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Henry Empeno, Jr.
61 Forsyth Street, SW Deputy City Attorney
Atlanta, GA 30302 City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
Kim Douglas San Bernardino, CA 92418
5201 Pine Mill Court
Tampa, FL 33617 Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
Keith Douglass NEPA Compliance Division
County Commission, Monroe County EIS Filing Section
490 63rd Street, Ocean, Room 110 401 M Street, SW
Marathon, FL 33050 Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Robert V. Dowell Marion Everson

Primary State Entomologist P.O. Box 562
State of California Homosassa Springs, FL 34447
Department of Food & Agriculture
1220 N Street, P.O. Box 942871 Victoria Exnicios
Sacramento, CA 95814 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3702
New Orleans, LA 70170

Ben Faulkner Jesus Reyes Flores
1301 Ivywood Drive Campana Nacional Contra Moscas
Brandon, FL 33510 De La Fruta
Guillermo Perez Valenzuela N 127
Glenda Faulkner Col. De Carmen, Coyoacan, Mexico, DF
1301 Ivywood Drive
Brandon, FL 33510 Heather Flower
Director, Public Relations
Edward Ferguson Western Growers Association
8529 N. Otis Avenue P.O. Box 2130
Tampa, FL 33604 Newport Beach, CA 92658
Frank Ferlita Jeffrey Frankel

5116 W. San Jose Street USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Tampa, FL 33629 P.O. Box 59–2788
Miami, FL 33159
Lillion Ferlita
5116 W. San Jose Street Arte J. Franz
Tampa, FL 33629 14535 Bruce B Downs Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33613
Del A. Fernandez
3301 N. Howard Avenue Dr. Gerald Franz
Tampa, FL 33607 Entomology Unit, NAAL, FAO
c/o International Atomic Energy Agency
Kingsley Fisher Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100
Entomology Unit, NAAL, FAO A–1400 Vienna, Austria
c/o International Atomic Energy Agency Europe
Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100
A–1400 Vienna, Austria Dorothy Frazer
Europe 908 W 131st Avenue
Tampa, FL 33612
Ronai Flagler-Ali
State of Florida Helene French
Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services Santa Cruz County
775 Wainee Lane Hazardous Material Advisory Comm.
Orlando, FL 32803 208 Northrop Place
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Sylvia Fliss
8107 McKim Court H. Paul Friesema, Professor
Los Angerles, CA 90094–1516 Northwestern University
Institute for Policy Research
2040 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208

Dr. Marion Fuller Ken Glenn, Supervisor
State of Florida State of South Carolina
Department of Agriculture Department of Plant Industry
Environmental Services Division Clemson University
3125 Conner Boulevard, Lab. # 6 511 Westinghouse Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399 Pendleton, SC 29670
Randall J. Fullerton, Vice President George J. Gomes, Administrator

Families Opposed to California Farm Bureau Federation
Chemical Urban Spraying 2300 River Plaza Drive
4741 Clybourn Avenue, Apt. 4 Sacramento, CA 95833
North Hollywood, CA 91602
Patrick Gomes, Program Manager
Mrs. Fulscher Insect and Pest Control
Box 875 c/o International Atomic Energy Agency
Saratoga, CA 95071 Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100
A–1400 Vienna, Austria
P. Galbreath, President Europe
97th & 98th Street Block Clubs
930 East 97th Street R. Gonzalez, Jr.
Los Angeles, CA 90002 402 E. Sligh Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604
Richard Gaskalla, Director
State of Florida Christina Graves
Dept. of Agriculture/Consumer Svcs. Pesticide Watch
Division of Plant Industry 11965 Venice Boulevard, Suite 408
1911 Southwest 34th Street Los Angeles, CA 90066
Gainesville, FL 32614
Shirley Grecious
Gladys M. Gerlik 4104 Hallow Trail Drive
1561 Parkgate Drive Tampa, FL 33627
Kissammee, FL 34746
Ellen Gregg
Terry Giff Coalition to Stop Children’s
1808 E. Curtis Street Exposure to Pesticide
Tampa, FL 33610 P.O. Box 15853
Sarasota, FL 34277
Ray Gilmer
4401 E. Colonial Drive Shirley Gregoire
Orlando, FL 32803 4104 Hallow Trail Drive
Tampa, FL 33627
Cynthia P. Glee
13383 88th Place N.
Seminole, FL 33776

Michael Gregory, Director Tad Hardy, Administration Coordinator
Arizona Toxics Information State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 1896 Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Bisbee, AZ 85603 P.O. Box 3118
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Robert J. Griffith
CRA-MAR Groves L. R. Hays
P.O. Box 335 Supervisory Biologist
Oakland, FL 34760 U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Dr. James T. Griffiths, Managing Director 2730 Loker Avenue, West
Citrus Grower Associates, Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008
2930 Winter Lake Road
Lakeland, FL 33803 Leon Hebb, Chief
Bureau of Pest Eradication and Control
Mary Grisier FDACS
Environmental Protection Agency 3027 Lake Alfred Road
75 Hawthorne Street Winter Haven, FL 33881–1438
San Francisco, CA 94595
Mark Hebb
Cheryl Gross, Environmental Specialist Dept. Of Agriculture & Consumer Svcs.
Sarasota County Health Department Forestry Division
Environmental Engineering 5745 S. Elm Avenue
Box 2658 Lakeland, FL 33813
Sarasota, FL 34230
Dr. Jorge Hendrichs
Guadalupe-Coyote International Atomic Energy Agency
Resource Conservation District Post Office 200
888 North First Street, Room 204 Wagramerstrasse 5
San Jose, CA 95112 Vienna, Austria A–1030
Arthur Hackett Kevin Herglotz, Assistant Secretary

10109 Lake Cove Lane State of California
Tampa, FL 33618 Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Svcs.
Department of Public Affairs
P. R. Hamilton, President 1220 N Street, Room 100
Lykes Brothers, Incorporated Sacramento, CA 95814
7 Lykes Road
Lake Placid, FL 33852 Julian B. Heron, Jr.
Senior Partner
Tuttle, Taylor, & Heron
1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW

John Himmelberg Dr. Pandora Hopkins
O’Connor and Hannan 181 Midwood Street
1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 500 Brooklyn, NY 11225
Washington, DC 20006–2803
Paul Hornig
Marjorie Hodgen USDA, APHIS, PPQ
318 Kelsey Way 207 NW 23rd Street
Sun City Center, FL 33572 Gainesville, FL 32609
Shelia Hogan Dr. Laurie Houck

106½ B E Flora Research Plant Pathologist
Tampa, FL 33604 USDA, ARS, HCRL
2021 S. Peach Avenue
Tim Holler, Station Head Fresno, CA 93727
USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Caribfly Station Francis G. Howarth
1913 SW 34th St. Research Entomologist
Doyle Conner Bldg. Bishop Museum
Gainesville, FL 32608 Department of Natural Sciences
1525 Bernice Street
Elaine Holmes Honolulu, HI 96817
12410 Oakleaf Avenue
Tampa, FL 33612 Sabrina Hu
14830 Oak Vine Drive
Kenneth W. Holt Lutz, FL 33549
Special Programs Group
National Center for Environmental Health B. T. Hunter
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Consumers Research, Inc.
4770 Buford Highway, NE RFD 1, Box 223
Atlanta, GA 30341 Hillsboro, NH 03244
Dawn Holzer, PPQO Lisabeth Hush, Director

USDA, APHIS, PPQ Law CAVS
Utah State University 12360 Riverside Drive, Unit 119
UMC–5305 Valley Village, CA 91607
Logan, UT 84322
Richard Hyman
Bettye Honeywell P.O. Box 1214
3911 W. Spruce Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Tampa, FL 33607
Virtue Ishihara
Ida Honorof University High School
1275 Idyllwild Lane 11800 Texas Avenue
Fortuna, CA 95540 Los Angeles, CA 90025

A. Izquierdo Johnson Smith Company
1432 Four Seasons Blvd. 4514 19th Street Court East
Tampa, FL 33613 P.O. Box 25600 Dept. JV9809
Bradenton, FL 34206–5600
George R. Jacko
2575 N. Courtenay parkway Leri Johnson
Merritt Island, FL 32953 2311 11th Avenue, SE
Ruskin, FL 33570–5403
Drexel Jackson
5212 81st Street S. Dr. Larry Johnston
Tampa, FL 33619 Health Awareness Center
65 E. First Avenue, Suite 101
Fred Jackson, Associate Director Mesa, AZ 85210
Tetra Tech, Incorporated
5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 900 Robert G. Kahl
Falls Church, VA 22041 2826 N. Ralph Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85712–1635
George Jackson
2575 N. Courtenay Parkway K. Kampfe
Merritt Island, FL 32953 3313 Pine Run
Lutz, FL 33549
Jerry Jackson
633 N. Orange Avenue Kenneth Y. Kaneshiro, Director
Orlando, FL 32801 University of Hawaii
Center for Conservation, Research
Michael Jacus & Training
6023 26th Street, West 3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 409
Bradenton, FL 34205 Honolulu, HI 96822
Terry Jaffe Guy Karr

1808 E. Curtis Street Plant Pest Administrator
Tampa, FL 33610 State of Alabama, Dept. of Ag.
Plant Protection Section
Debbie Jan P.O. Box 3336
c/o Public Health Library Montgomery, AL 36109
University of CA Berkeley
42 Warren Hall # 7360 Dr. David Kellum
Berkeley, CA 94720–7360 Senior Economic Entomologist
County of San Diego
Cheriel Jensen Dept. of Ag., Weights, & Measure
13737 Qulto Road 5555 Overland Avenue, Bldg. 3
Saratoga, CA 95070 San Diego, CA 92123

Diane Kelly L. Kosta
P.O. Box 266 3609 Kemp Drive
Clinton, LA 70722 Endwell, NY 13760
Steve Kent Paul Krzych, Researcher

Tree of Life Nursery Dynamac Corporation
3805 E. County Line Road 2275 Research Boulevard, Suite 500
Cutz, FL 33549 Rockville, MD 20850
Kenneth V. King, Jr., President Fred Krauthamer

Human Ecology Action League of MS 501 Ladera Street
1050 B-2 North Flowood Drive Monterey Park, CA 91754
Jackson, MS 39208
Joel Kupferman
Richard Kinney NY Environmental Law and Justice
Executive Vice President 315 Broadway Suite 200
Florida Citrus Packers New York, NY 10007–1121
P.O. Box 1113
Lakeland, FL 33802 Mary Lamielle, Director
National Center for Environmental
John Kinsella Health Strategies, Inc.
USDA, APHIS 1100 Rural Avenue
2568-A Riva Road Voorhees, NJ 08043
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mark Lappé
Dot Kivett P.O. Box 673
Pesticide Network Gualala, CA 95445
1385 Cherry Street
Denver, CO 80220 George Latshaw
1211 Horsemint Lane
Michael W. Klaus, Project Entomologist Wesley Chapel, FL 33543
Washington State Dept. of Agriculture
Laboratory Services Division Patricia H. Latshaw
21 North 1st Avenue, Suite 103 1211 Horsemint Lane
Yakima, WA 98902 Wesley Chapel, FL 33543
Joan Koehler Cynthia Laurence

State of Florida 6719 Elm Court
Division of Forestry Tampa, FL 33610
8431 S. Orange Blossom Trail
Orlando, FL 32809 Andy LaVigne
P.O. Box 9326
Winter Haven, FL 33883

Patricia A. Lawes Victor Magistrale, Ph.D.
4101 Illiad Court 207 Oaklawn Avenue
Tampa, FL 33613 South Pasadena, CA 91030
Dana G. Leavengood Robert L. Mangan, Research Leader

3207 San Jose Street USDA, ARS
Tampa, FL 33629 Crop Quality & Fruit Insects Research
2301 S. International Boulevard
Lee Lester Weslaco, TX 78596
Lester Brothers Orchards
2520 Lansford Avenue Callie Manning
San Jose, CA 95125 2524 W. North Street
Tampa, FL 33614–4251
Jordan Lewis
Hillsborough County Health Dept. Betsy Manning-Russell
P.O. Box 5135 P.O. Box 640472
Tampa, FL 33675 San Francisco, CA 94164–0472
D.A. Lindquist Dolly Marcell

Friedlg. 25/2 224 Pollard Ave.
A–1190 Vienna New Iberia, LA 70563
Austria
A.G. & Mary Martinez
Alicia G. Lopez 908 W. Virginia Ave.
2521 Ridgeland Road Tampa, FL 33603
Torrance, CA 90505
Marco A. Martinez
Patricia A. Lowes Agriculture Counselor
4101 Illiad Court Embassy of Mexico
Tampa, FL 33613 1911 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dr. Benet Luchion
Committee for Universal Security Rick Martinez
Zero Tolerance Toxic P.O. Box 261496
1095–A Smith Grade Road Tampa, FL 33685
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Ann D. Mason
C. Brian Maddix 2290 Clematis Street
Director, Government Relations Sarasota, FL 34239
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
1540 E. Shaw Avenue, Suite 120
Fresno, CA 93710

Robert McCarty Drs. Lee & Jacqueline Miller
State Entomologist Florida Museum of Natural History
State of Mississippi 3621 Bay Shore Road
Department of Agriculture Sarasota, FL 34234
P.O. Box 5207
Mississippi State, MS 39762 Peter Miller
Veterinary Counsellor
Stephen A. McFadden Embassy of Australia
PMB 608 1601 Massachusetts Avenue
5521 Greenville Ave. Unit 149 Washington, DC 20086
Dallas, TX 75206
T.A. Miller, Professor
Bobby McKown University of CA
Executive Vice President Department of Entomology
Florida Citrus Mutual Riverside, CA 92521
P.O. Box 89
Lakeland, FL 33802 Leaf Monroe
Public Health Nurse
Susan McMillan 455 S. Ventu Park Road
3311 46th Plaza, East Newbury Park, CA 91320
Bradenton, FL 34203
Pablo J. Montoya Gerardo
Tammy L. Mee Desarrollo De Metodos
PMB 106 2a Av. Sur N 5 Altos 3 Col. Centro
2780 E. Fowler AP. Postal
Tampa, FL 33612 Tapachula, Chiapas 30700
Hilary Melcarek David Moore

NCAMP 601 Winham Street
701 E Street, SE Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33619
J.E. Moore, Co-Director
H.W. Melton W. Montana Chemical Injury Support Group
903 S. Knollwood Street HC 75 Box 100
Tampa, FL 33604 Kooskia, ID 83539
Carole Mihlman Donna Morris

9863 Bridgeton Drive Wildlife Center
Tampa, FL 33926 P.O. Box 1087
Weirsdale, FL 32195

Dick Mount Joel Nelson
Executive Vice President 512 N. Kaweah Avenue
Associated Produce Dealers & Brokers Exeter, CA 93221
1601 E. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 312
Los Angeles, CA 90021 Valene Nera, Director
California Chamber of Commerce
Ralph Muereey P.O. Box 1736
Dept. of Agric. & Consumer Svcs. Sacramento, CA 95812
1221 Turner Street Lee Newport
Clearwater, FL 34616 USDA, APHIS, PPQ
207 NW 23rd Avenue
Dr. K. Darwin Murrell Gainesville, FL 32609
Deputy Adm., National Program Staff
Agricultural Research Service John Nichols
BARC–W, Building 005 USDA, APHIS, IS
Beltsville, MD 20705 4700 River Road Unit 65
Riverdale, MD 20737
Steve Musick, Manager
TX Natural Resource Conservation Comm. Dr. Shashank Nilakhe
P.O. Box 13087 Director, Agri-Systems Programs
Austin, TX 78711 Texas Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 12847
Stephanie Nash Austin, TX 78711
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive Room 400 Northwest Coalition for
Arlington, VA 22203 Alternatives to Pesticides
P.O. Box 1393
National Coalition Against Eugene, OR 97440
Misuse of Pesticides
701 E. Street, SE., Suite 200 Paul Norton
Washington, DC 20003 Florida Tropical Fish Farms
P.O. Box 366
Bob Nelson Ruskin, FL 33570
The Times
1000 N. Ashley Drive Judy Nothdurft
Tampa, FL 33602 Dade County
33 SW Second Avenue
Hannah Nelson Miami, FL 33130
2508 Hanna Avenue, #301
Tampa, FL 33610

William Oesteriein Susan Pitman
Deputy Agri. Commissioner Network Coordinator
County of Riverside Chemical Connection
Agricultural Commissioner's Office Public Health Network of
4080 Lemon Street, Room 19 Texans Sensitive to Chemicals
Riverside, CA 92502 P.O. Box 26152
Austin, TX 78755
Charles R. Orman
Director, Science & Technology Lawrence A. Plumlee
Sunkist Growers, Incorporated National Coalition for the
760 E. Sunkist Street Chemically Injured
Ontario, CA 91761 5717 Beech Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20817
Rita P. Osborn
HEAL of Tampa Bay Joe Podgor
929 48th Avenue, North 244 Westward Drive
St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Miami Springs, FL 33166
Sharon Parker Fred D. Poplin

U F L A – AM 6403 Berkshire Place
4002 Gandy Blvd. University Park, FL 34201
Tampa, FL 33611
April Post
Major Michael B. Parlor 6 Kanden Court
U.S. Marine Corps Nevato, CA 94947
P.O. Box 568
Tustin, CA 92781 Diana Post, DVM
Executive Director
Deborah Peckitt Rachel Carson Council
1620 Lawrence Road 8940 Jones Mill Road
Danville, CA 94506 Bethesda, MD 20815
Tammie Peddie, Staff Assistant Sydney & Thalia Potter

Representative Jim Davis’ Office 6404 Otis Avenue
3315 Henderson Blvd. Tampa, FL 33604
Tampa, FL 33609
Nina Powers, Horticulturist
Mattie Peterson Sarasota County Government
6023 26th Street, West General Services Department
Bradenton, FL 34205 Facilities Maintenance Division
4730 17th Street
Ray Pineda Sarasota, FL 34235
1313 W. Burger Street
Tampa, FL 33604

David Prather, Director J. C. Roberts
SOMA 7602 Lakeside Blvd.
1202 Las Arenas Way Tampa, FL 33614–3464
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
John Robertson
William C. Quenan, Jr. P.O. Box 533
10321 Bluefield Court Elfers, FL 34680
Thonotosassa, FL 33592
Dr. Alan Robinson
Danny Raulerson Entomology Unit, NAAL, FAO
Florida Farm Bureau c/o International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O. Box 147030 Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100
Gainesville, FL 32614 A–1400 Vienna, Austria
Europe
Scott Rawlins
Commodity Policy & Program Specialist Nancy Robinson
American Farm Bureau Federation HEAL of Tampa Bay
225 Touhy Avenue 929 48th Avenue, North
Park Ridge, IL 60068 St. Petersburg, FL 33703
Dave Rice Kathleen Rodgers, Associate Professor

OEHHA/PPS University of California
301 Capitol Mall Room 205 Liv. Research
Sacramento, CA 95814 1321 N. Mission Road
Los Angeles, CA 90033
Charles Riemenschneider
Director, Liaison Office for North America Jose De J. Rodriguez
Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN Animal Pest Control Spec.
2175 K Street, NW., Suite 300 State of California
Washington, DC 20437 Department of Food & Agriculture
2845 State Street
Connie Riherd, Assistant Director Corona, CA 91719
Florida Dept. of Agriculture &
Consumer Services Dan Rosenblatt
Division of Plant Industry Federal Activities Liaison
P.O. Box 147100 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gainesville, FL 32614-7100 401 M Street, SW
Mail Stop A-104
Madeline Rivera Washington, DC 20460
5541 N. Mica Mountain Drive
Tucson, AZ 85750 Sandra Ross, President
Health & Habitat
70 Lee Street
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Vernetta Ross Mary Elizabeth Schipke
2307 E. Columbus Drive Founder/Acting Director
Tampa, FL 33605 Parents Council for Family Rights
P.O. Box 8324
William Routhier, Area Manager Catalina, AZ 85739
State of California
Department of Food & Agriculture Mark Schleifstein
Pest Detection & Emergency Proj. Environment Writer
7845 Lemon Grove Way Times-Picayane
Lemon Grove, CA 991945 3800 Howard Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70140
Hally Rubin
4104 Hollow Trail Drive Fred C. Schmidt
Tampa, FL 33627 Government Documents Specialist
Colorado State University Libraries
Daniel L. Santangelo 122 Morgan
Executive Director Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Florida Department of Citrus
P.O. Box 148 Garry Schneider
Lakeland, FL 33802 State of Florida
Orange County Health Dept.
Tammy Sassin 832 W. Central Blvd.
5706 Ruthledge Place Orlando, FL 32802
Tampa, FL 33647
Mike Schneider
Jacob Sagiv Associated Press
Minister-Counsellor P.O. Box 2831
Embassy of Israel Orlando, FL 32801
3514 International Drive, NW
Washington, DC 20008 H. Joseph Sekerke, Jr.
Toxicologist, State of Florida
Samuel Santiago Department of Health
USDA, APHIS Bureau of Environmental Toxicology
2568–A Riva Road 1317 Winewood Boulevard (HSET)
Annapolis, MD 21401 Tallahassee, FL 32399
Jim Schieferle, Manager Barbara Senise

Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association 7103 Coarsey Drive
P.O. Box 635 Tampa, FL 33604
Fillmore, CA 93016
Bruce V. Sewell
4005 Highgate Drive
Valrico, FL 33594

Omar Shafey, Ph.D. David B. Smith
Pesticide Poisoning Surveillance Program 3013 Mason Place
Florida Department of Health Tampa, FL 33629
2020 Capital Circle, SE
Tallahassee, FL 32399–1712 Terrie Smith
145 Country Club Drive
Michael J. Shannon Tampa, FL 33612
Florida State Plant Health Director
USDA, APHIS, PPQ Barry Smits
7022 NW 10th Place 3215 E. Fern
Gainesville, FL 32605-3147 Tampa, FL 33610
Onell Soto
Jerome B. Siebert 1325 G Street, NW Suite 250
Cooperative Extension Specialist Washington, DC 20005
University of California, Berkeley
338 Giannini Hall, Room 3310 Leon Spaugy, Director
Berkeley, CA 94720 County of Los Angeles
Dept. of Agriculture Commissioner
Richard & Lora Sigler Weights and Measures
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 3400 La Madera Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90048 El Monte, CA 91732
Robert Simon, Ph. D. Eric Staats, Reporter

Environmental & Toxicology Intl. Naples Daily News
11244 Waples Mill Road Suite H–2 1075 Central Avenue
Fairfax, VA 22030 Naples, FL 34102
Dr. Wayne Sinclair Robert Staten

3036 20th Street Phoenix Methods Development Center
Velo Beach, FL 32960 4125 East Broadway
Phoenix, AZ 85040
John Sivinski, Research Entomologist
Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Jasmine Star
Veterinary Entomology P.O. Box 87
P.O. Box 14565 Government Camp, OR 97028–0087
Gainesville, FL 32605
Jamie Starr
B. W. Skinner, President 2526 Habana
Air Sal, Inc. Tampa, FL 33618
14359 SW 127th Street
Miami, FL 33186 Julie Sternfels
9313 Forest Hills Drive
Tampa, FL 33617

Debbie Stewart Kathleen Thuner, Agricultural
USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commissioner
3505 25th Avenue, Building 1 San Diego Co. Dept. of Agriculture
Gulfport, MS 49601 5555 Overland Avenue Bldg. # 3
San Diego, CA 92123
John C. Stewart
Medfly Program Co-Director Dr. Tom Tiedt
USDA, APHIS, IS, Region VII P.O. Box 422
Unit 3319 Long Boat Key, FL 34228
APO AA 34024-3319
Miami, FL 34024 Cynthia Tobias
Post Office Box 18645
Oliver Stewart Tucson, AZ 85731
3831 Hudson Lane
Tampa, FL 33624 A. Thomas Tomerlin
University of Florida
Joan Strauman Food and Resource Economics Dept.
219 W. Linebaugh P.O. Box 110240
Tampa, FL 33612 Gainesville, FL 32611-0240
Michael J. Stuart, President Bill Toth

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Orange County Health Dept.
4401 E. Colonial Drive 604 Courtland Road
Orlando, FL 32814 Orlando, FL 32804
Wilma Subra, President Ruth Troetschler, Chairman

Subra Company Pesticide Task Force
P.O. Box 9813 Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
New Iberia, LA 70562 184 Lockhart Lane
Los Altos, CA 84022
Charles H. Svec, President
Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp. Maria Trunk
P.O. Box 333 Brooks Tropicals
Hanover, PA 17333 P.O. Box 900160
Homestead, FL 33090
Al Thornton
Pinellas County Health Dept. Roy E. Tuckman, Producer
12420 130th Avenue, North Pacifica-KPFK
Largo, FL 33778 3729 Cahuenga Boulevard, West
North Hollywood, CA 91604
Patricia Turner
17817 Deerfield Drive
Lutz, FL 33549

Gordon Tween Mary Ann Walters
USDA, APHIS, IS 918 Alpine Drive
Sierra Nevada 115 Brandon, FL 33510
Lomas de Chapultepec
Delegation of Miguel Hidalgo Laura Ward
Mexico, D.F. 11000 413 Critchell Terrace
Madison, WI 53711
Director, U.S. Department of the Interior
Ofc. of Environmental Policy Annie Waterman, Secretary
& Compliance Action Now
Main Interior Building, MS 2340 2219 W. Olive Avenue, # 254
1849 C Street, NW Burbank, CA 91506
Marsha Weaver
Dr. Roger I. Vagas 4109 Nassau Street
USDA, ARS, TFV & OCRL Tampa. FL 33607
P.O. Box 4459, Stainback Highway
Hilo, HI 96720 W.E. Weber
1701 Pinehurst Road
Albert M. Valentine Dunedin, FL 34698
A1610 Hacienda Court A–208
Ybor City, FL 33605 Laura Weinberg
49 Somerset Drive South
Dr. Ken Vick Great Neck, NY 11020
USDA, ARS
BARC–W, Building 005 Minnie Wiggins
Beltsville, MD 20705 6708 Elm Court
Tampa, FL 33610
Alice von Suskil, Chairman
City of Miami Springs Ecology Board Barbara Williams
201 Westward Drive 7907 Beasley Road
Miami Springs, FL 33166 Tampa, FL 33615
J.A.W., Jr. Linda Wilson

1305 Hatch Place Chemical Injury Information Network
Valrico, FL 33594 120 Village Green Circle
Summerville, SC 29483
Dr. Sheldon L. Wagner
Professor, Clinical Toxicology Lyle Wong, Administrator
Oregon State University State of Hawaii
1007 AG & Life Sciences Building Department of Agriculture
Corvallis, OR 97331 Plant Industry Division
1429 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814

Patricia Wood
21 Prospect Avenue
Port Washington, NY 11050
World Research Foundation

20501 Ventura Blvd. Suite 100
Woodland Hills, CA 91364–2350
JoAnn Wren
7107 N. Howard Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604
Robert L. Wynn, Jr.

Director, State of California
Dept. of Food & Agriculture
1220 N Street, Room A-316
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rufus C. Young, Jr., Attorney

Burke, Williams & Sorensen
611 West Sixth Street, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Doretta Zemp
9631 Oak Pass Road
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Rudi Zubere
400 Canal Street, Unit 329
San Rafael, CA 94901


Appendix H. References
Abe, S., and Sasaki, M., 1982. SCE as an index of mutagenesis and/or carcinogenesis. In Sister
Chromatid Exchange, pp. 461–514. Alan R. Liss, New York.
ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 1992. 1991–1992

Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure
indices. Cincinnati, OH.
Adan, A., Del Estal, P., Budia, F., Gonzalez, M., and Vinuela, E., 1996. Laboratory evaluation
of the novel naturally derived compound spinosad against Ceratitis capitata. Pesticide Sci.
48:261–268.
Agrochemicals Handbook, 1990. On-line database. Dialog Information Services, Palo Alto, CA.
Aldridge, W.N., Miles, J.W., Mount, D.L., and Verschoyle, R.D., 1979. The toxicological
properties of impurities in malathion. Arch.Toxicol. 42:95–106.
Alexeeff, G.V. and Kilgore, W.W., 1983. Methyl bromide. Residue Review. 88:101–153.
Anderson, J.P., 1981. Factors influencing insecticide degradation by a soil fungus, Mucor
alterans. Dissert. Abstracts Int. 32(6):3114B–31145B, 1971.
Anger W.K., Moody, L., Burg, J., Brightwell, W.S., Taylor, B.J., Russo, J.M., Dickerson, N.,
Setzer, J.V., Johnson, B.L., and Hicks, K., 1986. Neurobehavioral evaluation of soil and
structural fumigators using methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride. NeuroToxic.
7(3):137–156.
APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Bailey, R.G., 1980. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Misc. Publ. No. 1391, 77 pp.
BAKER—See Baker, J.T., Inc.
Baker, J.T., Inc., 1994. Phloxine B Material Safety Data Sheet, 1994. J.T. Baker Inc.,
Phillipsburg, NJ.
Baker, J.T., Inc., 1994a. Fluorescein, sodium salt. Material Safety Data Sheet, 1994. J.T. Baker
Inc., Phillipsburg, NJ.
Beat, V.B., and Morgan, D.P., 1977. Evaluation of hazards involved in treating cattle with pour-
on organophosphate insecticides. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 170(8):812–814.
Appendix H. References H–1

Behrens, R.H., and Dukes, C.D., 1986. Fatal methyl bromide poisoning. Brit. Ind. Med.
43:561–562.
Bollen, W.B., 1961. Interactions between insecticides and soil microorganisms. Ann. Rev.
Microbiol. 15:69–92.
Boorman, G.A., Hong, H.L., Jameson, C.W., Yoshitomi, K., and Maronpot, R.R., 1986.
Regression of methyl bromide-induced forestomach lesions in the rat. Toxicol. Applied
Pharmacol. 86:131–139.
Borth, P.W., McCall, P.J., Bischoff, R.F., and Thompson, G.D., 1996. The environmental and
mammalian safety profile of Naturalyte insect control. In 1996 Procs., Beltwide Cotton
Conf., Nashville, TN, p. 690–692. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.
Bowman, M.C., Leuck, D.B., Johnson, J.C., and Knox, F.E., 1970. Residues of fenthion in corn
silage and effects of feeding dairy cows the treated silage. J. Econ. Entomol.
63(5):1523–1528.
Brady. R.F., Tobias, T., Eagles, P.F.J., Ohrner, R., Micak, J., Veale, B., and Dorner, R.S., 1979.
A typology for the urban ecosystem and its relationship to larger biogeographical landscape
units. Urban Ecol. 4:11–28.
Branham, B.E., and Wehner, D.J., 1985. The fate of diazinon applied to thatched turf. Agron.J.
77:101–104.
Broome, J.R., Callaham, M.F., and Heitz, J.R., 1975. Xanthene dye-sensitized photooxidation in
the black imported fire ant, Solenopsis richteri. Environ.Entomol. 4(6):883–886.
Brown, D.E., Lowe, C.H., and Pase, C.P., 1977. Biotic communities of the Southwest. U.S.
Dept. of Agric., General Technical Rep. RM–41, 342 pp.
Brown, M.A., Petreas, M.X., Okamoto, H.S., Mischke, T.M., and Stephens, R.D., 1991. Pilot
study for the environmental monitoring of malathion, malathion impurities and their
environmental transformation products on surfaces and in air during and after an aerial
application in Garden Grove, California, in May of 1990. California Department of Health
Services, Hazardous Materials Laboratory.
Brown, M.A., Petreas, M.X., Okamoto, H.S., Mischke, T.M., and Stephens, R.D., 1993.
Monitoring of malathion and its impurities and environmental transformation products on
surfaces and in air following an aerial application. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(2):388–397.
Burkhard, N., and Guth, J.A., 1981. Rate of volatilization of pesticides from soil surfaces:
Comparison of calculated results with those determined in a laboratory model system.
Pest.Sci. 12:37–44.
H–2 Appendix H. References

Burkhard, N., and Guth, J.A., 1979. Photolysis of organophosphorus insecticides on soil
surfaces. Pest.Sci. 10:313–319.
Calabrese, E.J., 1978. Pollutants and high-risk groups. The biological basis of increased human
susceptibility to environmental and occupational pollutants. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Calabrese, E.J., 1984. Ecogenetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Callaham, M.F., Broome, J.R., Lindig, O.H., and Heitz, J.R., 1975. Dye-sensitized
photooxidation reactions in the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. Environ.Entomol.
4(5):837–841.
Callaham, M.F., Lewis, L.A., Holloman, M.E., Broome, J.R., and Heitz, J.R., 1975a. Inhibition
of the acetylcholinesterase from the imported fire ant, Solenopsis richteri (Forel), by dye-
sensitized photooxidation. Comp.Biochem.Physiol. 51C:123–128.
Carpenter, T.L., Johnson, L.H., Mundie, T.G., and J.R. Heitz, 1984. Joint toxicity of xanthene
dyes to the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 77:308–312.
Casterline, J.L., Jr., and Williams, C.H., 1969. Effect of pesticide administration upon esterase
activities in serum and tissue of rats fed variable casein diets. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
14:266–275.
Cavagna, G., Locati, G., and Vigliani, E.C., 1969. Clinical effects of exposure to DDVP
(Vapona) insecticide in hospital wards. Arch. Environ. Hlth. 19:112–123.
CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture), 1991. Environmental Monitoring of

Malathion Aerial Applications Used to Eradicate Mediterranean Fruit Flies in Southern
California. EH–91–3. Sacramento, CA.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 1982. Impact on fish and wildlife from
broadscale aerial malathion applications in south San Francisco bay region, 1981,
Administrative Report 82–2. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental
Services Branch, Sacramento, CA.
CDHS (California Department of Health Services), 1991. Health Risk Assessment of Aerial
Application of Malathion-Bait. CDHS, Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Section,
Berkeley, CA.
CEQ—See Council on Environmental Quality
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1983. Chloropyrifos: Tolerances for residues.

40 CFR 180.342.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1986. O,O-diethyl O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl)
phosphorothioate: Tolerances for residues. 40 CFR 180.153: 303–304.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1987. Tolerances for Pesticides in Food: Administered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 21 CFR 193.260: Malathion.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1988. Tolerances and exemptions for Pesticide Chemicals
in or on Raw Agricultural Commodities: Malathion; Tolerances for residues. 40 CFR
180.111.
CHEMHAZIS—See Chemical Hazard Information System.
Chemical Hazard Information System, 1994. Uranine. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Clark, J.R., Borthwick, P.W., Goodman, L.R., Patrick, J.M., Jr., Lores, E.M., and Moore, J.C.,
1987a. Comparison of laboratory toxicity test results with responses of estuarine animals
exposed to fenthion in the field. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:151–160.
Clement, S.L., Schmidt, R.S., Szatmari-Goodman, G., and Levine, E., 1980. Activity of
xanthene dyes against black cutworm larvae. J.Econ.Entomol. 73:390–392.
Cohen, S.D., and Ehrich, M., 1976. Cholinesterase and carboxylesterase inhibition by dichlorvos
and interactions with malathion and triorthotolyl phosphate. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol.
37:39–48.
Cohen, S.D., and Murphy, S.D., 1970. Comparative potentiation of malathion by triorthotolyl
phosphate in four classes of vertebrates. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 16:701–708.
Council on Environmental Quality, 1972. Integrated pest management. November 1972.

Washington, DC.
Dahlsten, D.L., Hoy, J.B., Rowney, D.L., Hoelmer, K.A., Wilson, M., Daane, K.M., Copper,
W.A., Weber, D.C., Caltagirone, L.E., Clair, D.J., and Marcandier, S., 1985. Effects of
malathion bait spray for Mediterranean fruit fly on non-target organisms on urban trees in
northern California. Final progress report to California Department of Food and Agriculture,
Agreement No. 1781. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Danse, L.H.J.C., Van Velsen, F.L., and van der Heijden, C.A., 1984. Methylbromide:
carcinogenic effects in the rat forestomach. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 72:262–271.
Davies, D.B., and Holub, B.J., 1980. Toxicological evaluation of dietary diazinon in the rat.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 9:637–650.

Davis, F.M., R.A. Leonard and Knisel, W.G., 1990. GLEAMS: Users Manual. Version 1.8.55.
USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, Tifton, GA.
Desi, I., G. Dura, L. Nczi, Z. Kneffel, A. Strohmayer and Szabo, Z., 1976. Toxicity of
malathion to mammals, aquatic organisms and tissue culture cells. Arch. Environ. Contam.
and Toxicol. 3(4): 410–425
Desi, I., Varga, L., and Farkas, I., 1978. Studies on the immunosuppressive effect of
organochlorine and organophosphoric pesticides in subacute experiments.
J.Hyg.Epidemiol.Microbiol. Immunol. 22(1):115–122.
Dow AgroSciences, 1998. Material Safety Data Sheet: Tracer® Naturalyte insect control. Dow
AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN.
Dowell, R.V., 1996. Laboratory toxicity of a photo activated dye mixture to six species of
beneficial insects. Galley proofs submitted to: Journal of Applied Entomology.
Ehler, L.W., and Endicott, P.C., 1984. Effect of malathion-bait sprays on biological control of
insect pests of olive, citrus, and walnut. Hilgardia 52(5):1–47.
El-Refai, A., and Hopkins, T.L., 1972. Malathion adsorption, translocation, and conversion to
malaoxon in bean plants. Assoc. Off.Anal.Chemists J. 55(3):526–531.
EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/ECAO—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Criteria and

Assessment Office.
EPA/ODW—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Drinking Water.
EPA/OERR—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response.
EPA/OHEA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Health and Environmental

Assessment.
EPA/OPP—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs.
EPA, OPTS—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.
EPA, ORD—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development.
EPA/OTS—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Toxic Substances.

Felsot, A. and Dahm, P.A., 1979. Sorption of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides by
soil. J Agric. Food Chem. 27: 557–563.
Fondren, J.E., Jr., and Heitz, J.R., 1979. Dye-sensitized house fly toxicity produced as a function
of variable light sources. Environ.Entomol. 8:432–436.
Fondren, J.E., Jr., and Heitz, J.R., 1978. Xanthene dye induced toxicity in the adult face fly,
Musca autumnalis. Environ.Entomol. 7:843–846.
Fujie, K., Aoki, T., and Wada, M., 1990. Acute and subacute cytogenic effects of the
trihalomethanes on rat bone marrow cells in vivo. Mutat. Res. 242:111–119.
Fukuto, T.R., 1983. Toxicological properties of trialkyl phosphorothioate and dialkyl, alkyl- and
arylphosphorothioate esters. J.Environ.Sci. Health B 18:89–117.
Gaines, T.B., 1960. The acute toxicity of pesticides to rats. Toxicol.Appl. Pharmacol. 2:88–99.
Garretson, A.L., and San Clemente, C.L., 1968. Inhibition of nitrifying chemolithotrophic
bacteria by several insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 61(1):285–288.
Garry, V.F., Nelson, R.L., Griffith, J., and Harkins, M., 1990. Preparation for human study of
peticide applicators: Sister chromatid exchanges and chromosomal aberrations in cultured
human lymphocytes exposed to selected fumigants. Terat. Carcin. Mutag. 10:21–29.
Gary, N.E., and Mussen, E.C., 1984. Impact of Mediterranean fruit fly malathion bait spray on
honey bees. Environ. Entomol. 13:711–717.
Gay, H.H., 1962. Blood and urinary levels following exposure to bromides. Ind. Med. Surg.
31:438–439.
Getzin, L.W., 1967. Metabolism of diazinon and zinophos in soils. J.Econ.Entomol.

60(2):505–508.
Getzin, L.W., and Rosefield, I., 1966. Persistence of diazinon and zinophos in soils.
J.Econ.Entomol. 59(3):512–516.
Getzin, L.W., 1968. Persistence of diazinon and zinophos in soil: Effects of autoclaving,
temperature, moisture, and acidity. J.Econ.Entomol. 61(6):1560–1565.
Giles, R.H., Jr., 1970. The ecology of a small forested watershed treated with the insecticide
malathion—S25. Wildlife Monograph No. 24.

Glotfelty, D.E., Schomburg, C.J., McChesney, M.M., Sagebiel, J.C., and Seiber, J.N., 1990.
Studies of the distribution, drift, and volatilization of diazinon resulting from spray
application to a dormant peach orchard. Chemosphere 21(10–11):1303–1314.
Gosselin, M.D., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge and Braddock, J.E., 1984. Clinical Toxicology of
Commercial Products, 5th ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, 1989. Material safety Data sheet, Meth-O-Gas, Meth-O-Gas
100. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.
Griffin, D.E., III, and Hill, W.E., 1978. In-vitro breakage of plasmid DNA by mutagens and
pesticides. Mutat.Res. 52:161–169.
Hale, K.A., and Portwood, D.E., 1996. The aerobic soil degradation of spinosad—a novel
natural insect control agent. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. B31(3):477–484.
Hansen, W.H., Fitzhugh, O.G., and Williams, M.W., 1958. Subacute oral toxicity of nine D and
C coal-tar colors. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Threap. 122:29A.
Hardin, B.D., Bond, G.P., Sikov, M.R., Andrew, F.D., Beliles, R.P., and Niemeier, R.W., 1981.
Testing of selected workplace chemicals for teratogenic potential. Scand. J. Work Environ
Health. 7 suppl 4:66–75.
Hayes, W.J., Jr., and Laws, E.R., Jr., eds., 1991. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Academic
Press, New York 3 vols. 1576 pp.
Hazardous Substances Database, 1991. On-line database. National Library of Medicine,

Bethesda, MD.
Hazardous Substances Database, 1990. On-line database. National Library of Medicine,

Bethesda, MD.
Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., 1969. Report to Toilet Goods Association, Inc: Repeated dermal
applications—Mice. Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., Falls Church, VA.
Heitz, J.R., 1982. Xanthene dyes as pesticides. In Insecticide mode of action. Academic Press,
Inc., New York.
Heitz, J.R., and Wilson, W.W., 1978. Photodegradation of halolgenated xanthene dyes. In
Kennedy, M.V., ed., Disposal and decontamination of pesticides. pp. 35–48. ACS Press,
Washington, DC.
Honma, T., Miyagawa, M., Sato, M., and Hasegawa, H., 1985. Neurotoxicity and metabolism of
methyl bromide in rats. Toxicol. and Applied Pharm. 81:183–191.

Horvath, L., 1982. Persistence of organophosphorus pesticides in aquatic environments.
Coordinated programme on isotope-tracer-aided research and monitoring on agricultural
residue-biological interactions in aquatic environment. Final report for the period 1 July
1976 to 31 July 1982. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Hurtt, M.E., and Working, P.K., 1988. Evaluation of Spermatogenesis and sperm quality in the
rat following acute inhalation exposure to methyl bromide. Fundamental and Applied
Toxicol. 10:490–498.
Ichinohe, F., Hashimoto, T., and Nakasone, S., 1977. Faunal survey of insects and spiders killed
by protein hydrolysate insecticide bait for control of melon fly. Res, Bull. Pl. Prot. Japan.
14:64–70.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., 1965a. Report to Toilet Goods Association, Inc: Two-
year chronic oral toxicity of D&C Red 27—Beagle dogs. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories,
Inc., Northbrook, IL.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., 1965b. Report to Toilet Goods Association, Inc: Two-
year chronic oral toxicity of D&C Red 27—Albino rats. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories,
Inc., Northbrook, IL.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., 1962a. Report to Toilet Goods Association, Inc: Acute
oral toxicity studies on four materials—Albino rats. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.,
Northbrook, IL.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., 1962b. Report to Toilet Goods Association, Inc: Acute
oral toxicity studies on four materials—Dogs. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.,
Northbrook, IL.
Iwasaki, M., Yoshida, M., Ikeda, T., Tsuda, S., and Shirasu. Y., 1988. Comparison of whole-
body versus snout-only exposure in inhalation toxicity of fenthion. Japan. J. Vet. Sci.
50(1):23–30.
Jenkins, D., Klein, S.A., Yang, M.S., Wagenet, R.J., and Biggar, J.W., 1978. The accumulation,
translocation, and degradation of biocides at land disposal sites: The fate of malathion,
carbaryl, diazinon, 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester. Water Res. 12:713–723.
Johansen, C.A., 1977. Pesticides and pollinators. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 22:177–192.
Kahn, E., Berlin, M., Deane, M., Jackson, R.J., and Stratton, J.W., 1992. Assessment of acute
health effects from the Medfly eradication project in Santa Clara County, California. Arch.
Environ. Hlth. 47(4):279–284.

Keplinger, M.L., and Deichmann, W.B., 1967. Acute toxicity of combinations of pesticides.
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 10:586–595.
Klaassen, C.D., Amdur, M.O., and Doull, J., 1986. Casarett and Doull's toxicology, the basic
science of poisons, 3rd ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., New York.
Klisenko, M.A., and Pis'mennaya, M.V., 1979. Photochemical conversion of organophosphorus

pesticides in the air. Gig. Tr. Prof. Zabol. 6: 56–58. (Rus.)
Knaak, J.B., and O'Brien, R.D., 1960. Insecticide potentiation: Effect of EPN on in vivo
metabolism of malathion by the rat and dog. J.Agric. Food Chem. 8:198–203.
Kuchler, A.W., 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States.
Am.Geogr.Soc. Spec. Publ. 36., 116 pp.
Labat-Anderson Incorporated, 1992. Fruit fly program chemical background statement diazinon.
Labat-Anderson Incorporated, Arlington, VA.
Labat-Anderson (Labat-Anderson, Inc.), 1992a. Fruit Fly Program Chemical Background

Statement: Malathion. (April 3, Draft).
LAI—See Labat-Anderson.
LaFleur, K.S., 1979. Sorption of pesticides by model soils and agronomic soils: Rates and
equilibria.Soil Sci. 127(2):94–101.
Lavy, T.L., L.A. Norris, J.D. Mattice and Marx, D.B., 1987. Exposure of forestry ground
workers to 2,4-D, picloram and dichlorprop. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 209–224.
Leberco Laboratories, 1965. Report: Safety evaluation on skin of rabbits, D&C Red No. 27.
Lebereco Laboratories, Roselle Park, NJ.
Leberco Laboratories. 1964. Report to Toilet Goods Association: Dermal carcinogenicity study
in mice. Lebereco Laboratories, Roselle Park, NJ.
Li, Q.X., Alcantara-Licudine, J.P., and Wang, L., 1997. Environmental fate of phloxine B and
uranine.(abstract). Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society for Photobiology,
St. Louis, MO, July 5–10, 1997.
Lichtenstein, E.P., Fuhremann, T.W., Scopes, N.E.A., and Skrentny, R.F., 1967. Translocation
of insecticides from soils into pea plants effects of the detergent LAS on translocation and
plant growth. J.Agric. Food Chem. 15(5):864–869.

Lopez, D., Alexander, C., Merchan, M., and Carrascal, E., 1986. In vitro induction of alterations
in peripheral blood lymphocytes by different doses of diazinon.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37:517–522.
Lotti, M. A. Moretto, R. Zoppellari, R. Dainese, N. Rizzuto, and Barusco, G., 1986. Inhibition of
lymphocytic neuropathy target esterase predicts the development of organophosphate-induced
delayed polyneuropathy. Arch. Toxicol. 59: 176–179.
Marking, L.L., 1969. Toxicity of Rhodamine B and Fluorescein sodium to fish and their
compatibility with antimycin A. Prog.Fish-Cult. 31(3):139–142.
Matsumara, F., 1985. Toxicology of insecticides, pp. 77–78, 224–269. Plenum Press,
New York.
McBride, J.R., and Reid, C., 1988. In A guide to wildlife habitats of California. Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, California Fish and Game, Pacific Gas
and Electric, and USDA Forest Service Region 5, p. 142–143.
McElroy, M.B., Salawitch, R.J., and Wofsy, S.C., 1986. Antarctic O3: Chemical mechanisms
for the spring decrease. Geophys. Res. Lett. 13(12):1296–1299.
McEnerney, J.K., Wong, W.P., and Peyman, G.A., 1977. Evaluation of the teratogenicity of
fluorescein sodium. Amer. J. Ophthalmol. 84:847–850.
Meier, E.P., Dennis, W.H., Rosencrance, A.B., Randall, W.F., Cooper, W.J., and Warner, M.C.,
1979. Sulfotepp, a toxic impurity in formulations of diazinon. Bull.Environ.Contam.
Toxicol. 23(1–2):158–164.
Miles, J.R.W., Tu, C.M., and Harris, C.R., 1979. Persistence of eight organophosphorus
insecticides in sterile and non-sterile mineral and organic soils.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 22:312–318.
Mitsumori, K., Maita, K., Kosaka, T., Miyaoka T., and Shirasu, Y., 1990. Two-year oral chronic
toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats of diets fumigated with methyl bromide. Fd. Chem.
Toxic. 28(2):109–119.
Mix, J., 1992. Methyl bromide producers take firm position. Pest Control (April):42–43.
Moeller, H.C. and Rider, J.A., 1962. Plasma and red blood cell cholinesterase activity as
indications of the incipient toxicity of ethyl-p-nitrophenyl thiobenzenephosphate (EPN) and
malathion in human beings. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 4: 123–130.

Murray, D.A.H., and Lloyd, R.J., 1997. The effect of spinosad (Tracer) on arthropod pest and
beneficial populations in Australian cotton. In 1997 Procs., Beltwide Cotton Conf., New
Orleans, LA, p. 1087–1091. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.
Nash, R.G., P.C. Kearney, J.C. Maitlen, C.R. Sell and Fertig, S.N., 1982. Agricultural
Applicators Exposure to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid. In Pesticide residues and
exposures. American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 238. p 119–132.
National Academy of Sciences, 1977. Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 1., National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC.
Neary, D.G., 1985. Fate of pesticides in Florida's forests: An overview of potential impacts on
water quality. Proc. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. 44:18–24.
NCI (National Cancer Institute), 1979. Bioassay of malathion for possible carcinogenicity.
DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 79–174B, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD.
Nigg, H.N., Reinert, J.A., Stamper, J.H., and Fitzpatrick, G.E., 1981. Disappearance of acephate,
methamidophos, and malathion from citrus foliage. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.
26:267–272.
NRC (National Research Council), 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Obersteiner, E.J., and Sharma, R.P., 1976. Cytotoxicity of selected organophosphates in chick
ganglia cell cultures. Fed. Proc. 35:504.
Omernik, J.M., 1986. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis Research Laboratory.
Paris, D.F., and Lewis, D.L., 1973. Chemical and microbial degradation of ten selected
pesticides in aquatic systems. Residue Rev. 45:95–124.
Pascal, D.C., and Neville, M.E., 1976. Chemical and microbial degradation of malaoxon in an
Illinois soil. J.Environ.Qual. 5(4):441–443.
Perry, D., [1993]. Telephone conversation record of Roberta Pohl, USDA, APHIS, BBEP, TSS:
Permit status of experiment using phloxin B/bait spray to control fruit flies on citrus. USDA,
ARS, Beltsville, MD.

Peterson, L.G., Porteous, D.J., Huckaba, R.M., Nead, B.A., Gantz, R.L., Richardson, J.M., and
Thompson, G.D., 1996. The environmental and mammalian safety profile of Naturalyte
insect control. In 1996 Procs., Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN, p. 872–873. National
Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.
Pike, K.S. and Getzin, L.W., 1981. Persistence and movement of chlorpyrifos in sprinkler-
irrigated soil. J Econom. Entomol. 74(4): 385–388.
Pimprikar, G.D., Fondren, J.E., Jr., Greet, D.S., and Heitz, J.R., 1984. Toxicity of xanthene dyes
to larvae of Culex pipiens L. and Aedes triseriatus S. and predatory fish, Gambusia affinis.
Southwest.Entomol. 9(2):218–222.
Prather, M.J., McElroy, M.B., and Wofsy, S.C., 1984. Reductions in ozone at high
concentrations of stratospheric halogens. Nature 312(5991):227–231.
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Database, 1994. Phloxin B. National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Database, 1994a Fluorescein, sodium salt.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Rodgers, K., and Ellefson, D., 1992. Mechanism of the modulation of murine peritoneal cell
function and mast cell degranulation by low doses of malathion. Agents and Action
35(1/2):57–63.
Rodgers, K.E., Leung, N., Imamura, T., and Devens, B.H., 1986. Rapid in vitro screening assay
for immunotoxic effects of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides on the generation
of cytotoxic t-lymphocyte responses. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 26:292–301.
Ross, J., T. Thongsinthusak, H.R. Fong, S. Margetich and Krieger, R., 1990. Measuring
Potential Dermal Transfer or Surface Pesticide Residue Generated from Indoor Fogger Use:
an Interim Report. Sacramento, CA: Division of Pest Management, Worker Health and
Safety Branch, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
Chemosphere 20(3/4) 349–360.
RTECS—See Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Database.
Ryan, D.L., and Fukuto, T.R., 1985. The effect of impurities on the toxicokinetics of malathion
in rats. Pest.Biochem.Physiol. 23:413–424.
Salgado, V.L., Watson, G.B., and Sheets, J.J., 1997. Studies of the mode of action of spinosad,
the active ingredient in Tracer® insect control. In 1997 Procs., Beltwide Cotton Conf.,
New Orleans, LA, p. 1082–1086. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.

Sax, N.I., and Lewis, R.J., 1989. Dangerous properties of industrial materials, 7th ed.,
pp. 544–546. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Sayers, R.R., Yant, W.P., Thomas, B.G.H., and Berger, L.B., 1929. Physiological response
attending exposure to vapors of methyl bromide, methyl chloride, ethyl bromide and ethyl
chloride. Public. Health Bull. 185(1–8):20–40.
Schildmacher, H., 1950. Über photosensibilisierung von stechmuckenlarven durch

fluoresizierende farbstoffe. Biol.Zentralbl. 69:468–477.
Segawa, R.T., Sitts, J.A., White, J.H., Marade, S.J., and Powell, S.J., 1991. Environmental
monitoring of malathion aerial applications used to eradicate Mediterranean fruit flies in
southern California. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Environmental Hazards
Assessment Program.
Seno, M., Fukuda, S., and Umisa, H., 1984. A teratogenicity study of Phloxine B in ICR mice.
Food & Chem. Toxicol. 22:55–60.
Seume, F.W., and O'Brien, R.D., 1960. Potentiation of the toxicity to insects and mice of
phosphorothioates containing carboxyester and carboxyamide groups.
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 2:495–502.
SERA—See Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.
Simmons, V.F., Poole, D.C., Riccio, D.E., Mitchell, A.D., and Waters, M.D., 1979.
Environ.Mutagen. 1:142–143.
Singh, S.P., Sharma, L.D., Bahga, H.S., and Garg, S.K., 1988. A note on the effect of fenthion
feeding on the immunological response of chickens. Indian Vet. Med. 8(2):174–175.
Smith, G.N., Watson, B.S., and Fischer, F.S., 1967b. Investigations on Dursban® insecticide:
Uptake and translocation of [36Cl] O,O-diethyl O-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl phosphorothioate
and [14C] O,O-diethyl O-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl phosphorothioate by beans and corn.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:127–131.
Smith, G.N., Watson, B.S., and Fischer, F.S., 1967a. Investigations on Dursban® insecticide in
rats. J. Agric.Food Chem. 15:132–138.
Smith, G.J., 1987. Pesticide use and toxicology in relation to wildlife: organophosphate and
carbamate compounds. Resource Publ. 170. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

Soliman, S.A., Sovocool, G.W., and Curley, A., 1982. Two acute human poisoning cases
resulting from exposure to diazinon transformation products in Egypt. Arch.Environ.Health
37(4):207–212.
Solomon, S., Garcia, R.R., Rowland, F.S., and Wuebble, D.J., 1986. On the depletion of
Antarctic ozone. Nature 321:755.
Sparks, T.C., Thompson, G.D., Larson, L.L., Kirst, H.A., Jantz, O.K., Worden, T.V., Hertlein,
M.B., and Busacca, J.D., 1995. Biological characteristics of the spinosyns: new naturally
derived insect control agents. In 1995 Procs., Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX, p.
903–907. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.
Spyker, J.M., and Avery, D.L., 1977. Neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure to the
organophosphate diazinon in mice. J. Toxicol.Environ. Health 3:989–1002.
Sriharan, S., and Suess, A., 1978. Studies on the distribution of fenthion in plants and soil
ecosystems. Chemosphere (6):509–515.
Sturges, W.T., and Harrison, R.M., 1986. Bromine in marine aerosols and the origin, nature and
quantity of natural atmospheric bromine. Atmospheric Environment. 20(7):1485–1496.
Sumner, D.D., Keller, A.E., Honeycutt, R.C., and Guth, J.A., 1987. Fate of diazinon in the
environment. In Fate of pesticides in the environment. Publ. 3320, Ag.Exp.Sta., Div.
Agric.Nat.Res., University of California, Davis, CA.
Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., 1992. Human health risk assessment APHIS
fruit fly programs. Syracuse Envrionmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY.
Thomas, P.T., and House, R.V., 1989. Pesticide-induced modulation of the immune system. In
Ragsdale, N.N., and Menzer, R.E., eds. Carcinogenicity and pesticides: Principles, issues,
and relationships. Symposium at the 196th meeting of the American Chemical Society, Los
Angeles, CA. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Toia, R.F., March, R.B., Umetsu, N., Mallipudi, N.M., Allahyari, R., and Fukuto, T.R., 1980.
Identification and toxicological evaluation of impurities in technical malathion and fenthion.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:599–604.
Toilet Goods Association, Inc., 1965. Report: Safety of cosmetics in use. Toilet Goods
Association, Inc., Washington, DC.
Tonogai, Y., Ito, Y., and Iwaida, M., 1979. Studies on the toxicity of coal-tar dyes: I.
Photodecomposed products of four xanthene dyes and their acute toxicity to fish. J. Toxicol.
Sci. 4:115–125.

Tonogai, Y., Ito, Iwaida, M., Tati, M., Ose, Y., and Sato., T., 1979. Studies on the toxicity of
coal-tar dyes: II. Examination of the biological reaction of coal-tar dyes to vital body. J.
Toxicol. Sci. 4:211–220.
Troetschler, R.G., 1983. Effects on nontarget arthropods of malathion bait sprays used in
California to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata
(Weidemann)(Diptera:Tephritidae). Environ. Entomol. 12:1816–1822.
Tucker, J.D., Zu, J., Stewart, J., and Ong, T., 1985. Development of a method to detect volatile
genotoxins using sister chromatid exchanges. EMS Abst. (no volume number):48.
Urban, D.J., and Cook, N.J., 1986. Ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1991 (111th Edition).
Washington, D.C., 418 pp.
USDA—See U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA, APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
USDA, SCS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual.
Harvey L. Ford, Deputy Administrator, PPQ, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1992b. Nontarget
Species Risk Assessment for the Medfly cooperative eradication program. Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1993. Biological
Assessment, Mediterranean fruit fly cooperative eradication program. Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1997.
Environmental Monitoring Report: Cooperative Medfly project Florida, 1997. Riverdale,
MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998a. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Medfly cooperative eradication program. Riverdale, MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998b. Nontarget
Species Risk Assessment for the fruit fly cooperative eradication program. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999a. Spinosad
bait spray applications. Human health risk assessment, March 1999. USDA, APHIS,
Riverdale, MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999b. Spinosad
bait spray applications. Nontarget risk assessment, March 1999. USDA, APHIS, Riverdale,
MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and
major land resource areas of the United States. Agricultural Handbook No. 296. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Climatic Atlas of the U.S. Environmental Science
Services Administration. Environmental Data Service, Asheville, NC.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1978. Occupational health guideline
for malathion. U.S. Dept. of Health Hum. Serv./U.S. Dept. Labor, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a. Spinosad; time-limited pesticide tolerance. 63

FR 144:40239–40247, July 28.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b. Notice of filing of pesticide petitions.

63 FR 179:49568–49574, September 16.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Registration, 1992. Personal

Communication with Don Mackey regarding role of bromine in ozone depletion.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1984.
Health and environmental effects profile for diazinon. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1984.

Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos-Methyl. Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1992.

Integrated risk assessment system. Chemical file for methyl bromide. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Drinking Water, 1988. Drinking Water Health
Advisory for Diazinon. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1990.
Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/8–89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1992.

Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Preapproved by the Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. EPA/600/8–91/011B.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1984. Guidance for the
reregistration of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos as the active ingredient.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1984a. Chlorpyrifos

Science Chapters. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs, 1985. Tox One-liner: No.
456F, Fenthion. Prepared by the Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1986a. Pesticide fact
sheet no. 96. Diazinon Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988. Pesticide fact sheet
no. 96.1. Diazinon Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988a. Pesticide Fact

Sheet No. 152: Malathion. Prepared by the Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
(Also available from NTIS, PB–88–199799).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988a. Tox one-liner:
diazinon, Toxchem No. 342. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988b. Guidance for the
reregistration of pesticide products containing fenthion as the active ingredient. Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988b. Tox One-liner: No.
219, Chlorpyrifos. Prepared by the Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1988c. Pesticide fact
Sheet No.169. Fenthion Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1989a. RfD tracking
report: 8/31/89. Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1989b. Tox one-liner:
malathion, Toxchem no. 535. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1989c. Tox one-liner:
chlorpyrifos, Toxchem no. 219AA. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1989d. Registration

standard for the reregistration of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos as the active
ingredient. Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs, 1990. RfD Tracking

Report: 4/03/90. Prepared by the Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1990a. Tox one-liner:
methyl bromide, Toxchem no. 555. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1992. Environmental fate
one-liner data base. Version 3.04. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1998. Fenthion

environmental fate and effects chapter. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1986.
Pesticide Fact Sheet: Methyl Bromide. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide and Toxic Substances. Fact Sheet # 98.
Diazinon science chapters. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1988a.
Guidance for reregistration of pesticide products containing malathion as the active
ingredient. Washington, DC.
Guidance for the reregistration of pesticide products containing diazinon as the active
ingredient. Washington, DC. 540/RS–89–016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1990. EPA
memorandum. Peer review of malathion. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1990a. RfD
tracking report:4/03/90. Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 1986. Health and
environmental effects profile for methyl bromide. Environmental Critique & Assessment
Office, Office of Health & Environ. Assess., Office of Research & Development,
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/X–86/171.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development, 1988. Integrated

risk information system (IRIS). Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development, 1991. Integrated

risk information system (IRIS). Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Remedial Response, 1988. Superfund

exposure assessment manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of
Remedial Response. Washington, DC. EPA/540/1–88/001, OSWER Directive 9285.5–1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1984.
Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos-methyl.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Valenzano, D.P., and Pooler, J.P., 1982. Cell membrane photomodification: relative
effectiveness of halogenated fluoresceins for photohemolysis. Photochem. Photobiol.
35:343–350.
Van Wambeke, E., Vanachter, A., Pauwels, J., and Van Assche, C., 1982. Mixtures of methyl
bromide and methyl chloride and their effects on gas diffusion in soil, effectivity and bromide
residues. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent. 47/1:339–345.
Verberk, M.M., Rooyakkers-Beemster, T., de Vlieger, M., and van Vliet, A.G.M., 1979.
Bromine in blood, EEG, and transaminases in methyl bromide workers. Brit. Ind. Med.
36:59–62.
Walker, W.W., and Stojanovic, B.J., 1973. Microbial versus chemical degradation of malathion
in soil. J.Environ.Qual. 2(2):229–232.
Wang, L., Cai, W., and Li, Q.X., 1998. Photolysis of phloxine B in water and aqueous
solutions. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (at press).
Washburn, J.A., Tassan, R.L., Grace, K., Bellis, E., Hagen, K.S., and Frankie, G.W., 1983.
Effects of malathion sprays on the ice plant insect system. California Agriculture,
January–February, pp. 30–32.
Webb, J.M., Fonda, M., and Brouwer, E.A., 1962. Metabolism and excretion patterns of
fluorescein and certain halogenated fluorescein dyes in rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therap.
137:141–147.

Wegman, R.C.C., Greve, P.A., DeHeer, H., Hamaker, P.H., 1981. Methyl bromide and
bromide-ion in drainage water after leaching of glasshouse soils. Water, Air and Soil
Pollution. 16:3–11.
Wei, R.R., Wamer, W., Bell, S., and Kornhauser, A., 1994. Phototoxicity in human skin
fibroblasts sensitized by fluorescein dyes. Photochem. Photobiol. 59:31S.
Williams, M.W., Fuyat, H.N., and Fitzhugh, O.C., 1959. The subacute toxicity of four organic
pesticides to dogs. Toxicology 1:1–7.
Wofsy, S.C., McElroy, M.B., and Yung, Y.L., 1975. The chemistry of atmospheric bromine.
Geophysical Res. Letters. 2(6):215–217.
Wolfe, H.R., Armstrong, J.F., and Durham, W.F., 1974. Exposure of mosquito control workers
to fenthion. Mosq. News 34(3):263–267.
Wolfe, N.L., Zepp, R.G., Gordon, J.A., Baughman, G.L., and Cline, D.M., 1977. Kinetics of
chemical degradation of malathion in water. Environ.Sci.Technol. 11(1):88–93.
World Health Organization of the United Nations, International Agency for Research on Cancer,
1983. IARC Monographs on the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans—Miscellaneous
pesticides (Vol 30). International Agency for Research on Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland.

Appendix I. Acronyms and Glossary
A
Absorption The taking up of liquids by solids, or the passage of a substance into the
tissues of an organism as the result of several processes (diffusion,
filtration, or osmosis); the passage of one substance into or through
another (e.g., an operation in which one or more soluble components of a
gas mixture are dissolved in a liquid).
Acceptable Daily The maximum dose of a substance that is anticipated to be without

Intake (ADI) lifetime risk to humans when taken daily.
Acetylcholines- An enzyme produced at junctions between nerve cells that hydrolyzes

terase (AChE) acetylcholine, thereby ending transmission of a nerve impulse.
Acidic Soil Soil having a pH value lower than 7.
Active Ingredient In any pesticide product, the component which kills, or otherwise controls,
(a.i.) target pests; pesticides are regulated primarily on the basis of active
ingredient.
Acute Exposure A single exposure to a toxic substance that results in severe biological
harm or death; acute exposures are usually characterized as lasting no
longer than 1 day.
Acute Toxicity The potential of a substance to cause injury or illness when given in a
single dose or in multiple doses over a period of 24 hours or less.
Acute Toxicity A study with single (or multiple administration for no more than 24 hours)
Study dose exposure with short-term monitoring for effects (up to 14 days); may
include median lethality and effective does (LD50, LC50, ED50, EC50), eye
toxicity, dermal toxicity (excluding skin sensitization tests), and inhalation
toxicity studies. See Acceptable Daily Intake.
ADI See Acceptable Daily Intake.
Adsorption Attraction or bonding of ions or compounds, usually temporarily to the

surface of a solid (compare with Absorption).
Aerobic Occurring or growing in the presence of oxygen; life or processes that

require, or are not destroyed by, oxygen.
Appendix I. Acronyms and Glossary I–1

a.i. See Active Ingredient.
Alkaline Soil Soil having a pH value greater than 7.
Ambient Air Open air; an unconfined portion of the atmosphere.
Annual A plant that completes its entire life cycle from seed germination to seed
production and death within a single season.
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; an agency within the United
States Department of Agriculture.
Application The amount of pesticide product applied per unit area.

Rate
Aquatic Life Organisms inhabiting water for all or part of their life cycle.
Aquifer An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing

usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells and springs; an
underground water resource.
Arachnid A member of the class Arachnida, a group of invertebrates characterized

by four pairs of jointed appendages; spiders, mites, and scorpions are
arachnids.
Assay A test or measurement used to evaluate a characteristic of a chemical; see

Bioassay, Mutagenicity Assay.
Atmosphere The mass of air surrounding the earth, composed largely of oxygen and
nitrogen; a standard unit of pressure representing the pressure exerted by
a 29.92 inch column of mercury at sea level at 450 latitude and equal to
1,000 grams per square centimeter.
Attractant, A natural or synthesized substance that lures insects by stimulating their

Insect sense of smell; sex, food, or oviposition attractants are used in traps or
bait formulations.
Bacteria A group (division) of microscopic organisms; bacteria consume or break

down organic matter and other chemicals, thereby reducing potential for
pollution; bacteria in soil, water or air can also cause human, animal, and
plant health problems.
I–2 Appendix I. Acronyms and Glossary

Bioaccumu- Uptake and temporary storage of a chemical in or on an organism; over a
lation period of time a higher concentration of chemical may be found in the
organism than in the environment.
Bioassay A method for quantitatively determining the concentration of a substance

or its effect on a living animal, plant, or microorganism under controlled
conditions.
Bioconcentra- The property of some chemicals to collect in tissues of certain species at

tion concentrations higher than the surrounding environment; term is used
primarily for aquatic species; see Bioaccumulation.
Biodegradation The processes by which living systems, particularly microorganisms,

break down chemical compounds; the products of biodegradation may be
more or less toxic than their precursors.
Biodiversity The relative abundance and frequency of biological organisms within

ecosystems.
Biological The reduction of pest populations by means of living organisms

Control encouraged by humans; utilizes parasites, predators, or competitors to
reduce pest populations (also called biocontrol).
Biotechnolog- Use of genetic engineering to control a pest; may involve genetic

ical Control engineering of host plants, biocontrol agents, or the pest itself to achieve
control.
Buffer Zone An area where control treatments are foregone or are modified to protect
an adjacent environmentally sensitive area.
By-product Material, other than the principal product, that is generated as a

consequence of an industrial process.
Cancellation Cancellation of a pesticide registration under section 6(b) of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is required if
unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and public health
develop when a product is used according to widespread and commonly
recognized practice, or if its labeling or other material required to be
submitted does not comply with FIFRA provisions.
Carcinogen A cancer-producing substance.

Certified Commercial or private applicator certified as competent to apply
Applicator pesticides.
CFCs See Chlorofluorocarbons.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations (U.S.).
Chemical An adverse reaction(s) to ambient levels of toxic chemical(s) contained in

Sensitivity air, food, and water.
Chlorofluoro- A family of inert, nontoxic, and easily liquified chemicals used in

carbons (CFCs) refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, or as solvents and
aerosol propellants; because these compounds are not destroyed in the
lower atmosphere, they drift into the upper atmosphere where their
chlorine components destroy ozone.
Chlorpyrifos An organophosphate insecticide, analyzed for use in this program as a

soil drench.
Chronic An adverse biologic response, such as mortality or an effect on growth or

Toxicity reproductive success, resulting from repeated or long-term (equal to or
greater than 3 months) doses (exposures) of a compound usually at low
concentrations; see Acute Toxicity, Subchronic Toxicity.
Clastogenic Any adverse effect to an organism, for example from a chemical, that
results in structural changes in chromosomes (primarily breaks in
chromosomes).
Clay Soil particles less than 0.0002 mm in diameter; the soil textural class
characterized by a predominance of clay particles.
Community An assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that

live in an environment and interact with one another, forming a
distinctive living system with its own composition, structure,
environmental relations, development, and function; an association of
interacting populations, usually defined by the nature of their interaction
or the place in which they live.
Concentration The ratio of the mass or volume of a solute to the mass or volume of the
solution or solvent; the amount of active ingredient or herbicide
equivalent in a quantity of diluent (e.g., expressed as lb/gal, ml/liter, etc.),
or an amount of a substance in a specified amount of medium (e.g., air
and water).

Conservation Avoiding waste of, and renewing when possible, human and natural
resources; the protection, improvement, and use of natural resources
according to principles that will assure their highest economic or social
benefits.
Contaminant An undesired physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance

that can have an adverse affect on air, water, soil, etc.
Control Action or treatment to reduce a pest population; also, an untreated test

group.
Control A treatment (application) used within an insect control program; or in an

Treatment analytical context, the absence of an application, as in the control for a
test of an insecticide application.
Cover Vegetation or other material providing protection as ground cover.
Criteria Descriptive factors taken into account by EPA in setting standards to

various pollutants; these are used to determine limits on allowed
concentration levels and to limit the number of violations per year.
Criteria The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to set National
Pollutants Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants known to be
hazardous to human health; EPA has identified and set standards to
protect human health and welfare effects of these pollutants.
Critical Habitat Habitat designated as critical to the survival of an endangered or

threatened species, and listed in 50 CFR 17 or 226.
Cultural Reduction of insect populations by utilization of agricultural practices

Control such as crop rotation, clean culture, or tillage.
Cumulative The sum of all potential adverse effects from all exposures to a specific
Chemical Risk chemical.
Cumulative Those effects or impacts that result from incremental impact of a

Effects or proogram action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
Impacts foreseeable future actions.
Cytogenetic Pertaining to the formation or production of cells.

D
Decomposition The breakdown of materials by bacteria and fungi; the chemical makeup
and physical appearance of materials are changed.
Degradation Breakdown of a compound by physicochemical or biochemical processes

into basic components with properties different from those of the original
compound; see Biodegradation.
Delayed Transformation of a compound by physicochemical degeneration of the

Neurotoxicity axons of peripheral motor nerves that commences 7 to 10 days after
exposure to a causative agent such as an organophosphate insecticide.
Deoxyribonu- The molecule in which the genetic information for most living cells is
cleic Acid encoded; viruses also contain DNA.
(DNA)
Deposit A quantity of a pesticide deposited on a unit area.
Dermal The portion of a toxic substance that an organism receives as a result of

Exposure the substance coming into contact with the organism’s body surface.
Dermal Dermal exposure to an allergen that results in the development of

Sensitization hypersensitivity.
Developmental The adverse effects on a developing organism that may result from its
Toxicity exposure to a substance prior to conception (either parent), during
prenatal development, or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation;
adverse developmental effects may include lethality in the developing
organisms, structural abnormalities, altered growth, and functional
deficiency.
Diazinon An organophosphate insecticide, analyzed for use in this program as a

soil drench.
Diversity The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal

communities and species within an area; the number of species in a
community or region; see Biodiversity.
DNA See Deoxyribonucleic Acid

Dose A given quantity of material that is taken into the body; dosage is usually
expressed in amount of substance per unit of animal body weight often in
milligrams of substance per kilogram (mg/kg) of animal body weight, or
other appropriate units; to radiology, the quantity of energy or radiation
absorbed; see Concentration.
Drench Saturation of a soil with pesticide, usually to control root diseases.
Drift The airborne movement of a pesticide away from the targeted site of an
application.
EC50 See Median Effective Concentration.
Eclosion The emergence of an adult insect from a pupal case, or the emergence of
an insect larva from an egg.
Economic A pest population level at which economic damage begins to occur; this
Threshold level may vary depending upon crop and locality.
Ecoregion A geographic area that is relatively homogeneous with respect to

ecological systems.
EIS See Environmental Impact Statement.
Endangered A plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior in

Species accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended, that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Environment The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development, and
survival of an organism; all the organic and inorganic features that
surround and affect a particular organism or group of organisms.
Environmental A concise public document which provides sufficient evidence and

Assessment analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact
(EA) Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact. It aids in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when no
Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

Environmental The result of natural processes acting upon a substance; including
Fate transport (e.g., on suspended sediment), physical transformation (e.g.,
volatilization, precipitation), chemical transformation (e.g., photolysis),
and distribution among various media (e.g., living tissues); the transport,
accumulation, an disappearance of a chemical in the environment.
Environmental A document prepared by a Federal agency in which anticipated

Impact environmental effects of alternative planned courses of action are
Statement (EIS) evaluated; a detailed written statement as required by section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eradication The complete elimination of a pest species; for some agricultural pests,
this may mean the reduction of the pest populations to nondetectable
levels.
Erosion The wearing away of land surface by wind or water. Erosion occurs
naturally from weather or runoff, but can be intensified by land cleaning
practices related to farming, residential or industrial development, road
building, or timber cutting.
Estimated Concentration of a substance in a particular media (soil, air, water, or

Environmental vegetation), estimated from its chemical properties (e.g., volatility, half-
Concentration life), considering media characteristics.
(EEC)
Estuary Regions of interaction between rivers and near shore ocean waters where
tidal action and river flow.
Exposure The condition of being subjected to a substance that may have a harmful
effect.
Exposure The estimation of the amount of chemicals to which organisms are

Analysis subjected during the application of pesticides.
Exposure Overall description of the potential contact of an organism or population

Scenario under specified conditions (i.e. routes of contact, exposure duration) used
to estimate possible exposure during pesticide application.

F
Fenthion An organophosphate insecticide, analyzed for use in this program as a

soil drench.
Feral Wild; applies to fruit fly pest populations rather than fruit fly sterile
releases.
Fertilizer Any organic or inorganic substance, either of natural or synthetic origin,

which is added to the soil to provide elements essential to or enhancing
plant growth.
Fetotoxic Capable of causing adverse effects to the fetal stage of development.
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Act establishes
procedures for the registration, classification, and regulation of
pesticides.
Finding of No A document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the reasons why a
Significant proposed action would not have a significant impact on the environment
Impact and thus would not require preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement. A FONSI is based on the results of an Environmental
Assessment.
FONSI See Finding of No Significant Impact
Food Web An abstract representation of the various food pathways (energy flow)
through populations in the community.
Formulation The way in which a basic pesticide is prepared for practical use; includes
preparation as wettable powder, granular, or emulsifiable concentrate; a
pesticide preparation supplied by a manufacturer for practical use; a
pesticide product ready for application; also, refers to the process of
manufacturing or mixing a pesticide product in accordance with the EPA-
approved formula.
Full Foliar Applied thoroughly over the crop or plant to a point of runoff or drip.
Coverage
Fumigant Pesticide applied as liquid or powder which volatilizes to gas; usually

applied beneath a tarp, sheet, or other enclosure.

Fumigation Use of chemicals in gaseous form to destroy pests, usually applied under
a cover or shelter.
Fungi A group of organisms that lack chlorophyll (i.e., are not photosynthetic)
(Singular, and which are usually multicellular, filamentous, and nonmotile; they
Fungus) include the molds, mildews, yeasts, mushrooms, and puffballs; some
decompose organic matter, some cause disease, others stabilize sewage
and break down solid wastes in composting.
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service; an agency of the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Gene A short length of a chromosome that influences a set of characters; a

length of DNA that directs the synthesis of a protein.
Genotoxicity A specific adverse effect on the genome (the complement of genes

contained in the haploid set of chromosomes) of living cells, that upon
the duplication of the affected cells, can be expressed as a mutagenic or a
carcinogenic event because of specific alteration of the molecular
structure of the genome.
Geochemical Changes in chemical and geological properties of a substance over time.

Cycles
Gravid Bearing eggs.
Ground Cover Plants grown to keep soil from eroding.
Groundwater The supply of freshwater found beneath the Earth’s surface (usually in
aquifers), which is often used for supplying wells and springs. Because
groundwater is a major source of drinking water, there is growing
concern over areas where leaching agricultural or industrial pollutants or
substances from leaking underground storage tanks are contaminating
groundwater.
Habitat The place occupied by wildlife or plant species; includes the total
environment occupied.

Half-life The time necessary for the concentration of a chemical to decrease by
50%; a measure of the persistence of a chemical in a given medium (the
greater the half-life, the more persistent a chemical is likely to be).
Hazard The potential that the use of a pesticide would result in an adverse effect
on man or the environment; the intrinsic ability of a stressor to cause
adverse effects under a particular set of circumstances.
Hazard A component of risk assessment that consists of the review and

Assessment evaluation of toxicological data to identify the nature of the hazards
associated with a chemical, and to quantify the relationship between dose
and response.
Herbicide Chemical designed to kill or inhibit unwanted plants or weeds.
Herbivore An animal that feeds on plants.
Host Any plant or animal attacked by a pest or a parasite.
Human Health Quantitative appraisal of the actual or potential effects of a pollutant on

Risk humans, such as workers or residents.
Assessment
Hydrolysis The decomposition of chemical compounds through a reaction with

water.
Hypersensi- Abnormal or excessive reactivity to any substance.

tivity
Immunopatho- Of a disease or abnormality of the immune system.

logic
Immunosup- Having the quality or capability to impair the function of the immune
pressive system.
In Vitro In glass; a test-tube culture; any laboratory test using living cells taken
from an organism.
In Vivo In the living body of a plant or animal; in vivo tests are those laboratory
experiments carried out on whole animals or human volunteers.

Inhalation Exposure of test animals through breathing, either to vapor or dust, for a
predetermined time.
Inhalation The quality of being poisonous to man or animals when breathed into the
Toxicity lungs.
Insect Growth Substances (often hormones) which exert an effect on insect growth; they
Regulators may be used to prevent growth or metamorphosis of pests, thereby
exerting control over pest populations.
Insecticide A pesticide compound specifically designed to kill or control the growth

of insects.
Integrated Pest The selection, integration, and implementation of pest control actions on
Management the basis of predicted economic, ecological, and sociological
(IPM) consequences; the process of integrating and applying practical methods
of prevention and control to keep pest situations from reaching damaging
levels while minimizing potentially harmful effects of pest control
measures on humans, nontarget species, and the environment.
Irrigation Technique for applying water or waste water to land areas to supply the
water and nutrient needs of plants.
Label All printed material attached to or part of the pesticide container.
LC See Lethal Concentration.
LC1 A concentration of a substance in water or air, expressed in milligrams

per liter (mg/L) or milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) that is lethal to
1% of test animals.
LC50 Median lethal concentration; the concentration of a toxicant necessary to

kill 50% of the organisms, in a population being tested; usually expressed
in parts per million (ppm), milligrams per liter (mg/L) or milligrams per
cubic meter (mg/m3).
LD See Lethal Dose.
LD1 The dose of a toxic substance at which 1% of the test organisms die.

LD50 Median lethal dose; the dose necessary to kill 50% of the test organisms;
usually expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight
(mg/kg).
Leaching Downward movement of materials in the soil through water or other

aqueous media. Soluble nutrients, such as nitrate, are often leached out
of the seedling root zone.
LEL See Lowest Effect Level.
Lethal A concentration of a substance in water or air that is lethal to a test

Concentration organism.
(LC)
Lethal Dose A dose of a substance that is lethal to a test organism.

(LD)
Lipophilicity Relative tendency of a chemical substance to bind to fat tissues in an

organism (as opposed to binding to water).
LOAEL See Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
LOEC See Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
LOEL See Lowest Observed Effect Level.
Lowest Effect In a series of dose levels tested, the lowest level at which there is an
Level (LEL) effect on the species tested.
Lowest The lowest exposure level at which there are statistically significant
Observed increases in frequency or severity of specific adverse effects among
Adverse Effect individuals of the tested population when compared to the control
Level (LOAEL) population.
Lowest The lowest exposure level (concentration) at which there are any
Observed observable differences between the test and control populations.
Effect
Concentration
(LOEC)
Lowest The lowest exposure level at which there are observable differences
Observed between the test and control populations.
Effect Level
(LOEL)

M
Macroinverte- Invertebrate species that are sufficiently large to be handled without the
brates aid of a microscope.
Malathion Bait An insecticide formulation consisting of the active ingredient malathion

mixed with a protein hydrolysate bait; may be applied aerially or from the
ground.
Male A control method that reduces fruit fly populations by employing mass
Annihilation trapping to lure and kill male fruit fly before they have a chance to mate.
Margin of An arbitrary separation between the highest no effect level of a chemical

Safety (MOS) found by animal experimentation and the level of exposure estimated to
be safe for humans.
Media Specific environments (e.g., air, water, soil) that are the subject of
regulatory concern and activities.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram; used to designate the amount of toxicant

required per kilogram of body weight of test organisms to produce a
designated effect; usually the amount necessary to kill 50% of the test
animals.
mg/kg/day Milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.
Microbial The breakdown of a chemical substance into simpler components by

Degradation bacteria.
Microorganism Living organisms, usually so small that individually they only can be seen
through a microscope; see Microbes.
Mist Liquid particles measuring 40 to 500 microns, that are formed by

condensation of vapor; by comparison, “fog” particles are smaller than 40
microns.
Mist Blower A mechanical pesticide application device that can be used to apply ultra
low volume (ulv) pesticides; usually truck mounted.
Mitigate To lessen the effect; to make less harsh or harmful.

Model A description, analogy, or abstraction used to help visualize or
conceptualize something that cannot be directly observed or measured; a
system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical
description of an entity or a state of affairs.
Modeling An investigative technique using a mathematical or physical

representation of a system or theory that accounts for all or some of its
known properties; models are often used to test the effect of changes of
system components on the overall performance of the system.
Monitoring The act of measuring environmental conditions through time periodic or

continuous surveillance or testing to determine the level of compliance
with statutory requirements and/or pollutant levels in various media,
humans, animals, or other living things; also the act of measuring
operational components or results to verify the efficacy of treatments.
Monotypic Including a single representative species.
Morphological Pertaining to the shape or structure of an organism or object.
Morphology The branch of biology that deals with the forms and structures of animals
and plants.
MOS See Margin of Safety.
Mutagen A substance that tends to increase the frequency or extent of genetic

mutations (changes in hereditary material); any substance that can cause a
change in genetic material.
Mutagenicity Capacity of a chemical to cause a permanent genetic change in a cell

other than that which occurs during normal genetic recombination.
Mutation A change in the genetic material of a cell.
Neoplasm An altered, relatively autonomous growth of tissue composed of

abnormal cells, the growth of which is more rapid than that of other
tissues and is not coordinated with the growth of other tissues.
NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent

amendments.

Neurotoxic Toxic to nerves or nervous tissue.
Neurotoxicity The quality of exerting a destructive or poisonous effect upon nerve

tissue.
No Observed The highest dose level at which there are no observable differences
Adverse Effect between the test and control populations.
Level (NOAEL)
No Observed The highest dose level at which there are no observable differences
Effect Level between the test and control populations.
(NOEL)
Nontarget Those organisms (species) that are not the focus of control efforts.
Organisms
Oncogenic Capable of producing or inducing tumors in animals; the tumors may be

either malignant (cancerous) or benign (noncancerous).
Oral Toxicity Toxicity of a compound when given or taken by mouth, usually

expressed as number of milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body
weight of animal.
Organic Matter Material composed of living and/or once-living organisms (plant, animal,
and microbial); organic matter increases the buffer capacity, cation
exchange capacity, and water retention of the soil and provides a
substrate for microbial activity.
Organic Soil Soil usually containing 20% or more organic matter; may also refer to
carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating
from domestic or industrial sources.
Organism Any living thing.
Organophos- Class of insecticides (also one or two herbicides and fungicides) derived
phate from phosphoric acid esters, e.g., as malathion and diazinon.
Insecticide

Oxidation The addition of oxygen which breaks down organic waste or chemicals
such as cyanides, phenols, and organic sulfur compounds in sewage by
bacterial and chemical means; the combination of oxygen with other
elements; the process in chemistry whereby electrons are removed from a
molecule.
Ozone A structural form of oxygen, found in the earth’s upper atmosphere;

ozone provides a protective layer shielding the earth from the harmful
health effects of ultraviolet radiations on humans and the environment;
lower in the atmosphere, ozone is a chemical oxidant and pollutant
emitted by combustion sources; ozone can seriously affect the human
respiratory system and is one of the most prevalent and widespread of all
the criteria pollutants for which the Clean Air required EPA to set
standards.
Ozone Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which shields the earth from
Depletion ultraviolet radiation harmful to life; caused by certain chlorine- and/or
bromine-containing compounds (chlorofluorocarbons or halons) which
break down when they reach the stratosphere and catalytically destroy
ozone molecules.
Parameter An attribute or characteristic that can be measured (a measuring tool); in

statistics, refers to attributes of models or populations; in chemistry, often
refers to the attributes of samples (for example, a water sample); may
refer to variables in some contexts.
Parasite An organism which lives in or on another organism from which it derives

its nourishment.
Parasitoid A parasite which lives within its host only during its larval development,
eventually killing the host.
Pathogen A disease-causing organism.
Perennial A plant that continues growing from year to year; tops may die back in
winter, but roots or rhizomes persist (compare with Annual).
Persistence The quality of an insecticide or a compound to persist as an effective

residue; persistence is related to volatility, chemical stability, and
biodegredation.

Pest An insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or other form of terrestrial or
aquatic plant or animal life, or virus, bacterial, or microorganism that is
injurious to health or the environment.
Pesticide Any substance or mixture of substances designed to kill insects, rodents,

fungi, weeds, or other forms of plant or animal life that are considered to
be pests; see Herbicide, Insecticide.
Pesticide The amount of pesticide residue allowed by law to remain in or on a

Tolerance harvested crop; by using various safety factors, EPA sets these levels well
below the point where the chemicals might be harmful to consumers.
pH Numerical measure (negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity) of

the acidity or alkalinity in a soil or solution; a pH reading of 7 is neutral,
less than 7 is acidic, and more than 7 is alkaline (basic).
Physical Physical actions (e.g., fruit stripping or host destruction) taken to control
Control a pest.
Photolysis The decomposition or dissociation of a molecule resulting from light

(ultraviolet) absorption; thus, the decomposition of molecules by
sunlight; see Photodegradation.
Phytotoxic Causing injury or death to plants.
Pica Behavior Pathological behavior characterized by the persistent eating of

nonnutritive, generally nonfood, substances.
Plume A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given point of

origin; as for example, a plume of smoke from a factory or, in the context
of the Medfly program, the intentional venting of methyl bromide from a
terminated fumigation; the area of measurable and potentially harmful
radiation leaking from a damaged reactor; the distance from a toxic
release considered dangerous for those exposed to the leaking fumes.
Population A potentially interbreeding group of organisms of a single species,

occupying a particular space; generically, the number of humans or other
living creatures in a designated area.
Potentiation The action of two or more substances from which one or more enhances
the toxicity of another. The potentiator generally is not toxic to the same
endpoint as the substance being potentiated.

ppm Parts per million; the number of parts of chemical substance per million
parts of the substrate in question.
Reasonable Alternatives to the proposal that are practical or feasible from the
Alternatives technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than
simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.
Recharge The process by which water is added to a zone of saturation usually by

percolation from the soil surface, e.g., the recharge of an aquifer.
Reference The term preferred by EPA to express acceptable daily intake for
Dose (RfD) humans; an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population, including
sensitive subgroups, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime.
Region A defined geographic area; regions may be defined administratively (e.g.,

EPA Region III), politically (e.g., Texas), geographically (e.g., the
Southwest), biogeographically (e.g., short-grass prairie),
physiographically (e.g., Rocky Mountains), or by other means.
Registration Formal EPA approval and listing of a new pesticide before it can be sold
or distributed in intrastate or interstate commerce; registrations are in
accordance with FIFRA; EPA is responsible for registration (premarket
licensing) of pesticides on the basis of data demonstrating that they will
not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the
environment when used according to approved label directions.
Registration An individual standard established by EPA for the consideration and

Standards approval of a pesticide product.
Regulatory A combination of control methods including quarantines and certification

Control treatments; regulatory controls may include chemical and/or nonchemical
treatment methods; because of the integrity of the regulatory effort
associated with Medfly control programs, regulatory control is discussed
within this EIS as a unitized component.
Reregistration The reevaluation and reapproval of existing pesticides originally

registered prior to current scientific and regulatory standards; EPA
reregisters pesticides through its Registration Standards Program.

Reservoir Any natural or artificial holding area use to store, regulate, or control
water.
Residue Quantity of pesticide and its metabolites remaining on and in a crop, soil,
or water.
Residual Amount of contaminant remaining in the environment after a natural or

technological process has taken place (e.g., the sludge remaining after
initial waste water treatment, or particulates remaining in air after the air
passes through a scrubbing or other pollutant removal process).
Resistance The ability of a population or system to absorb an impact without

significant change from normal fluctuations; for plants and animals, the
ability to withstand adverse environmental conditions and/or exposure to
toxic chemicals or disease.
Resource A substance or object required by an organism for normal maintenance,

growth, and reproduction; if the resource is scarce relative to demand, it
is referred to as a limiting resource; nonrenewable resources (such as
space) occur in fixed amounts and can be fully utilized; renewable
resources (such as food) are produced at a rate that may be partly
determined by their utilization.
RfD See Reference Dose
Risk The probability that a substance will produce harm under specified
conditions.
Risk Analysis An analytical process to determine the nature and often the magnitude of
risk to organisms, including attendant uncertainty; an analytical process
based on scientific considerations, but also requiring judgment when the
available information is incomplete.
Risk The qualitative and quantitative evaluation performed in an effort to

Assessment define the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by the
presence or potential presence and/or use of specific pollutants.
Risk Description of the nature and magnitude of risk; risk characterization

Characteri- uses the information gathered in other stages to represent the overall
zation situation; the toxicity and exposure are considered jointly in the
estimation or characterization of risk.

Runoff That part of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the
land into streams or other surface water; it can carry pollutants from the
air and land into the receiving waters.
Scoping A process for determining the span of issues to be addressed and for
identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.
Secondary (Also Secondary Toxicity) Intoxication resulting from feeding on the

Poisoning carcass or gastrointestinal tract contents of a primary victim that died
from exposure of toxic materials.
Silt Fine particles of sand or rock that can be picked up by the air or water
and deposited as sediment; a soil textural class characterized by a
predominance of silt particles.
Socioeconom- Sociological and economic factors considered together.

ics
Solubility The property of being able to dissolve in another substance; the mass of a
dissolved substance that will saturate a fixed volume of a solvent under
static conditions.
Species A group of closely related, morphologically similar individuals which

actually or potentially interbreed; a reproductively isolated aggregate of
interbreeding populations of organisms.
Spot Treatment A pesticide application to a small, or otherwise restricted area of a whole

unit.
Stratosphere The upper portion of the atmosphere, in which temperature varies very
little with changing altitude and clouds are rare.
Subchronic Adverse biologic response of an organism, such as mortality or an effect

Toxicity on growth or reproductive success, resulting from repeated or short-term
(3 month) doses (exposures) of a compound, usually at low
concentrations; see Acute Toxicity, Chronic Toxicity.
Suppression Reduction of a pest population to below some predetermined economic

threshold.

SureDye® Bait An insecticide formulation under development consisting of a mixture of
two xanthene dyes, phloxine B and uranine, combined with a protein
hydrolysate bait; may be applied aerially or from the ground.
Surrogate A substitute species that can be compared with a lesser known or more
Species rare species.
Susceptibility Capacity to be adversely affected by pesticide exposure.
Synergism The action of two or more substances to achieve an effect of which each
individually incapable; synergistic effects may be greater or less than the
sum of effects of the substances in question.
Systemic Entering and then distributing throughout the body of an organism, as in

the movement of a toxicant.
Target The plants, animals, structures, areas or pests to be treated with a

pesticide application.
Teratogen Any substance capable of producing structural abnormalities of prenatal

origin, present at birth or manifested shortly thereafter; a substance that
causes physical birth defects in the offspring following exposure of the
pregnant female.
Teratology The division of toxicology that deals with development and congenital
malformations.
Threatened Any species listed in the Federal Register that is likely to become an
Species endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Threshold Limit The time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-hour workday
Value-Time and a 40-hour work week to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly
Weighted exposed without adverse effect.
Average
(TLV-TWA)

Tolerance Amount of pesticide residue permitted by Federal regulation to remain on
or in a crop, expressed as parts per million (ppm); capacity to withstand
pesticide treatment without adverse effects on normal growth and
function; the maximum residue concentration legally allowed for a
specific pesticide, its metabolites, or breakdown products, in or on a
particular raw agricultural product, processed food, or feed item,
expressed as parts per million.
Toxic Poisonous to living organisms.
Toxicant A poisonous substance such as the active ingredient in pesticide

formulations that can injure or kill plants, animals, or microorganisms.
Toxicity The capacity or property of a substance to cause any adverse effects,

based on scientifically verifiable data from animal or human exposure
tests; that specific quantity of a substance which may be expected, under
specific conditions, to do damage to a specific living organism; capacity
of a chemical to induce an adverse effect.
Toxicity EPA definitions: Category I. The words Danger-Poison and the skull
Categories and crossbones symbol are required on the labels for all highly toxic
compounds. These pesticides all fall within the acute oral LD50 range of
2 mg/kg. Category II. The word Warning is required on the labels for all
moderately toxic compounds. They all fall within the acute oral LD50
range of 50 to 500 mg/kg. Category III. The word Caution is required on
labels for slightly toxic pesticides that fall within the LD50 range of 500 to
5,000 mg/kg. Category IV. The word Caution is required on labels for
compounds having acute LD50s greater than 5,000 mg/kg.
Trophic Level Functional classification of organisms in a community according to

feeding (energy) relationships; the first trophic level includes green
plants, the second trophic level includes herbivores, and so on.
Ultra Low Sprays that are applied at 0.5 gallon or less per acre or sprays applied as
Volume the undiluted formulation.
Uncertainty May be due to missing information, or gaps in scientific theory;

whenever uncertainty is encountered, a decision, based upon scientific
knowledge and policy, must be made; the term “scientific judgment” is
used to distinguish this decision from policy decisions made in risk
management.

USDA United States Department of Agriculture.
USDI United States Department of Interior.
Volatility The tendency of a substance to evaporate at normal temperatures and

pressures.
Volatilization The vaporizing or evaporating of a substance chemical; phase conversion

of a liquid or solid into vapor.
Watershed A terrestrial area that contributes to water flow.

C, continued.
Appendix J. Index Chemical control strategy, 245–247
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 94
Chlorpyrifos
A As a component, 40
Acetylcholinesterase inhibition Effects on human health, 124–129
Chlorpyrifos, 124, 126, 127, 204 Effects on nontarget species, 204–208
Diazinon,129, 131, 208 Effects on physical environment, 8890–91
Fenthion, 133, 136, 137, 210 Cholinesterase, (refer to “Acetylcholinesterase inhibition”)
Malathion, 101–102, 104, 105, 160 Chromosal aberrations, 106, 125, 128, 130, 132, 136, 139
Testing workers for, 105, 130–131 Climate, 48, 58
Aerially applied bait, 35–38, 101, 112, 118, 150, 160, 174, Cold treatment
189 As a component, 31, 41
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, 45–76 Effects on human health, 98
Agricultural Research Service, 1, 27, 246 Effects on nontarget species, 155
Air quality, 59, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94 Effects on physical environment, 82
Aircraft Communication strategy, 248
Effects of noise from, 147, 149, 151, 169, 183, 203 Computer modeling, 79
ALTERNATIVES, 13–44 APHIS surface water, 156, 158
Components, 14, 15, 21 Forest Service Cramer Barry Grim (FSCBG), 77
Evaluation of, 13–15 GLEAMS, 79, 85, 156, 158
Integrated program (preferred alternative), 19–20 Control methods, 21–43
Nonchemical program, 17–19 Aerially applied baits, 35–38
No action, 16–17 Biological control, 27–30, 82
Anastrepha spp., 1, 2, 3 Biotechnological control, 30–31, 82
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1, 11 Chemical control, 33–43, 83–96
Surface water model, 77, 155, 157 Cold treatment, 31, 98
APHIS “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Cultural control, 25–27
Procedures,” 253–255 Fumigation, 41
Ground applied baits, 38–40
Integrated pest management, 19–20
B Irradiation treatment, 31–32, 98
Bactrocera spp., 1, 2, 3–5 Mass trapping, 41–43
Biocontrol, (refer to “Biological Control”) Pesticide devices, 14, 15
Biodiversity, 253–256 Physical control, 23–25, 152, 219, 224
Biological control Regulatory control, 99. 155, 232
As a component, 27–30 Soil treatments, 39–40
Effects on human health, 91, 96 Sterile insect technique, 21–23, 81, 96, 151, 219, 223
Effects on nontarget species, 153 Vapor heat treatment, 32, 83, 99, 156, 220, 225
Effects on physical environment, 80 Control strategy, 245–247
Limitations, 28 Cooperators, 1, F1–F2
Biological resources, 66–73 Cordelitos, 42, 96, 144, 150, 218, 222, 227
Biotechnological control Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 19, 253, 254
As a component, 30–31 NEPA Implementing Regulations, vii, 254
Effects on human health, 98 Cultural control
Effects on nontarget species, 154–155 As a component, 14, 15, 25–27
Effects on physical environment, 82 Effects on human health, 97
Effects on nontarget species, 149
C Effects on physical environment, 82
California Central Valley and Coastal Ecoregion, (refer to Cultural and visual resources, 62–63, 149
“Ecoregions”) Cumulative effects, 227–231
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
Water quality criteria, 84 D
California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1, F-1 Dacus spp., 1, 2, 6
California Department of Health Services (CDHS) Data gaps, 80
Water criteria, 86, 103, 109, 110 Demographics, 60
Ceratitis spp., 1, 2, 5–6 Detection and Prevention strategy, 243–245
Chemical control, 33–43, 83–95
Appendix J. Index J-1

D, continued. F, continued.
Diazinon Fruit stripping, 23–24
As a component, 22, 34, 40 Accidents, 97
Effects on human health, 129–133 Benefits, 24, 97, 152, 224
Effects on nontarget species, 208–210 Disadvantages, 25, 81, 152, 224
Effects on physical environment, 91–92 Fumigation, (refer to “Methyl Bromide”)
Domestic animal and plant species, 64–65 FWS, (refer to “Fish and Wildlife Service”)
Dye cards, 239, 250, 251
E G
Ground-applied baits
Economics, (refer to “Socioeconomics”)
Malathion bait, 38–39, 111–112, 169–174
Ecoregions, 46–48
Spinosad bait, 39, 117–118, 184–189
California Central Valley and Coastal, 46, 49, 60, 62,
SureDye bait, 39, 122–124, 197–203
63, 64, 66
Floridian, 48, 56, 71
Lower Rio Grande Valley, 48, 52, 68
Mississippi Delta, 48, 55, 70 H
Marine Pacific Forest, 48, 57, 73 Habitats of concern, 65–75, 221
Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain, 48, 53, 69 Helicopters, 35, 101, 147
Southwestern Basin and Range, 46, 51, 67 Honey bees, 148, 153, 160, 167, 175–8, 190, 192, 204, 210
EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMUNICATION Protection of, 239
PLAN, C-1–C-9 Human health and safety, 96–98, 124, 143, 227–228
Endangered and threatened species, 75–76, 222–223, 240, Protection of, 239
238 Human population, 59–63
Protection of, 223 Cultural practices, 61–62
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 75, 222–223 Diversity, 59
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 77–235 Economic characteristics, 61
Environmental Justice, 145, 254 Environmental consequences to, 96–150
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, the Program, and the EIS, Hypersensitivity, 114, 142, 144–145, 229
253–256
EPA, (refer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Exclusion strategy, 236, 241–243 I
Executive Order 12898 (“Environmental Justice”), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), 19–21
254–255 INTRODUCTION, 1-10
Executive Order 13045 (“Protection of Children”), 255 Irradiation treatment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, vii-ix As a component, 14, 15, 22, 31–32
Exposure models, 79, 156, 157, 159 Effects on human health, 98–99
Aquatic, 157, 158 Effects on nontarget species, 151
Terrestrial, 157–158 Effects on physical environment, 83
F J
Federal environmental laws, 253–256 Jackson trap, 10
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 80
Fenthion
As a component, 22, 40
L
Land resources, 56, 58
Effects on human health, 133–138
Lower Rio Grande Valley Ecoregion, (refer to
Effects on nontarget species, 210–214
“Ecoregions”)
Effects on physical environment, 92–93
FIFRA, (refer to “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act”)
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 74, 75, 76, 223
M
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Malathion
Services, 1, F-1 As a component, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35–36
Floridian Ecoregion, (refer to “Ecoregions”) Effects on human health, 101–112
Effects on nontarget species, 160–174
J-2 Appendix J. Index

M, continued. P, continued.
Male annihilation, 41, 42 Psychological effects, 146–147
Description, 41, 95 PURPOSE AND NEED, 11-12
Environmental consequences, 143, 145, 147, 150,
218, 222, 227, 234
Marine Pacific Forest Ecoregion, (refer to “Ecoregions”) Q
Mass trapping Quarantines, 14, 15, 243
As a component, 42–43
Effects on human health, 14, 15, 33, 41–43, 143–144
Effects on nontarget species, 218 R
Effects on physical environment, 95–96 Recommended program mitigative measures, 236–237, 240
Mass trapping strategy, 245 Regulatory control, 99
Medfly, 8, 21, 27, 28, 30, 36, 41, 162, 167, 241, 244, 247 Rhagoletis spp., 1, 2, 6
Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program, 25, 85, 223 Risk assessment methodologies, 77–80
Mediterranean fruit fly, (refer to “Medfly”) RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES, 235–248
Methyl bromide
As a component, 22, 41
Effects on human health, 138–143 S
Effects on nontarget species, 214, 217–218, 235 Scenic attractions
Effects on physical environment, 94–95 Effects of Medfly program control methods, 149
Mexican fruit fly, 2, 18, 21, 23, 244–245 Scope, scoping, 2, 7
Mississippi Delta Ecoregion, (refer to “Ecoregions”) Site-specific considerations, 8–9
Mitigative measures, 236, 237, 239–240 Site-specific review, 9
MONITORING, 249–251 Socioeconomics, 147–149
Soil treatments
Cumulative effects, 228–231
N Southwestern Basin and Range Ecoregion, (refer to
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), vii, “Ecoregions”)
249 Southeastern and Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion, (refer to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 75–76, 223 “Ecoregions”)
Nature Conservancy lands, 74 Special considerations (human population), 61
Nerve gas, 147 Spinosad
Noise, 147 As a component, 22, 33, 34
Nontarget species, 63–76, 151–227 Effects on human health, 112–118
Protection of, 239–240 Effects on nontarget species, 174–189
Nursery stock, 40–41 Effects on physical environment, 87–88
Standard Operational Procedures, 238–239
State environmental laws, 256
O Steiner trap, 24
Ozone depletion, 94–95, 228 Sterile insect technique (SIT)
As a component, 14, 15, 23
Effects on human health, 96–97
P Effects on nontarget species, 151–152
Pesticide devices, 14, 15 Effects on physical environment, 81
Pesticide synergism Rearing facilities, 23
Cumulative effects, 110, 133, 228–229 Sterile insect technique strategy, 243–245
Pesticide Suppression, 17-18, 21, 29, 40
Emergency exemptions, 80 SureDye®
Phloxine B (refer to “SureDye”) As a component, 22, 34, 38, 39
Physical control Effects on human health, 118–124
As a component, 14, 15, 22–25 Effects on nontarget species, 189–203
Effects on human health, 97 Effects on physical environment, 88–90
Physical environment, 48–59
T
Temperature sensitive lethal (TSL) strain, 30, 154
Environmental consequences to, 81–96
Texas Department of Agriculture, 1, F-1
Protection of, 240
Toxicity test, 100, 124, 134
Proposed action, 1
Toxotrypana spp., 1, 2, 6
Appendix J. Index J-3

T, continued.
Traps
Jackson, 10
Steiner, 24
U
Unavoidable effects, 231–234
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1, F-1
Chemical registration, 33–34
Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 80, 225
Water quality criteria, 86, 90, 233
V
Vapor heat treatment
As a component, 14, 15, 32
Effects on human health, 99
Effects on physical environment, 83
Visual resources, 63–64
W
Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1, F-2
Water resources and quality, 58–59
Wild animal and plant species, 64–65
Wildlife refuges, 74
J-4 Appendix J. Index

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2002 / Notices 9245
may not equal the product of the annual room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., information collection. These comments
number of responses multiplied by the Monday through Friday, except will help us:
reporting burden per response.) holidays. To be sure someone is there to (1) Evaluate whether the collection of
All responses to this notice will be help you, please call (202) 690–2817 information is necessary fo the proper
summarized and included in the request before coming. performance of the functions of the
for OMB approval. All comments will APHIS documents published in the Agency, including whether the
also become a matter of public record. Federal Register, and related information will have practical utility;
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of information, including the names of (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
February 2002 . organizations and individuals who have estimate of the burden of the collection
W. Ron DeHaven, commented on APHIS dockets, are of information, including the validity of
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
available on the Internet at http:// the methodology and assumptions used;
Health Inspection Service. www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
[FR Doc. 02–4804 Filed 2–27–02; 8:45 am]
webrepor.html. clarity of the information to be
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For collected; and
BILLING CODE 3410–34–U
information regarding the Animal (4) Minimize the burden of the
Welfare Act regulations and standards collection of information on those who
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE for marine mammals, contact Dr. are to respond, through use, as
Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, appropriate, of automated, electronic,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road mechanical, and other collection
Service Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737–1234; technologies; e.g., permitting electronic
(301) 734–7833. For copies of more submission of responses.
[Docket No. 02–013–1]
detailed information on the information Estimate of burden: The public
Notice of Request for Extension of collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, reporting burden for this collection of
Approval of an Information Collection APHIS’ Information Collection information is estimated to average
Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 0.5952 hours per response.
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Respondents: Employees or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Inspection Service, USDA. attendants of USDA licensed/registered
Title: Animal Welfare.
ACTION: Extension of approval of an OMB Number: 0579–0115. marine mammal facilities.
information collection; comment Type of Request: Extension of Estimated annual number of
request. approval of an information collection. respondents: 3,170.
Abstract: The Animal Welfare Act Estimated annual number of
SUMMARY: In accordance with the responses per respondent: 8.6208.
standards and regulations have been
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Estimated annual number of
promulgated to promote and ensure the
notice announces the Animal and Plant responses: 27,328.
humane care and treatment of regulated
Health Inspection Service’s intention to Estimated total annual burden on
animals. The regulations in 9 CFR part
request an extension of approval of an respondents: 16,265 hours. (Due to
3, subpart E, address specifications for
information collection in support of the averaging, the total annual burden hours
the humane handling, care, treatment,
specifications for the humane handling, may not equal the product of the annual
and transportation of marine mammals.
care, treatment, and transportation of number of responses multiplied by the
These specifications require facilities to
marine mammals under the Animal reporting burden per response.)
keep certain records and provide certain
Welfare Act regulations. All responses to this notice will be
information that are needed to enforce
DATES: We will consider all comments the Animal Welfare Act and the summarized and included in the request
we receive that are postmarked, regulations. for OMB approval. All comments will
delivered, or e-mailed by April 29, 2002. The regulations (9 CFR part 3, subpart also become a matter of public record.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments E) require facilities to complete many Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of
by postal mail/commercial delivery or information collection activities, such as February 2002.
by e-mail. If you use postal mail/ written protocols for cleaning, W. Ron DeHaven,
commercial delivery, please send four contingency plans, daily records of Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
copies of your comment (an original and animal feeding, water quality records, Health Inspection Service.
three copies) to: Docket No. 02–013–1, documentation of facility-based [FR Doc. 02–4807 Filed 2–27–02; 8:45 am]
Regulatory Analysis and Development, employee training, plans for any BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River animals kept in isolation, medical
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– records, a description of the interactive
1238. Please state that your comment program, and health certificates. These DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
refers to Docket No. 02–013–1. If you information collection activities do not
use e-mail, address your comment to mandate the use of any official Animal and Plant Health Inspection
[email protected]. Your government form and are necessary to Service
comment must be contained in the body enforce regulations intended to ensure
of your message; do not send attached the humane care and treatment of [Docket No. 02–009–1]
files. Please include your name and marine mammals.
address in your message and ‘‘Docket We are asking the Office of Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program;
No. 02–013–1’’ on the subject line. Management and Budget (OMB) to Record of Decision Based on Final
You may read any comments that we approve our use of these information Environmental Impact Statement—
receive on this docket in our reading collection activities for an additional 3 2001
room. The reading room is located in years. AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
room 1141 of the USDA South Building, The purpose of this notice is to solicit Inspection Service, USDA.
14th Street and Independence Avenue comments form the public (as well as
ACTION: Notice.
SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading affected agencies) concerning our
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 14:10 Feb 27, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM pfrm06 PsN: 28FEN1
9246 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2002 / Notices
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public prepared a final environmental impact summarized within the EIS. I have also
of the Animal and Plant Health statement (EIS) for its Fruit Fly considered APHIS’ responsibilities
Inspection Service’s record of decision Cooperative Control Program. The EIS under various statutes or regulations,
for the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control analyzed alternatives for control of the technological feasibilities of the
Program final environmental impact various exotic fruit fly pests that alternatives and control methods, and
statement. threaten United States agricultural and public perspectives relative to
environmental resources. After environmental issues. Although
ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of
considering fully the analysis presented scientific controversy may exist relative
decision and the final environmental
in the EIS (including supportive to the severity of potential impacts,
impact statement on which the record of
documents cited or incorporated by especially with regard to pesticide
decision is based are available for public
reference), I have accepted the findings impacts, I am satisfied that APHIS has
inspection at USDA, room 1141, South
of the EIS. estimated correctly the impacts of
Building, 14th Street and Independence The selection of alternatives for alternatives for fruit fly control.
Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between individual future fruit fly programs will APHIS understands the potential
8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through be on an individual basis, made only consequences of control methods
Friday, except holidays. To be sure after site-specific assessment of the (especially chemical control methods)
someone is there to help you, please call individual program areas. The selection used for fruit fly control. Chemical
(202) 690–2817 before coming. The of an alternative (and its associated control methods have greater potential
documents may also be viewed on the control methods) will consider the for direct adverse environmental
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ findings of the EIS, the site-specific consequences than nonchemical control
ppd/es/ppq/fffeis.pdf. assessment, the public response, and methods. Chemical pesticides have the
Copies of the record of decision and any other relevant information available potential to adversely affect human
the final environmental impact to APHIS at the time. APHIS will health, nontarget species, and physical
statement may be obtained from: conduct environmental monitoring, and components of the environment. APHIS
Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, prepare environmental monitoring plans fully appreciates the dangers pesticides
USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 149, that are specific to each program, which may pose, especially to sensitive
Riverdale, MD 20737–1237; (301) 734– will describe the purpose of the members of communities, and
6742; Western Regional Office, PPQ, monitoring and the nature of the consequently has made a significant
APHIS, USDA, 1629 Blue Spruce, Suite samples to be collected and analyzed. effort to research and develop the use of
204, Ft. Collins, CO 80524; or Also, APHIS will implement an newer, less harmful pesticides. One
Eastern Regional Office, PPQ, APHIS, emergency response communication such pesticide, the microbially
USDA, 920 Main Campus, Suite 200, plan for each future program that has produced biological insecticide
Raleigh, NC 27606–5202. been designed to reduce risk to the spinosad, shows great promise and will
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. public. I have determined that this be used as a direct replacement for
Harold Smith, Environmental course of action includes all practicable malathion where possible in future fruit
ProtectionOfficer, Environmental means to avoid or minimize fly programs.
Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road environmental harm from fruit fly APHIS is committed to the rational
Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737–1237; control measures that may be employed use of chemical pesticides and strives to
(301) 734–6742. by APHIS in future fruit fly control reduce their use wherever possible.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This programs. However, APHIS has statutory
notice advises the public that the obligations that require it to act
Alternatives Considered decisively to eliminate foreign fruit fly
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) has prepared a record The alternatives considered within pests that invade our country. Given the
of decision based on the Fruit Fly the EIS include: No action, a current state of control technology, we
Cooperative Control Program final nonchemical program, and an integrated believe that nonchemical control
environmental impact statement. This program (the preferred alternative). The methods (used exclusively) are not
record of decision has been prepared in integrated program alternative includes capable of eradicating most fruit fly
accordance with: (1) The National both nonchemical and chemical species. We know too that the net result
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 component methods. The alternatives of a decision not to use chemicals
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et are broad in scope and reflect the major would be that other government entities
seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on choices that must be made for future or commercial growers would be likely
Environmental Quality for programs. In addition to control to use even more chemicals over a wider
implementing the procedural provisions methods, the action alternatives include area, with correspondingly greater
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) exclusion (quarantines and inspections) environmental impact. APHIS is
USDA regulations implementing NEPA and detection and prevention (including convinced that coordinated and well-
(7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA sterile insect technique) methods. The run government programs that limit the
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part EIS considered and compared the use of pesticides to the minimum
372). potential impacts of the alternatives as necessary to do the job are in the best
The Agency record of decision is set well as their component control interests of the public and the
forth below. methods. environment. APHIS continues to
support and favor the use of integrated
Record of Decision; Fruit Fly Decisional Background
pest management strategies for control
Cooperative Control Program; Final In arriving at this decision, I have of fruit fly pests.
Environmental Impact Statement—2001 considered pertinent risk analyses,
chemical background statements, Final Implementation
Decision information on endangered and In all cases, a site-specific assessment
The U.S. Department of Agriculture threatened species, and other technical will be made prior to the time a decision
(USDA), Animal and Plant Health documents whose analyses and is made on the control methods that will
Inspection Service (APHIS) has conclusions were integrated into and be used on a particular program. That
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2002 / Notices 9247
assessment will consider characteristics genetically engineered organisms. We reason to believe are plant pests. Such
such as unique and sensitive aspects of are making this environmental genetically engineered organisms and
the program area, applicable assessment available to the public for products are considered ‘‘regulated
environmental and program review and comment. articles.’’
documentation, and applicable new DATES: We will consider all comments The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide
developments in environmental science we receive that are postmarked, that any person may submit a petition
or control technologies. The site-specific delivered, or e-mailed by April 1, 2002. to the Animal and Plant Health
assessment will also confirm the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a
adequacy or need for additional by postal mail/commercial delivery or determination that an article should not
program mitigative measures. Site- by e-mail. If you use postal mail/ be regulated under 7 CFR part 340.
specific assessments will be made commercial delivery, please send four Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2)
available to the public, and APHIS will copies of your comment (an original and provide that a person may request that
consider the public’s perspective three copies) to: Docket No. 02–006–1, APHIS extend a determination of
relative to individual programs. Regulatory Analysis and Development, nonregulated status to other organisms.
To avoid or minimize environmental PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Such a request must include
harm, APHIS will implement Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– information to establish the similarity of
appropriate risk reduction strategies, as 1238. Please state that your comment the antecedent organism and the
described in chapter VI of the EIS. refers to Docket No. 02–006–1. If you regulated article in question.
These strategies are fully described in use e-mail, address your comment to Background
the EIS and include but are not limited [email protected]. Your
to the following: Pesticide applicat or On November 20, 2001, APHIS
comment must be contained in the body
certification, training and applicator received a request for an extension of a
of your message; do not send attached
orientation, special pesticide handling, determination of nonregulated status
files. Please include your name and
precautions for pesticide application, (APHIS No. 01–324–01p) from
address in your message and ‘‘Docket
identification of sensitive sites, public Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St.
No. 02–006–1’’ on the subject line.
notification procedures, and interagency You may read the extension request, Louis, MO, for a canola (Brassica napus
coordination and consultation. the environmental assessment, and any L.) transformation event designated as
(The record of decision was signed by comments we receive on this docket in glyphosate-tolerant canola event GT200
Richard L. Dunkle, Deputy our reading room. The reading room is (GT200), which has been genetically
Administrator, Plant Protection and located in room 1141 of the USDA engineered for tolerance to the herbicide
Quarantine, APHIS, on February 5, South Building, 14th Street and glyphosate. The Monsanto request seeks
2002.) Independence Avenue SW., an extension of a determination of
Washington, DC. Normal reading room nonregulated status that was issued for
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of
February 2002. hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Roundup Ready canola line RT73, the
through Friday, except holidays. To be antecedent organism, in response to
W. Ron DeHaven,
sure someone is there to help you, APHIS petition number 98–216–01p
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
please call (202) 690–2817 before (see 64 FR 5628–5629, Docket No. 98–
Health Inspection Service.
coming. 089–2, published February 4, 1999).
[FR Doc. 02–4806 Filed 2–27–02; 8:45 am]
APHIS documents published in the Based on the similarity of GT200 to the
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
Federal Register, and related antecedent organism RT73, Monsanto
information, including the names of requests a determination that
organizations and individuals who have glyphosate-tolerant canola event GT200
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
commented on APHIS dockets, are does not present a plant pest risk and,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection available on the Internet at http:// therefore, is not a regulated article
Service www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ under APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part
webrepor.html. 340.
[Docket No. 02–006–1]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Analysis
Monsanto Co.; Availability of James White, Plant Protection and Like the antecedent organism, canola
Environmental Assessment for Quarantine, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 event GT200 has been genetically
Extension of Determination of River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD engineered to express an enzyme, 5-
Nonregulated Status for Canola 20737–1236; (301) 734–5940. To obtain enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
Genetically Engineered for Glyphosate a copy of the extension request or the synthase (EPSPS), from Agrobacterium
Herbicide Tolerance environmental assessment, contact Ms. sp. strain CP4, and the glyphosate
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Kay Peterson at (301) 734–4885; e-mail: oxidoreductase (GOX) gene/protein
Inspection Service, USDA. [email protected]. from Ochrobactrum anthropi strain
ACTION: Notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The LBAA, both of which impart tolerance
regulations in 7 CFR part 340, to the herbicide glyphosate. The subject
SUMMARY: We are advising the public ‘‘Introduction of Organisms and canola and the antecedent organism
that an environmental assessment has Products Altered or Produced Through were produced through use of the
been prepared for a proposed decision Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Agrobacterium tumefaciens method to
to extend to one additional canola event Pests or Which There is Reason to transform the parental canola variety
our determination that a canola line Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, Westar. Expression of the added genes
developed by Monsanto Company, among other things, the introduction in GT200 and the antecedent organism
which has been genetically engineered (importation, interstate movement, or is controlled in part by gene sequences
for tolerance to the herbicide release into the environment) of derived from the plant pathogen figwort
glyphosate, is no longer considered a organisms and products altered or mosaic virus.
regulated article under our regulations produced through genetic engineering Canola event GT200 and the
governing the introduction of certain that are plant pests or that there is antecedent organism were genetically

Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States

Washington To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

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

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,

II. Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IV. Affected Environment

VI. Risk Reduction Strategies

VIII. Environmental Laws, the Program, and the EIS

A. Public Comment on the Draft EIS

ii. Table of Contents

1–1 Federal and State Organizations Cooperating in Development

1–2 Fruit Flies Subject to Control Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3–1 Alternatives and Component Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3–2 Alternatives Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3–3 Control Methods Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3–4 Organisms Reviewed for Use as Potential Biocontrol

4–1 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–2 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–3 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–4 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–5 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–6 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–7 Land Resources and Characteristics

4–8 Demographics of Potential Medfly Program Areas

4–9 Representative Cultural Resources of Potential

Table of Contents iii.

4–11 Biological Resources

4–12 Biological Resources

4–13 Biological Resources

4–14 Biological Resources

4–15 Biological Resources

4–16 Biological Resources

4–17 Biological Resources

5–1 Toxicity Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

5–2 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

5–3 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

5–4 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

5–5 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

5–6 Estimates of Percentage Mortality From Exposure

5–7 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

5–8 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

iv. Table of Contents

5–10 Estimates of Percentage Mortality to Exposed

6–1 Potential Risk Reduction Activities At A Glance . . . . . . . . . . . 236

6–2 Standard Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

6–3 Recommended Program Mitigative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

D–1 Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–1

1–1 The Mexican fruit fly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1–2 The larva of the Medfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1–3 The Jackson trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2–1 Citrus exhibiting fruit fly damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3–1 Detector dogs are trained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3–2 Release of sterile Medflies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3–3 The Steiner trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3–4 Helicopters used to apply bait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3–5 Some aerial applications are made at night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3–6 Ground applications of malathion bait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3–7 Sticky panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43