81 FR 53398 - Environmental Impact Statement; Fruit Fly Eradication Program

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 156 (August 12, 2016)

We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service plans to prepare an updated environmental impact statement to analyze the effects of a program to eradicate exotic fruit fly species from wherever they might occur in the United States, including Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This notice identifies potential issues and alternatives that will be studied in the environmental impact statement, and requests public comments to further delineate the scope of the alternatives and environmental impacts and issues.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53398-53399]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19223]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2016-0031]


Environmental Impact Statement; Fruit Fly Eradication Program

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service plans to prepare an updated environmental impact 
statement to analyze the effects of a program to eradicate exotic fruit 
fly species from wherever they might occur in the United States, 
including Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. This notice identifies potential issues and 
alternatives that will be studied in the environmental impact 
statement, and requests public comments to further delineate the scope 
of the alternatives and environmental impacts and issues.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
September 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0031.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2016-0031, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may 
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-
0031 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions related to the Fruit Fly 
Eradication Program, contact Mr. John C. Stewart, APHIS National Fruit 
Fly Eradication Program Manager, Center for Plant Health Science and 
Technology, PPQ, APHIS, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh NC 
27606, [email protected]; (919) 855-7426. For questions 
related to the environmental impact statement, contact Dr. Jim Warren, 
Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental and Risk Analysis 
Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737; 
[email protected]; (202) 316-3216.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Non-native (exotic) fruit flies in the family Tephritidae have a 
wide host range, including more than 400 species of fruit and 
vegetables. Introduction of these pest species into the United States 
causes economic losses from destruction and spoiling of host 
commodities by larvae, costs associated with implementing control 
measures, environmental impacts due to increased pesticide usage if 
fruit flies become established, and loss of market share due to 
restrictions on shipment of host commodities. Three species pose the 
greatest risk to United States agriculture: the Mediterranean fruit fly 
(Medfly), Ceratitis capitata; the Oriental fruit fly (OFF), Bactrocera 
dorsalis; and the Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly), Anastrepha ludens.
    Currently, Medfly is established in Hawaii where it was first 
detected in 1910. Although Medfly has been periodically introduced to 
the United States mainland since 1929, successful eradication programs 
have prevented it from becoming an established pest in the continental 
United States. OFF was introduced into Hawaii in the 1940s and has 
since became established there. Although OFF is not established in the 
continental United States, new infestations have been detected on an 
almost annual basis since it was first detected in California in 1960. 
The Mexfly has been introduced repeatedly to Texas and eradicated since 
its first introduction in 1927. The risk of introduction along the 
Mexican and U.S. border continues to increase as the rate of 
infestations in Mexico increases annually.
    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruit Flies'' (7 CFR 301.32 through 
301.32-10, referred to below as the regulations), restrict the movement 
of certain regulated articles from quarantined areas in order to 
prevent the spread of fruit flies to noninfested areas of the United 
States. Within the quarantined areas, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) works with State and local officials to 
eradicate fruit flies, after which the quarantine can be removed.
    Current efforts to eradicate infestations include chemical and 
nonchemical control measures. Chemical options may include applications 
of insecticides and/or the use of detection and control attractants 
that can be applied using various methods. Nonchemical control methods 
include sterile insect technique (SIT) and host removal from areas in 
and around the detection sites.
    Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), Federal agencies must 
examine the potential environmental effects of the proposed Federal 
actions and alternatives. A final environmental impact statement (EIS) 
was prepared in 2001 to examine the environmental effects of the fruit 
fly cooperative control program. Since the publication of the 2001 EIS, 
there have been scientific and technological advances in the field. As 
a result, we are planning to prepare a new EIS to analyze and examine 
the environmental effects of control alternatives available to the 
agency, including a no action alternative. It will be used for planning 
and decisionmaking and to inform the public about the environmental 
effects of APHIS' fruit fly eradication activities. It will also 
provide an overview of APHIS activities to which we can tier site-
specific analyses and environmental assessments if new fruit fly 
infestations are discovered in the United States.
    We are requesting public comment to help us identify or confirm 
potential alternatives and environmental issues that should be examined 
in the EIS, as well as comments that identify other

[[Page 53399]]

issues that should be examined in the EIS.
    The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing 
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA 
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    We have identified four alternatives for further examination in the 
EIS:
    No action. Under this alternative, APHIS would maintain the program 
that was described in the 2001 EIS and Record of Decision. This 
alternative includes methods to exclude, detect, prevent, and control 
(both nonchemical and chemical) fruit fly infestations. This 
alternative represents the baseline against which a proposed action may 
be compared.
    No eradication alternative. Under this alternative, APHIS would not 
control or cooperate with other governmental entities to eradicate 
exotic fruit flies. Any control efforts would be the responsibility of 
State and local governments, growers or grower groups, and individual 
citizens.
    Quarantine and commodity treatment and certification. This 
alternative combines a Federal quarantine with commodity treatment and 
certification, as stipulated under the regulations. Regulated 
commodities harvested within the quarantined area would not be allowed 
to move unless treated with prescribed applications and certified for 
movement outside the area. Nonchemical treatment and host certification 
methods that may be used in this alternative include cold treatment, 
vapor heat treatment, and irradiation treatment. Regulatory 
certification chemical treatments may include fumigation with methyl 
bromide.
    Integrated pest management approach. Under this alternative, APHIS 
would use methods to exclude, detect, prevent, and control fruit fly 
infestations. This alternative would update the information and 
technologies that were analyzed in the 2001 EIS. These methods could be 
used individually or in combination with other methods. In an 
integrated approach, program managers would make management decisions 
in such a way as to protect human health, nontarget species (endangered 
and threatened species), sensitive areas, and other components of the 
environment within the potential program area.
    Program eradication efforts may employ any or a combination of the 
following: No action, regulatory quarantine treatment and control of 
host materials and regulated articles, host survey for evidence of 
breeding fruit flies, host removal, eradication chemical applications, 
mass trapping to delimit the infestation and monitor posttreatment 
populations, and use of SIT.
    We have identified the following potential environmental impacts or 
issues for further examination in the EIS:
     Effects on wildlife, including consideration of migratory 
bird species and changes in native wildlife habitat and populations, 
and federally listed endangered and threatened species;
     Effects on soil, air, and water quality;
     Effects on human health and safety;
     Effects on cultural and historic resources; and
     Effects on economic resources.
    We welcome comments on the proposed action, and on other 
alternatives and environmental impacts, or issues that should be 
considered for further examination in the EIS.
    All comments on this notice will be carefully considered in 
developing the final scope of the EIS. Upon completion of the draft 
EIS, a notice announcing its availability and an invitation to comment 
on it will be published in the Federal Register.

     Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of August 2016.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-19223 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P