This SURVEY OF MOSQUITO CONTROL PRACTICES—AND LESS-TOXIC ALTERNATIVES is a report prepared for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP) which is a non-profit partnership formed to restore and protect Maryland’s coastal bays.

The Md. coastal bays support many species of fish, crabs, shellfish and other life in the aquatic food chain, birds and waterfowl, turtles, frogs, etc. The region’s waterways include, in addition to the bays, a number of streams, creeks, salt and fresh water marshes, wetlands and tidal estuaries. These are a part of the environmentally sensitive habitats sought to be protected by the MCBP comprehensive plan.

A number of government agencies are supporting the program including: the Town of Ocean City, Worcester County, the State of Maryland, and the National Park Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, etc. Citizen advocates, natural resources experts, boating, fishing, golfing and other interests are actively participating in the program, and working to help achieve the MCBP objective—to restore and protect Maryland’s coastal bays environment.

Quotes/Excerpts—MCBP Comprehensive Plan

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP) comprehensive plan has recognized that:

“pesticides . . . can have devastating environmental, as well as economic impacts” and that

“alternative techniques to control pests . . . minimize damage to the environment”

(Comprehensive Plan, Pg. 46, 6/99)

This report is one of the many steps and actions within the MCBP’s Comprehensive Plan.

Contents of this Report—Summarized

Non-toxic alternative actions which the public can take to assist in mosquito control are shown in Chapter II. These are the self-help activities which can be used in residential back yards, and around businesses. The topics include: Removal of standing water, use of “Mosquito Dunks”, Purple Martin bird houses, Bat houses, Larvae-eating fish for ornamental ponds, and Repellents. Although natural resources personnel are likely aware of these matters, many people in the general public need to become better informed, in order to have broader cooperation. Government mosquito control agencies are also involved in these activities, publicizing information, encouraging public participation, and helping the public to help themselves. However, the publicity

has often omitted mentioning all of the environmentally friendly methods, and thus there are gaps in the awareness which need to be filled by broader coverage.

The principal governmental activities for mosquito control through their adulticide and larvacide spraying activities are shown in Chapter III. References are presented of states, towns and communities using the various least-toxic and less-toxic methods. Briefly, larvaciding is the least toxic alternative, and adulticiding the most toxic, within the spraying portion of the programs. Therefore, programs which maximize larvaciding and eliminate (or minimize) adulticiding are more “friendly” to the environment. Larvaciding-Only is the least-toxic method, followed by Adulticiding Only-Hot-Spots, and by No Aerial Adulticiding. Worcester County has recently adopted the policy of No Aerial Adulticiding, except in case of a disease emergency, confirmed by the State’s Health Dept.

Combinations of various methods to assist in mosquito control are known as IPM, (Integrated Pest Management) and most programs include such kinds of IPM methods. Examples of environmentally friendly methods discussed in Chapter III include: Thoroughness of larvaciding, Open Marsh Water Management, Answering complaints, Assisting backyard clean-ups, Legal requirements for clean-ups, etc. Also, in Chapter II, the government programs are discussed for: Gambusia-mosquito fish, the old tires problem, publicity for clean-ups, etc.

The more technical aspects of product toxicities are presented in Chapter IV. The adverse effects of adulticiding are discussed, including: Measures of toxicity, Fish-kills and Harming other species, and Hazards to People.

Adulticides do not specifically target the mosquitoes, but are killing and injuring a wide variety of wildlife species. Also, adulticides can be hazardous to people. Tables are shown, ranking the toxicities of mosquito control products. There is also discussion of the West Nile situation in NY, and the way in which toxicity has been mitigated, even in their emergency situation. Briefly, NY has changed to adulticide products which have evidenced less adverse effects. Malathion has been phased out, and Resmethrin and Sumithrin products substituted in NY’s emergency situation.

Md’s selection of adulticides is also discussed in Chapter IV . The product Naled, (rated in the highest toxicity class), is the adulticide used by Md for aerial spraying. The citizens preparing this report are urging Md. to discontinue use of Naled, and to adopt the lower toxicity products Resmethrin and Sumithrin.

Miscellaneous topics are presented in the Appendices. The control program for gypsy moths is covered in Appendix-D. Mosquito control is done over substantially greater acreages than spraying for gypsy moths, thus reducing the concern for impacts from the gypsy moth program.

Groups Advocating Less-Toxic Alternatives

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP) is one organization among many which are advocating the adoption of less toxic mosquito control alternatives. During this survey a number of other organizations were found to be actively promoting the same kinds of objectives. The following is a partial list of organizations, and references:

Illinois, McHenry County Defenders, -- Improving Mosquito Management, Least Toxic Solutions

(1/7/97) (1)

Maryland Pesticide Network, supported legislation, Task Force to Study Mosquito-Borne Public Health

Hazards (SB 710) (Feb., 2000) (2)

New York Environmental Advocates, NY Public Interest Research Group—Toward Safer Mosquito

Control in New York (Jan, 2000) (3)

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides—Managing Mosquitoes Without Poisons (12/93)

(4)

North Carolina, Agricultural Resources Center, Pesticide Education Project, PESTed NEWS, Aerial

Spraying Breeds Dangers (5)

Information Sources and References

In compiling information for this report, we used information, mostly from electronic sources (the web) and some from newspapers and periodicals. A significant number of states are reporting their practices on the web and in newspapers, and are included in this report. Where states have not publicized their practices, no comments could be included. Telephone interviews were also done, speaking with supervisors in Maryland and in the neighboring states of Virginia, Delaware and New Jersey to supplement published sources.

References to websites, newspapers, and periodicals are shown within each section of the report.

References:

(1) http://www.mcdef.org/mos.htm

(2) http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/sb0709.htm

(3) http://www.nypirg.org/mosquito.html

(4) Journal of Pesticide Reform, 12/93

(5) http://metalab.unc.edu/arc/newsletters.htm

SURVEY OF MOSQUITO CONTROL PRACTICES—AND LESS-TOXIC ALTERNATIVES

II. Non-toxic/ Natural Controls—Needing Public Participation

In this Chapter II we report on the mosquito control practices which members of the public can perform by their own efforts. These are the self-help steps that residents and small businesses can use around their yards and grounds, their gardens, boats and piers, etc. Promotions and publicity are important components to help increase public awareness and participation in these non-toxic alternatives. The following sections discuss the topics: Standing Water Removal , the use of “Mosquito Dunks”, Purple Martin birds, Bats, Larvae-eating fish, and the use of Repellents.

II.1 STANDING WATER REMOVAL

All states and all mosquito control districts, towns and cities support the removal of standing water, as an essential component of mosquito control.

It is uniformly stated and restated that STANDING WATER REMOVAL is one of the essential steps. Sometimes this is called source reduction, backyard cleanup, etc., but the purpose is always the same, i.e. to get the public to cooperate in doing the cleanups to eliminate water which has accumulated for more than four days.

There is rarely an article on mosquito control that omits mentioning standing water removal as one of the important, basic steps in preventing mosquitoes in your neighborhood. Also, there are numerous reports devoted entirely to this subject, for example:” HOW TO AVOID BREEDING MOSQUITOES AROUND YOUR HOME,” or “ARE YOU BREEDING MOSQUITOES IN YOUR YARD?

Standing Water Breeds Mosquitoes:

Mosquitoes can only breed in water, and thus removal of their standing water breeding source is very important. Mosquito authorities are continually emphasizing the importance of doing backyard cleanups of standing water. One example of the kind of statement giving an incentive to participate in cleanups is the following excerpt/quote. (Gainsville Mosquito Control)

“Recent rains have helped spawn new generations of mosquitoes hatched in containers such as pots, buckets, tires, bird baths, rain gutters, etc. When they emerge to adulthood, mosquitoes generally range no farther than 50 yards from the container they lived in as larvae. Usually the neighborhood blood supply is plentiful enough to keep the females—the biters among mosquitoes -- happy.” (1)

Maryland Supports Standing Water Removal

A Md. brochure was recently mailed (July, 2000) to residents of one community in Worcester County promoting the removal of any standing water in their yards, to assist in mosquito control efforts. The brochure included a list of common water sources to be checked and emptied in yards. This was the first year that such direct mailing occurred, promoting the removal of standing water by Md’s mosquito control agency.

In August 2000, the Asian Tiger mosquito became a nuisance in the Baltimore area according to recent Sunpapers articles. This species (Aedes albopictus) breeds only in containers and therefore the principal method of control is to remove standing water sources and conduct a publicity campaign. Recently the Baltimore Sunpaper (2) has published several articles on the front page, and in the local section which discussed the problem and gave detailed recommendations for removal of standing water, as presented by Md’s mosquito officials.

Several other mosquito species which also breed in containers (Culex, Aedes, etc.) will also be controlled when standing water is removed. The Culex pipiens is thought to be the main species spreading West Nile Virus in NY, thus emphasizing the importance of removing standing water.

If there are areas where standing water cannot be drained, “Mosquito Dunks” can be used, as discussed in section II.2.

Md’s Mosquito Control Website (Excerpts/Quotes)

“If a Marylander is bothered by tiger mosquitoes, it is likely that the mosquitoes were produced in his/her yard or the property adjacent to it. The most effective method of controlling these mosquitoes is reducing or eliminating the containers which are the source of the problem. Draining or removal of water holding containers, even on a localized basis, will produce remarkable long-term reductions in mosquito annoyance.

The list of breeding sites is extensive and includes any water holding containers, but the primary sites in residential areas include tires, buckets, cans, bottles, boats, flower pots, bird baths, outdoor statuary, ornamental pools, rain gutters, plastic or canvas tarpaulins, children’s toys, rain barrels, and pet food and water dishes.” (3)

Promotional Activities by MCBP for Standing Water Removal

It is certainly appropriate that MCBP should promote non-toxic mosquito control, as referenced within the comprehensive plan. Standing water removal, should be a major component of the non-toxic activity to be promoted, and can be used by all local residents and businesses. Public promotions have been a strong point in the MCBP, and all of the various non-toxic mosquito control activities will readily mesh within these promotions.

Suggestions for Promotional Activities

Graphics illustrating standing water removal can be included in slide shows, in hand-out flyers, and publications from MCBP. Examples of these kinds of graphics are included herein. Such promotions should be targeted to the mosquito season, spring-summer-early fall, emphasizing springtime. During this survey, several good promotional techniques were noted:

> Enclosing flyers on standing water removal with utility bills, water bills, in local newspapers, etc.

> Getting local support: community associations, civic groups, Lions Club, scouts, schools, etc.

> Easy-to-read graphics seems to help promotions.

In addition to graphics, there are numerous examples of lists promoting standing water removal.

These lists contain many details, such as: emptying birdbaths and flowerpot trays weekly, cleaning rain spouts and gutters, draining children’s wading pools and toys, removing debris—especially old tires, and toys that hold rainwater, clearing ditches and filling depressions. Do not overlook small sources of water such as vases, flowerpot saucers, and roadside ditches that may have only one-half inch of water that is constantly present.

Locate and correct hard-to-find areas such as clogged gutters and rainspouts, partially clogged culverts, depressions under decks, sheds or buildings mounted on pilings. Stored boats should have their bilge drain plugs removed, and any water-pockets in their tarps should be emptied. Thoroughness is important, and the goal is to eliminate any water areas which do not dry up within four days.

The Old Tires Problem

Several species of mosquitoes seems to prefer breeding in old tires—especially the Aedes albopictus (Asian tiger). Studies indicate that this species was imported into the US inside retreaded tires shipped from Asia.

The shape of tires makes the task of emptying water almost impossible, with their cup-shaped rims resisting all efforts to remove the water. When old tires are used for children’s swings, holes should be drilled in the bottom section allowing rain water to drain. The same remedy (drilling holes in the bottom section) should be used at mini-car tracks when old tires are used as bumpers around the edges. Use the same remedy for old tires used as pier and boat bumpers, etc. An alternative remedy is to fill the bottoms of old tires with sand to prevent water accumulations.

The Aedes albopictus (tiger) mosquito is a species which breeds in containers and it prefers dark areas to lay its eggs, making old tires a perfect habitat. The Culex pipiens mosquito which also breeds in containers and old tires is thought to be the main species spreading West Nile Virus in NY. Thus, the removal and proper disposal of old tires is an important step, recognized and emphasized by virtually all mosquito control agencies. Drilling holes is also a recognized remedy. Larvaciding of old tire piles has been somewhat ineffective, since it is difficult to place the larvacide into each of the many tires in a pile.

These facts concerning old tires are appropriate for inclusion in the MCBP’s promotions of non-toxic mosquito control.

About two years ago, Ocean City officials disposed of old tires that were previously accumulated to become a part of the offshore reef program. We applaud this disposal, and urge that there should be further efforts to dispose of old tires, or drill drainage holes in the bottom sections.

Maryland appears to be less pro-active, aggressive than other states in assisting (or enforcing) clean-ups. A bill designed to toughen Md’s waste tire requirements did not emerge from committee in March 2000, before adjournment.

Other excerpts/quotes encouraging standing water removals:

> “Mosquitoes prefer to feed close to where they breed.”

>” Nine out of ten complaints received by Mosquito Control are made by citizens who are unknowingly

raising their own mosquitoes! You, too, may be raising your own!”

> “Three common mosquito species tend not to fly more than a few hundred feet from where they are reared, giving rise to the statement “If you breed ‘em, you feed ‘em”! “

> “Everyone needs to be pro-active to keep mosquito populations down—dumping out standing water from recycling bins, plastic toys, gutters, bird baths, anything that can hold more than a thimble-full.

About 90 percent of the mosquito problems around here are from insects breeding in people’s back yards,” said Louis DeMarco, Supervisor of Mosquito Control, Chesapeake VA, Western Branch. “We need citizens to tackle the areas outside their own homes.”

[Web references (4) thru (7) below.]

If there are areas where standing water cannot be drained, “Mosquito Dunks” can be used, as discussed in section II.2, below. Also, larvae-eating fish can be used in some cases; see section II.3.3 of this report. If tidal marshes are near your home, you may request larvaciding from Md’s Dept of Agriculture, Mosquito Control Section. (Mosquito Dunks are not appropriate for tidal waters.)

References: II.1 Standing Water Removal

(1) http://www.gainesvillesun.com/news/articles/07-13-99k.shtml

Kellie Etherson, Entomologist, Gainsville

(2) Baltimore Sunpapers, Aug. 23, 2000, June 22, 2000

(3) http://www.mda.state.md.us/moosquito/tigermos.html

Md’s Web Site

(4) http://www.snowcrest.net/mosquito/fightbug.htm

John Albright, Biologist, Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District, Northern California

(5) http://fcn.state.fl.us/gvl/Government/PublicWorks/Operations.html#05

City of Gainsville—Mosquito control

(6) http://www.pasco-mosquito.org/answers.htm

(7) http://www.pilotonline.com/news/nw0728bug.html

Chesapeake, Va., Louis DeMarco, Supervisor of Mosquito Control, Chesapeake VA, Western Branch.

II.2 MOSQUITO DUNKS for areas that cannot be emptied or drained

For areas of standing water which cannot be drained around yards and homes, “Mosquito Dunks” provide the answer. Dunks contain Bti, a larvacide that specifically targets mosquito larvae, stopping these pests before they become flying, biting adult mosquitoes. Dunks are sold at local hardware and garden supply stores. Some communities (Ocean Pines and others) have purchased them in bulk for resale to residents.

One NY town noted during this survey purchased a large quantity of Dunks in April, 2000 (for $22,400) and has 150 citizen volunteers signed up to apply the dunks to wet areas. (Wilton Town, NY, near Albany) (1)

The state of Rhode Island spent $10,000 for 145 cases of Bti donuts (Dunks) and began distribution to communities, cities and towns on 5/16/00, for use in small standing water areas. (2)

“Mosquito Dunks” float on the water surface and slowly release a form of Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) that’s specifically active against mosquito larvae, but harmless to pets, fish and other wild life. Dunks are a non-toxic larvacide product available for use by the public. Other larvacides are sold only to mosquito control agencies and applied by licensed pesticide operators, but often contain the same non-toxic Bti ingredient. By using Dunks, citizens can assist in controlling mosquitoes around their homes, in a non-toxic way.

Using “Mosquito Dunks”

Dunks are suitable for puddles, ponds, trenches and low-spots which cannot be drained or filled. They are suitable for difficult-to-drain areas, and provide a treatment lasting for 30 days. Examples of difficult-to-drain areas include: underneath decks, porches and sheds, partially clogged culverts, rain gutters in difficult locations, and low-spots under buildings on pilings. Dunks can be put into areas which are occasionally wet and sometimes dry out, because alternate wetting and drying will not decrease their effectiveness. If you have an area where water accumulates and stays for four days, such area should be drained, filled or treated with a Dunk.

The donut-shaped Dunks will float on the surface, providing treatment for 100 sq.ft. of surface, regardless of water depth. If the area being treated has flowing water, for example during rainstorms, you may consider a simple way to keep the Dunk in place, from floating away. Simply place a small twig through the Dunk’s donut-hole, and push the twig into the ground, allowing the Dunk to float up or down as the water levels rise or decline. This step is usually unnecessary, since most water accumulation areas have minimal flowing water.

There have been stories of unleashed dogs and deer eating the Dunks, but this has not made the animals sick, as the Dunks are non-toxic. In this area, there have been no similar occurrences reported.

If tidal marshes are near your home, you may request larvaciding from Md’s Dept of Agriculture, Mosquito Control Section. (This is also a non-toxic method.) Dunks are not suitable for tidal marshes or tidal creeks.

Promotional Activities by MCBP for Mosquito Dunks

It is certainly appropriate that MCBP should promote non-toxic mosquito control, as referenced within the comprehensive plan, and Mosquito Dunks should be included in these efforts. Public promotions have been a strong point in the MCBP, and all of the various non-toxic mosquito control activities will readily mesh within these promotions.

Easy-to-read graphics for Mosquito Dunks are suggested within slide shows, and in hand-out flyers from MCBP. An example graphic for Dunks is included herein.

Since mosquitoes can only breed in water, the initial step is standing water removal or when emptying and draining are not possible, Mosquito Dunks are an important next step. Remember the quote “Mosquitoes prefer to feed close to where they breed.” Thus, homeowners can directly benefit their yards and neighborhoods by using Dunks, which are specifically targeting mosquito larvae, stopping them before they become flying, biting adult mosquitoes.

Examples of States using Mosquito Dunks (summarized, not quoted):

Maine,Wells, --The Wells Chamber of Commerce orders, then resells Mosquito Dunks to citizens. (3)

Mass.,Sudbury, East Middlesex Mosquito Control Project-- recommends homeowners should use Mosquito

Dunks. (4)

Mass.,Andover,-- Walter Montgomery, Superintendent, Essex County Mosquito Control Project, requests

homeowners to use Mosquito Dunks. (5)

Rhode Island—The state spent $10,000 for 145 cases of Bti donuts (Dunks) for use in small standing water

areas. Larger areas are being treated with Altosid. (2)

N.Y., Fairharbor, Long Island, -- The local Medical District obtains Mosquito Dunks and the Community

Association distributes them. (6)

N.Y., Ocean Beach, Long Island, -- encourages purchase of Mosquito Dunks (7)

N.Y. Aquaduct & Saratoga RaceTracks—Using mosquito dunks in standing water, lakes and duck ponds at the

tracks, to help protect the horses and the public from mosquitoes. Also, Long Island horse breeders

are using mosquito dunks on their farms. New York Times, 4/26/2000 (8)

N.Y., Wilton Town, (near Albany) -- extensive use of dunks purchased by the town, to be spread by citizen

volunteers into pooled water and wetlands. Town is spending $22,400 to purchase Dunks.

Times Union—Albany, NY. 4/11/2000 (1)

Md, Ocean Pines—Community association purchases dunks in bulk, for resale to residents at cost.

Washington D.C.—The D.C. Health Dept. Director, Ivan Walks, asked residents to purchase mosquito

dunks for garden ponds. Washington Post, 5/25/2000 (9)

Fla. -- 1997 American Mosquito Control Assoc. Annual Meeting—Both Bti briquettes (Mosquito Dunks) and

Methoprene (Altosid) briquettes were broadcast using helicopters hovering over sites. (10)

Texas, Fort Worth, Water Department—Mosquito Dunks are recommended within their list of pesticide

alternatives, to help avoid harm to water quality in the nearby Trinity River, where HIGH PESTICIDE

LEVELS have occurred. (11)

Texas, Greenville, Public Education Office for Water Utilities—Mosquito Dunks are recommended within their

list of less-toxic pest controls, to help avoid harm to water quality in the nearby Sabine River, where

HIGH PESTICIDES LEVELS have occurred. (12)

IPM Practitioner

The IPM Practitioner is a trade publication serving a diversity of professional pest control operators, resource professionals, environmentalists, and government agencies, including mosquito control agencies. IPM means Integrated Pest Management which involves using a variety of measures for pest control. Emphasis is placed upon first using and more frequently using the natural and least toxic methods of control, and to minimize or avoid using the more toxic methods of spraying with chemicals. The IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99) (13) lists Mosquito Dunks as a means of mosquito control.

Md’s mosquito control practices include IPM (integrated pest management) practices (per their website) (14), however, they have omitted any support for Mosquito Dunks. Based on review of the states and other authorities supporting use of Mosquito Dunks, the citizens studying this topic and preparing this report support the IPM concepts including the use of Dunks as a non-toxic method of mosquito control in the coastal bays area. Also, Dunks contain the same non-toxic Bti ingredient as products being used by Md. and other states mosquito control agencies, a compelling factor in their acceptance.

In addition to the states and towns summarized above and the IPM Practitioner professional periodical, there are others advocating the use of Mosquito Dunks as a least-toxic method, including wildlife groups, environmental advocates, and universities, which are not detailed herein.

News Article on Mosquito Dunks (Excerpts/Quotes):

Wilton N.Y. attacks larvae’s spread

“Wilton Town (near Albany, NY) aims to kill mosquitoes before they become a major problem.

Rainy spring days are bad news for this Northway town and its sandy soil. It means mosquito

larvae are out there growing and tough bug times are ahead. Worried by what’s to come when

the weather turns warm, town officials are planning their annual campaign to bust the

mosquitoes before they become a problem.

“There are mosquito larvae up in the north end of town already. It’s going to be a very, very

wet spring,” Councilman John Cannone, chairman of the town’s mosquito task force, said

Thursday. A wet spring brings swarms of mosquitoes. The town has 150 residents signed up

as volunteers to spread “mosquito dunks” of Bti, a bacterial agent in doughnut-shaped tablets,

in pooled water or wetland areas to kill mosquito and black fly larvae. The town expects to

spend at least $22,400 on the mosquito dunks. “

Source Times Union, Albany, NY Date: 04/11/2000

http://library.northernlight.com/UU20000413150058675.html?inid=cCQrMHJpZTR5C3sUDGgIVwVWUEMIGxRPeg%253D%253D#doc (1)

References: II.2 Mosquito Dunks

(1) http://library.northernlight.com/UU20000413150058675.html?inid=cCQrMHJpZTR5C3sUDGgIVwVWUEMIGxRPeg%253

D%253D#doc Times Union Albany, NY, 04/11/2000

(2) http://www.state.ri.us/dem/pr/0515001.htm

(3) http://www.coaststar.com/Archive/1997/April_24_1997/Wells.htm

(4) http://www.town.sudbury.ma.us/services/health/emmcp/infoarea.html

(5) http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19980623/FP_001.htm, Walter Montgomery, Superintendent, Essex

County Mosquito Control

(6) http://fairharbor.com/FHCA_Mosquito_Control.htm

(7) http://www.ocean-beach.com/FHCA_Mosquito_Control.htm

(8) New York Times, 4/26/2000

(9) Washington Post, 5/25/2000, D.C. Health Dept. Director, Ivan Walks

(10) http://www.lcmcd.org/wgbtw98b.htm

(11) http://www.ci.fort-worth.tx.us/water/_vti_bin/shtml.dll/pest2.htm

(12) http://www.ci.greenville.tx.us/pubed.htm

(13) IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99) Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), Berkeley, CA 94707

(14) http://www.mda.state.md.us/annual/mosquito.htm

III.3 Natural Predators

II.3.1 PURPLE MARTINS and OTHER SWALLOWS

A number of national organizations, states and towns have recognized the value of Purple Martins and other swallows in helping to control mosquitoes and other flying insect pests. Similar recognition has been given to bats, as another natural predator, feeding on flying insects.

National Organizations Recognizing Purple Martins

The Nature Society, Griggsville, Illinois

Since 1966, this society has promoted Purple Martin birds to benefit people’s enjoyment of the outdoors by controlling mosquitoes and nuisance insects. In its 34 years of continuous publication, the Nature Society News has recounted many hundreds of cases in a variety of locations (east of the Rocky Mountains) where the purple martins have controlled mosquitoes and have rid yards and communities of the nuisance of mosquitoes. Quoting from their website (1):

“The martins diet consists of flying insects, and where mosquitoes are present, the martins’

consumption of mosquitoes makes outdoor activities enjoyable and pleasant for their hosts, who are

called “martin landlords.”

“People were very receptive to this new idea (begun in the mid-sixties), of attracting a bird to their

yard that would stay through the summer while it consumed large number of insects.”

In addition to their monthly news letter and website, the society has published several books on the Purple Martins.

National Wildbird Refuge Metairie, Louisiana

In the area of Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans, the National Wildbird Refuge has performed extensive research on the rehabilitation of injured birds, and has established a sanctuary for migratory birds in the Mississippi basin flyway. Millions of birds are benefiting from the activities of the National Wildbird Refuge, which has been widely supported nationally, and even internationally. It’s manual on rehabilitation of Martins has pioneered methods to assist injured Martins , and has been adapted to uses for other birds. Quoting from their website (2) regarding the benefits of Martins:

“In addition to their beautiful song and graceful flight, perhaps their most useful attribute is

that they feed only on flying insects. The Purple Martin, and their swallow family, eat

thousands of tons of insects every year. They significantly reduce our “misery index”

(from mosquitoes and flies), increase agricultural yields, and greatly reduce the amounts

of harmful pesticides needed for insect control.”

IPM Practitioner

The IPM Practitioner is a trade publication serving a broad group of professional pest control operators, resource professionals, environmentalists, and government agencies, including pest control agencies. IPM means Integrated Pest Management which involves using a variety of measures for pest control. Emphasis is placed upon first using and more frequently using the natural and least toxic methods of control, and to minimize or avoid using the more toxic methods of spraying with chemicals. The IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99) (3) lists Purple Martin Bird Houses as a means of mosquito control.

Martins and Swallows - Support In Maryland (Excerpts/Quotes):

Calvert County, MD. “Purple Martin Capital of Maryland.”

“Bob Sladek, retired Air Force Colonel, along with naturalist Andrew Brown and former State Senator Bernie Fowler led efforts to have Calvert County Md. designated the Purple Martin capital of Maryland.

[Note: Twelve other states have given official recognition to a county or town as a Purple Martin capital, including: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois.] Sladek’s enthusiasm has led neighbors and other citizens to provide the birds with local housing. The most compelling reason to host the martins near your home is the environmental one. They love eating insects, catching their food on the wing and ridding their neighborhoods of flying insects. Each bird can consume as many as 2,000 mosquitoes a day. Sladek proposed the idea, the county commissioners and delegation to the Maryland General Assembly gave their support, a Bill was passed, and Governor Glendening signed the Bill on April 11, 1995, designating Calvert County the Purple Martin Capital of Maryland.”—Nature Society News, June, 1995 (4)

Easton, Maryland --Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage -- Purple martins: (Fall 1999) (5)

“Why are purple martins so popular? Most likely the number one reason for people who live on or visit the Eastern Shore is the fact that purple martins consume so many insects that annoy humans. An adult purple martin (Progne subis) can eat 2,000 mosquitoes in one day. Not very discriminating consumers, they feed on many different species of insects.

“Martins did not always live in colonies so near human beings. Historically they inhabited tree cavities and rocky cliffs. Once Native Americans noticed martins using their drinking gourds for nesting they intentionally hung hollow gourds near their dwellings to encourage martin colonies. “

Hampstead, MD.

“Motivated by a desire to reduce flying insects at his small horse farm, Allen Coven did a search on the internet which led him to the Nature Society and Martin houses. He purchased the Trio Grandpa house and pole system (with the lowering lanyard). Site selection was easy on the farm, and in mid-May martins (he believed) had occupied the house. When babies were later hatched he discovered they were Tree Swallows, which are also desirable birds. They are insectivorous, eating insects while on the wing, and of course, Purple Martins are also swallows, sharing the same diet of flying insects,” [and the same style housing. Note—Other birds will also eat flying insects, such as barn swallows, but the martins and tree swallows are the main varieties which can be attracted by erecting special bird houses.] -- Nature Society News, Feb, 1998 -- (6)

Martins—Not Supported by Md’s Mosquito Control Agency

Md’s mosquito control agency supports IPM (integrated pest management) practices (per their website) (7), however, they do not support martins, swallows or bats. The citizens preparing this report support the IPM concepts, including Purple Martins, other swallows and bats as part of natural mosquito control in the local coastal bays area, in accord with the references reported herein. One entomology expert reported “Bats and purple martins are welcome allies in the fight against blood-sucking pests. Just don’t expect them to do the work alone.” Observer-Times, NC (8)

Promotional Activities by MCBP for Purple Martins

The MCBP should assist, by promoting Purple Martin birdhouses to encourage nesting in this area. Graphics can be included in slide shows, and in hand-out flyers from MCBP. Examples of graphics are included herein.

Suggestions for bolstering the Purple Martin promotional efforts include:

> Target the promotions to the springtime, mid-March to mid-May.

> Get local support: garden clubs, golf courses, scouts, schools, etc.

> Flyers with attractive graphics (birds and birdhouses) will help the promotion.

Other swallows and bats can be briefly mentioned during these promotions, but the martins have the broadest public recognition, and deserve the initial emphasis.

By promoting the use of Purple Martins, swallows and bats, the MCBP will move forward on several activities in the Comprehensive Plan, including WQ 7.1, Reduce Runoff of Toxic Chemicals (Action 4); to promote bird and bat house designs and encourage home owners to foster purple martins and bats (Action 8); to promote literature on alternatives to traditional mosquito control, FW 2.4 Promote Backyard Habitats, and FW 2.5 Enhance Agricultural Habitats. Such activities are collateral benefits from this survey’s main purpose—WQ 7.1 (Action 5) - To survey the literature of mosquito control activities in other states.

Martins - Supported by Other Towns, Neighborhoods:

(Excerpts/Quotes).

Chesapeake, Virginia.

“Within the last three years, many people in our neighborhood began installing Purple Martin bird houses. In the area surrounding my neighborhood are marsh areas, slow moving creeks, ditches, ponds and the intercoastal waterway, a very good mosquito habitat. The Martin colonies are increasing each year. Along with the Martin increases each year, the mosquito population decreases. Its as simple as that! “ (Terrell G. Bennett) -- Nature

Society News, Sept, 1997 -- (9)

Pamlico County, N.Carolina Purple Martins return to Pamlico County! (10)

“If you have a Purple Martin house, it’s time to get it cleaned out. The Martins should be arriving soon. The North Carolina Wildlife calendar lists March 10 as the arrival day for the scouts. The Martins swooping flight patterns and their reputation for eating mosquitoes and other flying insects makes the Martin one of the most attractive birds to have in your yard.”

Fayetteville, N.Carolina Observer-Times (8)

“Bats and purple martins eat all sorts of bugs including mosquitoes, and during the summer they eat more mosquitoes because more mosquitoes are available. Bats and birds (martins) are welcome allies in the fight against blood-sucking pests. ”

San Angelo, Texas—San Angelo Standard-Times June 10, 1996 (excerpts) (11)

“The city also has taken some preventive measures like larvae sightings and attracting birds that feed on flying insects. Carl Williams, maintenance supervisor for the city of San Angelo said, “We put up about 50 purple martin houses in the spring to get birds who feed on the insects.”

Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas (12)

“By installing birdhouses which attract Purple Martin birds, the frequency of mosquito spraying has been reduced

50 percent. Mr. Jimmy Lindsey notes that the birds eat one to two times their body weight in insects daily. Such

voracious appetites give residents ample opportunity to witness the interesting flights of these birds during their

aggressive feeding periods.’

Converse, Texas (San Antonio area)

“Resident Joe LaBonte convinced the city to try the martin house plan. “Martin houses were the way to go for mosquito control, better than fogging” said City Manager Sam Hughes. Hughes said the purple martins were successful in eliminating mosquitoes. Converse can put up martin houses on city property only, but also encouraged residents to put up their own. “We put up six houses in the city parks and sure enough the mosquito complaints dropped to almost nothing” Hughes said. Converse has not fogged in about six years. Councilwoman Carol Gates said “I think the purple martin project is wonderful because it is an alternative to chemical fogging.” -- San Antonio Express-News—Nature Society News, August, 1997 (13)

DeKalb, Texas,

Ralph and Millie Sims had about 40 adult martins last year, and had no mosquitoes. It was nice to sit in our yard late in the afternoon and enjoy the outdoors. Before we became interested in martins the grandchildren couldn’t even play outside in the daytime without getting lots of bites from mosquitoes. This has been a very good year for martins in our area. —Nature Society News, June, 1995 -- (14)

Tree Swallows and Barn Swallows:

Nature authorities and publishers describe the tree swallows and barn swallows feeding habits as virtually the same as purple martins. Their diets include substantial amounts of mosquitoes, flies, and gnats, as well as a variety of other flying insects. And they use they same kinds of flying patterns of zig-zag, circling and darting maneuvers to catch their insect prey in mid-air. When their young are being nurtured, the parents make innumerable trips to collect insects and then return to their nest to feed their babies. As sponsors of several martin houses in this area,

we have frequently observed this behavior by martins, tree swallows and barn swallows, swooping through the air collecting flying insects, then returning to their nests and feeding their young.

(Excerpts/Quotes):

New Jersey

“ Barn swallows like to be near water because that is where there are more insects - they will eat anything that

flies - mosquitoes, gnats, moths are just a few. Every once in a while a Barn Swallow might eat a berry, but the rest of their food is flying insects. “(15)

Findlay, Ohio The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96 (16)

“There are numerous natural controls such as certain birds, fish and other insects which live off mosquitoes. Some of these include song birds, purple martins, barn and tree swallows, dragon flies, damsel flies, and bats.”

Mattoon, Illinois Nature Center News Douglas-Hart Nature Center (17)

“The mosquito is food for many birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, mammals, and other invertebrates.

Purple martins, swallows, and flycatchers help control the number of mosquitoes.”

“Like other swallows, the Tree Swallow feeds on-wing over ponds, rivers and meadows, pursuing flying insects, flies, grasshoppers, ants, spiders and beetles. During the day, they can also be seen flying in circular motions, turning and winding in all directions and skimming over meadows. In flight, this bird can be confused with the Purple Martin.” (19)

Cook County, Illinois

“The Tree Swallows nest in tree holes or in ordinary bird boxes, preferably near marshes and ponds. There they skim the surface for mosquitoes and other aquatic insects. They occasionally eat seeds and berries.”

Forest Preserve District of Cook County—Nature Bulletin No. 223-A (19)

Coastal Bays Environment—Salt Marsh Mosquitoes/ Biting Flies

In the local Coastal Bays area, the salt marsh variety of mosquitoes and also biting flies are active throughout the daytime hours. Locally, the purple martins and swallows can be seen consuming mosquitoes, flies, and other insects from daybreak until nightfall. From our observations, the martins and swallows are also particularly active at dusk, continuously feeding at that time of day when additional mosquito species are active.

In contrast, bats may be more important in providing benefits to areas where the mosquito species are most active after dark. See discussion of bats on subsequent pages.

Martins and tree swallows are very clean birds, and distribute their droppings over water, marshes, etc. No droppings are accumulated near their houses; thus the martins and tree swallows are appropriate for residential areas. Barn swallows can be a little messy, since their nests are made from mud pellets, and droppings of their young may drip over the edges of their nests. Bats can also be messy. Barn swallows can be attracted to the framework of piers, bridges and outdoor niches where a little mess causes no problem. Farm settings are also appropriate locations to encourage barn swallows and bats.

Martins and swallows are a natural method, and a completely non-toxic method of assisting in mosquito control, and also help to control biting flies. Other practices such as larvaciding- (Mosquito Dunks), clearing any standing water, and larvae-eating fish are also important non-toxic steps. Together, these methods are all parts of non-toxic IPM (integrated pest management) for mosquitoes, appropriate to Md’s Coastal Bays area.

See Appendix B for additional information concerning houses for Martins, Tree Swallows and Barn Swallows.

References: II.3.1 Purple Martins & Swallows

(1) http://www.naturesociety.org

(2) http://www.gnofn.org/~swallow/pm.html

(3) IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99) Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), Berkeley, CA 94707

(4) Nature Society News, June, 1995

(5) http://www.cheswildlife.org/habitatworks.htm#Purple Martins Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage (Fall 1999)

(6) Nature Society News, Feb, 1998

(7) http://www.mda.state.md.us/annual/mosquito.htm

(8) http:/ / www.fayettevillenc.com/ foto/ news/ content/ 1998/ tx98mar/ f09mosq.htm Observer-Times

(9) Nature Society News, Sept, 1997

(10) http://www.pamlico-nc.com/birds/march.htm

(11) http://www.texaswest.com/html/news/061096.html#1.8 San Angelo Standard-Times 6/10/1996

(12) http://denix.cecer.army.mil/denix/Public/Library/Pest/ideas.html

(13) San Antonio Express-News—Nature Society News, August, 1997

(14) Nature Society News, June, 1995

(15) http://207.198.146.139/NJCM/birds/barnswal.htm

(16) http://www.thecourier.com/index.htm The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96

(17) http://www.advant.com/users/dhnature/News7-4.html Douglas-Hart Nature Center Nature Center News

(18) http://www.nuthatch.birdnature.com/treeswallow.html

(19) http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/200-299/nb223.html Forest Preserve District of Cook County

(20) http://library.northernlight.com/BM19980526010172377.html?inid=ZzM8J2V%252BciMWbXYXA2AEVQZcXklJGxNHcw59 - doc The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star, Norfolk, VA, 05/17/1998

News Article on Purple Martins (Excerpts/Quotes)

Source: The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star, Norfolk, VA Date: 05/17/1998 (20)

SANDBRIDGE, Virginia Beach, Va.

THE PURPLE MARTINS ARE BACK TO FEAST ON BUGS

The extended “martin” family has returned to Sandbridge for the season, bringing with it,

a voracious appetite for bugs. The martins - purple martins - are not people with odd eating

habits, but birds with a reputation of consuming thousands of mosquitoes and flies a day.

They’re very welcome in Sandbridge.

Many of the residents, who maintain more than 200 purple martin “apartments on stilts,”

have reported that the martins returned earlier and in greater numbers than in past years.

Apparently the mild spring weather not only brought them back early from Brazil, but also

reduced the attrition rate in their 7,000 mile odyssey.

Charlie Marshall, outdoor recreation planner for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

reported that the martins are also back in greater numbers at the Back Bay Wildlife Center

south of Sandbridge where he is stationed. It’s all good news because the purple martin

is voracious in its consumption of insect pests, including mosquitoes and black flies, each

one eating up to 2,000 bugs a day.

Purple martins are attracted to water and open spaces. Their white “apartments” are

familiar sights on the oceanfront in Sandbridge, where despite the swirling winds that buffet

their homes on stilts, they can be seen alternately streaking into the sky and then diving in

graceful aerial pirouettes.

Many Sandbridge residents have more than one martin house. Joan Belcher has three

at her Tarpon Lane home. All three are occupied, she said.

Marty and Becky Benson have two martin houses at their bayfront home. They learned a

lesson last year. Martins like “fences” or railings to separate them from the neighboring

apartment in the multiple family houses. One of their houses didn’t have fences separating

apartments and was not occupied last year. After seeing that subject discussed on a television

special about martins on the Nature Channel, the Bensons put up fences and the house is fully

occupied this year.

The practice of attracting martins goes back a long way. American Indians, recognizing the

value of these birds in controlling insects, started putting up hollowed out gourds thousands of

years ago. The practice was picked up by early colonists.

The farming community of Griggsville, Ill., is considered the Purple Martin Capital of the

United States and boasts a 504-compartment structure that sits in the town square. The biggest

in Sandbridge is a seven-story house with 56 apartments at the home of Sue McGowan on

Sandfiddler Road.

The purple martin is part of the swallow family of birds, but unlike the swallows that come

back to Capistrano on the same day each year, the martins are not quite that predictable. Perhaps

it is because their two-month journey from South America is subject to the extremes of weather

that can sometimes force delays or changes in course during February and March.

Sometime between March 15 and 30, the first group of martins will appear. The first Martins

are mature males, noted for their brilliant dark purple plumage, as contrasted to the gray undercoat

of the female and the duller purple hue of the sub-adult male. Within two weeks of the arrival of the

“scouts,” the entire colony will have returned, with the mature males having staked out the choice

apartments.

Just as predictable as the Martins’ arrival in March is their departure in August from Virginia

Beach. In the four-month interval, they will have courted and separated into monogamous pairs,

built nests within their “apartments” and raised one family.

Marshall, at the Back Bay Wildlife Center at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, said local

Scout troops and school groups have built and installed purple martin houses as projects.

http://library.northernlight.com/BM19980526010172377.html?inid=ZzM8J2V%252BciMWbXYXA2AEVQZcXkIJGxNHcw59#doc

II.3.2 BATS

Although fewer organizations, states and towns have recognized bats as helping to control mosquitoes and other flying insect pests than have recognized purple martins, those using bat houses seem satisfied with their results. In Europe, bats are highly valued for their insect control capabilities and have been protected for over 60 years. Scientists have uniformly recognized that mosquitoes are included as some portion within the bat’s diet composed of flying insects. Bats were found to feed upon mosquitoes during a test where the bats were released into a room containing many mosquitoes.

Since bats have sometimes invaded attics of homes, they appear to be more suitable for farms, rural or large suburban settings where there are a variety of outbuildings for roosting alternatives. Also, since bat droppings can be messy, the bat house should be located away from homes and walkways.

IPM Practitioner

The IPM Practitioner is a trade publication serving a broad group of professional pest control operators, resource professionals, environmentalists, and government agencies, including pest control agencies. Bat houses are recognized as a natural means of mosquito control by the IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99).

States/Towns Recognizing Bats for Mosquito Control:

(Excerpts/Quotes)

King County Conservation District, Renton, Washington, Spring 1996

“Another way to reduce the insect population (on your farm) is to encourage bats to take up residence

near your horses. Bats play an important part in every healthy environment. Bats eat the nocturnal insects that plague us and our horses at night, such as mosquitoes. One bat can eat up to 600 mosquitoes an hour, more than 5,000 a night! They also eat other agricultural pests such as corn borers, cutworm moths, potato beetles and grasshoppers. In Europe, bats are highly valued for their insect control capabilities and have been protected for over 60 years. Europeans build and display “bat houses” much the way we build Purple Martin houses in the Midwest. In the United States, many old-time farmers still use insect control such as this.”

“Bat houses can be placed on a barn, pole, or tree . The best habitat for bats is within a half mile of a stream, lake or wetland. Bat houses need to be placed by early April and it can take up to two years for a bat colony to find your house.” http://www.kingcd.org/stewardship/Ag%20Practices/General%20Livestock/EnvirFriendInsectControl.html

Pennsylvania Game Commission

“People don’t realize it, but one little brown bat can catch about 600 mosquito-sized insects an hour,” said Cal Butchkoski, a Pennsylvania Game Commission wildlife technician. Bats historically roosted in large dead trees until most of those trees were cleared from the land. The loss of those trees, along with the destruction of hibernation sites, led to bat declines. Butchkoski said, “ Their decline is our loss. We need people to put up bat boxes in their yards. Bat boxes will probably become as important as bluebird nesting boxes in the future.”

“Commercial bat boxes can be purchased at some hardware and gardening stores. Bat box building plans may be acquired by contacting the Pennsylvania Game Commission Harrisburg office (717-783-7507) or the nearest Game Commission regional office or Pennsylvania State University county extension office.

http://www.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/newsroom/1997news/augnews.htm Release #21- 97

Fayetteville, N.Carolina Observer-Times

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/foto/news/content/1998/tx98mar/f09mosq.htm Observer-Times

Boulder County, Colorado

“Colorado Mosquito Control -- provides the following services: --

Bat Roost Boxes will be hung to encourage mosquito-eating bats to remain in the area. Bats can eat hundreds of

mosquitoes each night.”

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/boulder_county/other-current/mosquito.html

Ohio, Findlay (The Courier 6/26/96)

“There are numerous natural controls such as certain birds, fish and other insects which live off mosquitoes. Some of these include barn and tree swallows, dragon flies, damsel flies and bats. According to Curtis Young, Northwest Ohio District, integrated pest management specialist with the Ohio State University Extension Office, “Bats are really very helpful animals to have around”.

http://www.thecourier.com/issues/bkissues.htm, The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96

University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service

“Bats are an essential link in the balance of nature. In Florida, bats provide a valuable service by consuming mosquitoes and other night flying insects—while posing little threat to human health. They are kind of like the bug police, they fly around and catch bugs using a process called echolocation. They reduce pests naturally reducing pesticide usage helping to make our water and earth cleaner.

www.ifas.ufl.edu/~gmcavoy/HCHortNews_Bats.htm

St John’s, U.S. Virgin Islands

“Harmony Resorts and Maho Bay Camps decided that rather than spray everything in sight with insecticides, they

would let nature keep itself in balance. Owners put up bat boxes - nesting sites for the flying rodents. Bats evolved to eat bugs - lots of them - without killing innocent bystanders such as birds and other wildlife that some pesticides bump off. And no toxic leftovers.” The Dallas Morning News 06/20/99

http://www.dallasnews.com/lifestyles/travel/0620travcol1loftis.htm

BAT HOUSES

Assembled bat houses, kits or plans for constructing a bat house are available from hardware and garden supply stores, from catalogs or on the web.

One supplier, the Organization for Bat Conservation, (OBC) has conducted research into the most effective designs for bat houses. Their new designs have up to 80% occupancy of bats, where earlier, conventional designs had 10% success. In OBC studies, short/ stout houses tend to have less chance of attracting bats, where longer, wider houses are working quite well. (Recommended dimensions: 24-inches tall, 16-inches wide, 3-inches deep). Additional recommendations:

Plastic mesh installed inside the house will assist the bats to roost, hanging upside down.

Mount the house 15 ft high, facing south or southeast, with six to eight hours of direct sunlight.

Houses mounted on poles tend to be occupied sooner than houses mounted on trees.

The Organization for Bat Conservation sells quality cedar houses for $42 and kits for $32. Order from the web: http://www.batconservation.org/content/giftstore/bathouses.htm, or by phone 517-339-5200.

Plans for “do-it-your-self” construction are free on the web: http://www.batconservation.org/content/bathouse/buildyourown.htm.

References: II.3.2 Bats

IPM Practitioner (Nov/Dec ‘99) Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), Berkeley, CA 94707

http://www.kingcd.org/stewardship/Ag%20Practices/General%20Livestock/EnvirFriendInsectControl.html

http://www.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/newsroom/1997news/augnews.htm

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/foto/news/content/1998/tx98mar/f09mosq.htm Observer-Times

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/boulder_county/other-current/mosquito.html

http://www.thecourier.com/issues/bkissues.htm, The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96

www.ifas.ufl.edu/~gmcavoy/HCHortNews_Bats.htm

http://www.dallasnews.com/lifestyles/travel/0620travcol1loftis.htm The Dallas Morning News 06/20/99

http://www.batconservation.org/content/giftstore/bathouses.htm

http://www.batconservation.org/content/bathouse/buildyourown.htm.

II.3.3 Larvae-eating fish

Larvae-eating fish are another form of natural control of mosquitoes, but the general public is often unaware of this fact. Ornamental garden ponds have become increasingly popular, and if left untreated, can become mosquito-breeding habitat.

Public promotion of larvae-eating fish for use by local citizens thus appears appropriate within the MCBP’s outreach activities, to increase public awareness.

The construction of drainage impoundment ponds is also increasing in the Coastal Bays watershed, adjacent to new roads, parking lots, and within new communities. This technique benefits the environment by filtering of storm water runoffs, allowing contaminants to settle within holding ponds, rather than allowing runoffs to funnel directly into the tidal waters. Both homeowners and Govt. authorities have a stake in promoting larvae-eating fish. See Section III for discussion of other Govt. practices for mosquito control, but the Govt. activities for larvae-eating fish are included below.

Homeowners - Fish in Ornamental garden ponds

Several remedies to prevent breeding mosquitoes in ornamental garden ponds are available, including the larvae-eating fish discussed in this section. Pumping the pond water through a filter helps to remove larvae; chlorination helps to slow development, but alone cannot prevent breeding; and water movement such as artificial water-falls help to prevent breeding, since the larvae prefer calm waters. Mosquito Dunks, discussed above, are also effective, and are non-toxic to fish. The larvae-eating fish will also provide a significant control of mosquito breeding.

Goldfish and fresh-water killies are reported as consuming significant quantities of mosquito larvae, but many other species of fish will also eat mosquito larvae, for example guppies and minnows. Ten to twenty small fish will take care of a pond 6 feet by 8 feet (surface area of 48 feet). When larvae are present, the amount of regular fish-food offered should be reduced or stopped, to encourage the fish to feed upon the mosquito larvae. Overfed fish may not eat mosquito larvae, and any excess food that the fish do not eat can cause a bacterial or algae bloom. Gold fish also help control algae growth.

Homeowners should place ornamental garden ponds where runoffs of soil, weed killers and fertilizers will not enter the pond, which otherwise could encourage algae. If algae develops, use care in selecting non-toxic treatments to avoid harming the fish.

Govt. Programs:

Gambusia - Mosquito fish: Many state mosquito authorities (detailed below) have programs using the gambusia mosquito fish in freshwater locations. The gambusia fish have flourished in fresh-water marshes, swamps, and other ponds, but they are not as hardy in colder waters of northern states or Canada. An exception is the warm sulfur pools at Banff, Canada where gambusia have survived since introduced in 1925, and effectively eliminated the mosquito problem. Maryland’s climate is appropriate for gambusia fish.

States Using Gambusia Fish:

Examples of states/counties using gambusia fish within their mosquito control programs are summarized below. Some of the govt. authorities actively promote the mosquitofish by publicizing incentives such as: “without charge”, “delivered upon request”, and giving the phone number to call for the mosquito fish. These states are including back yards, farm ponds, citizen’s and business ponds in their gambusia program. Some states/counties only mention that mosquito fish “are used”, or “are available” with slight promotion of their use. Such states are using the gambusia, mainly in public areas, such as storm water impoundments, woodland pools, freshwater swamps, and wastewater settling basins. Within this survey, Maryland is in the category of using gambusia fish mainly for public areas, without actively promoting them.

States/counties actively promoting mosquito fish include:

Portland, Oregon—Multnomah County, Boulder-Colorado, California: Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin/Sonoma Counties, Los Angeles County West, Sacramento-Yolo County, San Diego County, Shasta County, Santa Barbara Coastal District, and Ventura County.

States using gambusia fish mainly in public areas include:

Maryland, New Jersey, NY City (and Counties), Rhode Island, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Maryland’s Gambusia Fish Activity

Several rearing ponds are maintained throughout Maryland to propagate Gambusia fish for distribution to mosquito breeding sites. However, widespread use of the Gambusia has been limited by concern that the fish may prey other species of amphibians and fish. As a consequence of this concern, the fish are stocked only in artificial wetlands, such as stormwater retention ponds and farm ponds. A joint project with Md’s Mosquito Control and the Dept. of Environment has been locating the retention ponds and creating a database, followed by monitoring the sites for mosquito production. During 1998, about 32,000 Gambusia fish were stocked at 43 sites in six Maryland counties.

http://www.mda.state.md.us/annual/mosquito.htm

Other Fish Species in Various States

New Jersey and Massachusetts have been operating programs using other species of larvae-eating fish. The Cape Cod District began a program in 1993 which has determined that a local species, the Banded Sunfish can be successfully used for mosquito control. The Banded Sunfish are being raised in a captive environment, stocked into mosquito habitat, are reproducing and providing effective larval control in the local fresh-water swamp habitat. This native species was used without importing the gambusia which is not native to Massachusetts.

Following the Massachusetts success, New Jersey expanded its gambusia program to include four additional larvae-eating species: fathead minnows, fresh-water killifish, blue gill sunfish, and pumpkinseed sunfish. Wing Beats,(Quarterly) American Mosquito Control Association, Fall 1999

This variety of additional species could potentially meet Md’s environmental restrictions or concerns about releasing a single, aggressive species into new habitat, and perhaps expand Md’s efforts to include more public promotions of larvae-eating fish.

Larvae-eating fish—Goldfish, gambusia, minnows, sunfish, etc.

Source: Bio-Integral Resource Center

References: II.3.3 Larvae-eating Fish

http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/health/ed/mosquito.html—Portland, Oregon—Multnomah County

http://www.loe.org/html/transcripts/960621.html#anchor488434 -- Alameda County, Calif.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/boulder_county/other-current/mosquito.html—Boulder-Colorado

http://www.ccmvcd.dst.ca.us/mfish.htm -- Contra Costa, Calif.

http://www.palosverdes.com/lacwvcd/wemosq.htm—Los Angeles County West

http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/fish.html --Marin / Sonoma Counties, Calif.

http://commserv.ucdavis.edu/CESanDiego/Seagrant/mosquito.htm—San Diego County, Calif.

http://www.sac-yolomvcd.com/sy_public_education.htm—Sacramento, Yolo County, Calif.

http://www.snowcrest.net/mosquito/control.htm—Shasta County District

http://www.silcom.com/~vector/mosquito.html—Santa Barbara Coastal District http://www.ventura.org/env_hlth/moscon2.htm—Ventura County

http://www.mda.state.md.us/annual/mosquito.htm

Wing Beats,(Quarterly) American Mosquito Control Association, Fall 1999

II.4 REPELLENTS - For Personal Protection

No one likes to be bitten by mosquitoes, so one of the ways to promote personal comfort and protection is to provide information on the use of mosquito repellents. The use of repellents can offer immediate personal relief during periods of temporary increases in mosquitoes. Use of repellents is also helpful to individuals who may be unusually attractive to mosquitoes, and for outdoorsmen visiting remote areas beyond the reach of other mosquito control efforts.

Since it is impossible to kill every adult biting mosquito (by any method—toxic, less toxic, or least toxic) occasional bites may occur. The use of repellents provides a handy alternative, and immediate personal protection from annoyance. No toxins are added to the environment when personal mosquito repellents are properly used.

“Deet” and Non-deet Repellents

Many mosquito repellents use the chemical “deet” (diethyl-meta-toluamide) as the active ingredient, and in tests “deet” has been shown to be effective in preventing bites. The brand names -OFF and CUTTER -are the most familiar products containing “deet” and many private label store brands are also available. Be sure to observe cautions on the labels—keeping away from eyes, mouth, open cuts, sunburned skin, etc. Some people only spray their clothing, not their skin, and remove a hat before spraying it. Follow the precautions on the container concerning use on young children. Products with less than 10% “deet” are generally required for young children, but some parents may prefer to avoid using any “deet” on their children. Caution in using “deet” products is important, due to possible side effects. When returning indoors, wash the skin with soap and water where a “deet” product was applied.

For individuals who prefer natural ingredients, several products are available, which received favorable reviews.

BUZZ AWAY is a “deet-free” natural product, using a combination formula of natural ingredients—citronella, cedarwood, eucalyptus, lemongrass and peppermint. In Canadian university tests, BUZZ AWAY was found more effective than Avon products and other non-deet, natural repellents, and was found to equal the effectiveness of deet-based OFF. BUZZ AWAY is sold as a spray, moist towelette, or sunscreen lotion. Their website is-- http://www.quantumhealth.com/productindex.html

CACTUS JUICE is another “deet-free” natural mosquito repellent product, using an extract from the prickly pear cactus. This product also acts as a sunscreen, similar to the SKINTASTIC product using deet from the makers of OFF, and the sunscreen version of BUZZ AWAY. An outdoors writer from California, and others have reported good results from the CACTUS JUICE mosquito repellent product. This repellent is available locally at the OC Organics store, or from the manufacturer’s web site -- http://www.cactusjuicetm.com/main.htm

Avon sells several deet-free products. SKIN-SO-SOFT Bath Oil has mosquito repellent effects, almost as effective as deet products in recent tests at Florida A&M University, although the product contains no special insect repellent ingredient. However, the testers indicated that this product should be reapplied often to maintain repellency.

Avon’s Skin-So-Soft with Bug Guard is available in two formulations containing repellents. The older Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard products use citronella for repellency and the newer Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard PLUS contains IR3535 as the repellent ingredient. NBC Dateline reports that IR3535 hasn’t yet been fully tested in the U.S., although there are no reports of problems so far, but it has a long history of use in Europe. The Avon products are available as sprays, lotions, moist towelettes, and in combination with sunscreen ingredients. When making a choice, consumers should review the ingredient labeling to be sure that the product meets their preferences.

The Good Housekeeping Institute recently sponsored a study by scientists from Florida A&M University to test seven repellents. The study results were also featured on Dateline NBC on July 17, 2000. The tests involved repeated baring of skin inside two screened atria with 10,000 mosquitoes buzzing around in each, and counting bites during timed exposures. The following is a summary of the results.

Florida A&M University—Mosquito Repellent Study, sponsored by Good Housekeeping Institute

Product	Bites	DEET %	Effective Rating	Comments-Drawbacks
OFF! Spray $3.99	No bites	14.25%	5 (highest)	N/A
OFF! Skintastic IV spray $4.29	No bites	6.65	5	N/A
Cutter spray $2.99	No bites	10	5	N/A
Avon Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard plus IR3535 lotion with sunblock $12	No bites	0	5	N/A
Avon Skin-So-Soft bath oil $12.50	1 bite	0	4	Very effective, but you must reapply often
Alfresco Moisturizing Repellent cream $35	18 bites	0	2 (lowest)	It’s said that Robert Redford swore by Alfresco while filming The Horse Whisperer. But this al-natural lotion didn’t do it for our testers.

Lentek Mosquito-Contro Plus, an electronic wrist band, $20 t0 $30. Resulted in 105 bites, almost the same as using no repellent at all.

References: II.4 Repellents

http://www.quantumhealth.com/productindex.html

http://www.cactusjuicetm.com/main.htm

http://goodhousekeeping.women.com/gh/eatwell/health/80bugs11.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/news/433953.asp

III. Govt. Practices in Mosquito Control

Introduction:

In this Chapter III we report on the various mosquito control practices by governmental agencies found in reviewing the literature, mostly from electronic sources (the web) and some from newspapers and periodicals. A significant number of states are reporting their practices on the web and in newspapers, and are included in this report. Where states have not publicized their practices, no comments could be included.

Few mosquito control agencies (if any) currently follow the old, traditional practice of spraying-adulticides-every-Tuesday, (for example, whether its needed or not) hoping to kill some critters, but not measuring the effectiveness, and without regard for the toxic effects on other wildlife. However, current practices contain a range of significant differences in the amounts of toxicity added to the environment between the various types of current programs. The trend is toward adopting less toxic methods, with environmentally friendly practices increasingly being adopted. The following are rankings, beginning with the least toxic practice.

1. Larvaciding-Only, No-Adulticides, -- Is the least toxic method, most friendly to the environment.

2. Adulticiding Only-Hot-Spots—Uses relatively less adulticiding, adding less toxins to the environment.

3 No Aerial Adulticiding -- Avoids major aerial saturations of the environment with adulticides, but still

allows significant impacts from truck adulticiding. (Worcester County has recently adopted

this practice.)

4. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) -- This method allows more use of adulticides, than the above

methods.

The first three less-toxic programs listed above each place restrictions on the use of adulticides, making them lower in toxicity than unrestricted IPM.

Discussion (IPM and Less Toxic Programs)

IPM (integrated pest management) means that a variety of treatments are used, favoring the natural, less toxic methods, before resorting to the more toxic treatments. But IPM allows the mosquito control agency to select when and how pesticides are used, generally without limitations, without health or environmental considerations, often without public input, without considering the relative toxicity of the products used, etc.

A state can say it uses IPM and that it does larvaciding, and this may lend a favorable impression. But that same state may have done relatively little larvaciding and much aerial adulticiding with a product in a high toxicity class. Merely accepting the term IPM as “environmentally friendly” can be misleading. However, IPM represents a good initial step forward, abandoning the old toxic practice of spray-adulticides-every-Tuesday-and-hope.

Less-toxic programs contain restrictions on the adulticiding practices used by an agency. Thus, reliance is shifted and more emphasis is given to prevention measures, controlling the mosquitoes while in the larval stage, rather than when they reach the flying, biting adult stage. Less-toxic programs represent additional steps forward in the trend to lower toxicity, beyond the initial step made by IPM.

Yesterday’s trend (more than a decade ago, or longer) was to adopt IPM, moving away from the old toxic practice of spray-adulticides-every-Tuesday-and-hope. Today’s trend (in the current decade) is to adopt restrictions on adulticiding, placing greater reliance on less toxic steps.

See the subsequent sections of this chapter for further discussion and details of the three less toxic spraying alternatives, and references to the states using these programs. (Sections III.1, and III.2)

Please note that the captions in the rankings are based on the spraying component of the program. But it is typical of an agency performing Larvaciding-Only, No-Adulticides (and other less toxic programs) to also perform a variety of additional activities—yard clean-ups, removing standing water, trench maintenance, larvae-eating fish, purple martins, etc. In that sense, since a variety of steps are being used, each of the less toxic programs is a version of IPM, but with adulticide restrictions.

Other sections of this chapter discuss the topics of: -- Less-toxic Examples in Canada- III.3, Open Marsh Water Management- III.4, and Govt.Activities for Backyards- III.5. See Chapter II for discussion of the topic—Govt. activities for Larvae-eating Fish- II.3.3

Surveillance:

Surveillance techniques are used by most govt. agencies to assist in mosquito control. When information is gathered from the field concerning the particular species of mosquitoes in an area, this is an aspect of surveillance. Surveillance information includes the quantity and species of larvae, and the quantity and species of adult mosquitoes. By identifying the mosquito species, the control activities can be adjusted to produce the best results.

Many examples can be given for the uses of surveillance information: -- when salt marsh species are present, larvaciding can be directed to the salt marshes; for flood water species, the larvaciding can be directed to fresh water locations; when dry weather occurs, quantities of mosquitoes will decline below the thresholds for any treatments; when mosquito fish and larvaciding are providing good control, the larvae and adult mosquito presence will decline. There are innumerable examples where surveillance of species and quantities provides a guide for the kind of mosquito control treatments to be used.

Light traps are generally used in collecting the adult mosquitoes, and larvae are caught by using dippers (a kind of long handled scoop) in standing water sites. Some counts and species identifications are made in the field, and some are taken into laboratories for identification. Records are kept to show rising or falling trends. This data can be correlated with weather conditions, to help future predictions of trends and treatments. The data can also help measure the effectiveness of various control methods.

Lab surveillance techniques use biological methods to examine for evidence of the presence of viruses. Such lab tests provide a “safety net” to detect the rare situation of a health threat. The far more common situation is the presence of nuisance mosquitoes, which pose no health threat. The larger mosquito control agencies operate their own laboratories (Including MD), and the smaller agencies often have cooperative arrangements, sending samples to Health Depts. and other bio-labs for testing.

Precision Targeting

Precision Targeting is a new concept being developed within IPM in partnership with the EPA, U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Johns Hopkins University, industry representatives and others. The precision targeting technology uses terrain maps, it tracks field results by computer, it helps identify recurring “hot spots,” and aims to restrict treatments to smaller, targeted areas. Preliminary studies with precision targeting in the field indicate positive results with a variety of pests such as deer ticks and mosquitoes, and has resulted in reductions in pesticide use from 60 to 100%. This practice appears to offer a potentially “friendly” benefit to the environment by restricting the broadness of treatments, which are currently spread over entire cities, towns and large communities.

References: III. Govt. Practices in Mosquito Control - Introduction

Surveillance - NJ http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/psd.htm

“ - VA http://www.pilotonline.com/news/nw0721ske.html 7/21/00 The Virginian-Pilot

Precision Targeting - http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oracba/newsletter/newslet4.htm

“ “ - www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/publications/vol2no2.htm

III.1 LARVACIDING ONLY - NO ADULTICIDING (the least-toxic alternative)

The larvacides currently being used are not based on toxic chemicals to poison the larvae, but use biological effects which target the mosquito larvae but are harmless to other creatures. The newer larvacide products, Bti and Methoprene, are in the least toxic classification of products. The older, more toxic larvacides have generally been phased out, with isolated exceptions.

The Bti larvacides affect only mosquito and black fly larvae, by disrupting the larvae’s gut.

Methoprene disrupts the mosquito larvae’s growth progression from the larval stage so it cannot develop into the flying and biting adult stage. Methoprene is harmless to other wildlife, although there are some theories (un-proven) that it might be affecting frogs in the upper mid-west.

Mosquito adulticides have varying degrees of toxicity, ranging from the most toxic to somewhat toxic classifications. The mosquito adulticides do not target only mosquitoes, but can kill or injure a wide variety of other insects, birds, fish and wildlife. Larvacides have neither of those disadvantages, they are the least toxic, and they do not harm wildlife. Adulticides are sprayed into the air over wide areas in residential neighborhoods by airplane or truck, but larvacides cover smaller areas, being placed into standing water, ponds, marshes, etc. Less areas being treated and less toxic products are larvicide’s advantages.

The environment benefits when mosquito control efforts rely totally or mostly upon larvaciding, (with little or no adulticiding.) Thus the least-toxic method is Larvaciding Only - No Adulticiding.

III.1.1 States/Towns having Only Larvaciding (no adulticiding):

Coppell, Texas: Larvaciding with Methoprene/Altosid- 150 day briquettes.

Also: > Source reduction by the city to clear standing water,

> Public education for citizens to eliminate breeding sites around their homes.

Excerpt/Quote:

“In response to requests from citizens, the City of Coppell Environmental

Health Department has organized a mosquito control program, consisting

of larvaciding, source reduction and public education. The use of adulticide

(spraying) is an ineffective means of eliminating mosquitoes and will

no longer be included in the program.”

http:/ / www.applink.net/ opengovt/ coppell/ file/ news/ city_pr/ 1997/ 73271cty.htm

Portland, Oregon (Multnomah Cnty): Larvaciding with Bti products.

Also: > Mosquito fish - Gambusia given out upon request (Phone No. is publicized)

> Backyard cleanups encouraged - check list for yards and assistance is given.

Excerpt/quote

“ If you suspect mosquitoes are breeding in your yard and would like assistance call your Mosquito Control Agency.” (Phone No. is given)

http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/health/ed/mosquito.html

Illinois - The Cities of Champaign, Urbana, Savoy Village and the University of Illinois—Larvaciding only.

These cities participate together in a mosquito control program aimed at identifying breeding areas

and larvaciding to prevent development of adult mosquitoes. The cities do not have an adult mosquito

eradication program.

http://www.city.champaign.il.us/public_works/pwsps.html#skeeters

Illinois - North Shore District, Lake County, (Chicago area) Stopped adulticiding, continued larvaciding.

This District will resort to alternative controls such as controlling rainwater accumulation to

eradicate breeding areas, to educate citizens of these practices, and continue using larvacides.

The North Shore Mosquito District trustees voted to end adulticide spraying. The ban will affect an 80 square mile area, bounded by Lake Michigan to the east. —National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides, NCAMP News—Pesticides and You, Vol 16, No.3 (3^rd Qtr.’97)

Findlay, Ohio: Larvaciding is done by the City’s Health Dept, Adulticiding was discontinued in 1993.

Also: > Recommends Purple Martins, swallows and bats,

> Recommends larva-eating fish for ponds,

> Recommends larvacides (dunks) for water standing over one week,

> Recommends repellents

> Promotes getting rid of mosquito habitats—emptying all containers that hold water.

Excerpt/Quote:

“According to Robin Faust, sanitarian for the Findlay Health Department, the city did at one time have

an adult mosquito fogging program, but it was discontinued in 1993 due to environmental concerns.”

The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96 http://www.thecourier.com/issues/bkissues.htm

Sharpsburg, Maryland—C&O Canal Historic Park: Larvaciding with Bti. Adulticiding stopped in 1980.

Malathion spraying and virtually all adulticiding along 160 miles of the C&O Canal in Maryland

was discontinued in 1980. Many backwater ponds and other breeding sites were removed.

B.t.i. larvaciding is being done by park rangers and junior park ranger volunteers. Public

education has been an effective weapon, with removal of containers helping to eliminate

breeding habitat—Least Toxic Controls Booklet—NCAMP (National Coalition Against Misuse

of Pesticides)

Maryland, 47 Communities in Anne Arundel County—Forty-seven communities have signed-up for

larvae control only, and no fogging for adult mosquitoes. The City of Annapolis and West

Annapolis are included. (list is reported herein) This option is not widely publicized as being

available throughout Md., but is apparently well known in Anne Arundel County.

http://www.mda.state.md.us/mosquito/aasch.htm

Delaware: Four towns and five private areas (communities) currently have agreements with Delaware’s

mosquito agency to have only larvaciding (no adulticiding), and six areas have no aerial adulticiding.

In Rehoboth, adulticides have not been used since 1990, with much credit given to work done to retain

fish in the town’s tidal lake to consume mosquito larvae. Door-to-door visits were done in Rehoboth in

earlier years to help clear yards of water containers, and to educate the public, and such visits are

continuing in various towns and communities, with seasonal help. (Additional comments, Section IV.5)

Mosquito Administrator, Dr. Bill Meredith, Phone interview

California: Many of the Mosquito Control Districts in Calif. use the same practices with no adulticiding,

mostly larvaciding, with occasional pupaeciding.

> Mosquito fish are furnished without charge, and are the first preference for control.

> Larvaciding (Bti and Methoprene) is next.

> Sources found with large majority of pupae are treated with Golden Bear pupaecide. (occasionally)

> Breeding sources are required to be cleared by property owners. In extreme cases

where an owner doesn’t cooperate, mosquito control abates the situation, and has the

power to file a lien against the property for costs.

> Source reductions, trench maintenance, and regular larvaciding

> Liaison with cities to correct drainage problems, ditches, etc.

> Large Public Education program including city newsletters, community bulletin boards,

videos and tapes, TV, radio, lectures with slides for schools, civic groups, clubs, etc.

Emphasis on eliminating breeding sources around the home.

Los Angeles County West -- http://www.palosverdes.com/lacwvcd/wemosq.htm

Shasta County District -- http://www.snowcrest.net/mosquito/control.htm

Santa Barbara Coastal District—http://www.silcom.com/~vector/mosquito.html

Ventura County—http://www.ventura.org/env_hlth/moscon2.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/mosquito/aasch.htm

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL SCHEDULE - 1998-2001

(As of May 5, 1998)

Anne Arundel Communities—with ONLY LARVACIDING -No adulticiding (Excerpt)

(L) = Control of mosquito larvae only; no fogging for adult mosquitoes.

1. Adams Park(L)

2. Bar Harbor Manor(L)

3. Baytowne Village (L)

4. Bembe Beach (L)

5. Buckingham Cove (L)

6. Captains Walk (L)

7. Chesapeake Landing (L)

8. City of Annapolis(L)

9. Creekview(L)

10. Crystal Beach (L)

11. Dorsey Heights (L)

12. Forest Villa (L)

13. Gentry (L)

14. Georgetown East (L)

15. Germantown (L)

16. Green Acres (L)

17. Greenbriar Gardens (L)

18. Greenbrier (L)

19. Heritage (L)

20. Homewood (L)

21. Hunt Meadows (L)

22. Knightsbridge (L)

23. Lake Riviera(L)

24. Lakeview(L)

25. Mariners Cove (L)

26. Market Quay (L)

27. Newtowne Road (L)

28. New Point (L)

29. Painters Hill (L)

30. Parole (L)

31. Primrose Acres (L)

32. Ridgewood Estates I (L)

33. Riviera Beach(L)

34. Saltworks on the Severn(L)

35. Saunders Point(L)

36. School Gardens(L)

37. Surfside(L)

38. Timber Creek (L)

39. Triton Beach (L)

40. Truxton Heights Park(L)

41. Tyler Heights (L)

42. Wardour (L)

43. Wardour Bluffs (L)

44. West Annapolis (L)

45. Windrush Farm (L)

46. Fairview Av (L)

47. Gingerville Manor Estates(L)

California - Alameda County: Larvaciding with Bti and Methoprene.

Also: > Gambusia fish, delivered upon request

> Urges draining water containers around your house

http://www.loe.org/html/transcripts/960621.html#anchor488434

Florida Keys: No Adulticiding—dozens of islands, state parks, aquatic preserves, specific

areas of Key Largo, Big Pine Key, etc.

Excerpt/Quote:

“State law prohibits the use of environmentally harmful chemicals on biologically productive lands. In

the case of Florida’s Dept of Environmental Protection, DEP-controlled lands, that means no aerial or

ground spraying of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes. Areas currently being avoided by the Florida

Keys Mosquito Control include the Keys’ state parks, Coupon Bight on Big Pine Key, and

islands included in the Keys’ wildlife refuges.”

Keynoter Newspaper July 18, 1998

Canada: Three cities were noted during the survey using larvaciding only, and one which avoided adulticiding in more than half a decade. See section III.3 below for details of those Canadian Cities.

III.1.2 Thoroughness of Larvaciding:

The larvaciding practices are most effective when methodically and thoroughly maintained. The goal is to avoid missing some breeding areas which could be hatching adult mosquitoes if missed. In the local area where development seems to be constant and on-going, changes will be occurring in the stormwater drainage basins, new ditches and culverts are being constructed, and new rainwater pools can occur when fill dirt is added for new housing.

In addition to field surveys with trips to observe breeding sites, this survey noted additional methods

of locating and discovering new breeding sites for treatments:

> Liaison with Roads/Highway Depts, Planning Depts and new Building

Inspection Depts. to assist in finding new breeding sites.

> Aerial Surveys—before tree foliage emerges.

> During premises visits to investigate complaints, extending the inspections

to the surrounding vicinity, to locate any un-mapped, new breeding sites.

> Extending the larvaciding area to include several miles beyond the boundary

of the town being treated.

Under certain conditions, the larvaciding should be constantly done, without extensive dipping and counting of larvae.

Examples of Larvaciding—Thoroughly and Constantly:

Calif., Marin & Sonoma Counties: Computer database is updated daily, assisting in thorough larvaciding.

Excerpts/Quotes:

“Locating the larval breeding sources is so important Marin /Sonoma County Mosquito Control

dedicates most of the available time of ten vector technicians to survey, map and catalog more than

2,400 permanent breeding sources in the two county area. Every known larval source, whether a

fraction or several hundred acres, is mapped and cataloged in the district’s computerized database.

Additions and deletions occur daily.

http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/mossurvl.html

“Planning Dept Consultation—Mosquito District staff reviews building and development plans for the 17

cities within the district boundaries, whenever the project has the potential for creating mosquito

control problems.”

http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/pconsult.html

NJ, Atlantic County Example of constantly larvaciding, and the consequence of missing an area.

Excerpt/Quote: Report for Summer ‘96

“ No aerial adulticides were done, although one truck ULV adulticiding had to be done on Brigantine

Island which had been missed in larviciding activities. Truck larviciding went on constantly all

summer. Aerial larviciding was accomplished with the use of Altosid concentrate.”

N J Mosquito Control Assoc. Newsletter -- 3 October, 1996

Florida—State Policies Computer-based mapping system, is routinely updated, and also updated as building

developments occur. These steps assist in thorough larvaciding.

Excerpts/Quotes:

“It is highly desirable to use a computer-based mapping system for this purpose (larvaciding ) if

possible. The map inventory must be updated on a routine basis. As new residential or commercial

developments are created, the characteristics of mosquito-breeding sites may change. In turn, the

species composition of mosquitoes produced at each site may change. Measurements such as water

depth, water temperature, and presence of predators (fish) may be useful to help determine

larvaciding treatments needed, and should be included in maps of mosquito-breeding sites.”

http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~VEROWEB/WHITEP/ch3.htm

Winnipeg, Ma.—Example of continuously larvaciding, also extending larvaciding beyond city limits. Frequent

inspections for new breeding sites and changes in drainage patterns, indicate thoroughness.

Excerpts/Quotes:

“The Insect Control Branch larvicides more or less continuously from late April through early

September. Crews work seven days a week on rotating shifts in an effort to prevent larvae from

emerging as adults. As resources permit, larviciding is extended up to 5 miles beyond the city limits.

“Some mosquito breeding sites disappear each year due to drainage improvements and property

developments. Other sites appear because of changes in drainage patterns. Technical Assistants

inspect for new and previously recorded breeding sites frequently throughout the mosquito season.”

http://www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca/cowtech/search/oop/qfullhit.htw?CiWebHitsFile=/interhom/govern/oppchal/othinsec.htm&CiRestriction=%28%20mosquito%20%29%20AND%20NOT%20%23vpath%20%2A%5C%5Fvti%5F%2A.&CiQueryFile=/iissamples/issamples/query.idq&CiBeginHilite=%3CB%20CLASS=HIT%3E&CiEndHilite=%3C/B%3E&CiUserParam3=../main.htm&CiHiliteType=Full

III.1.3 Health Emergencies—Using less toxic methods

For programs involving Larvaciding Only, or other less toxic methods. there are exceptions allowing adulticide spraying for health emergencies. This is a “safety net” providing additional protection against disease. Environmentalists have generally accepted the “health emergency safety net” with adulticiding, but are advocating use of less toxic adulticide products. This approach is intended to promote both agendas: i.e. protections against disease emergencies, and also some consideration for the environment.

The following are examples of less toxic methods within emergencies:

Portland-Oregon (Multnomah County): -- During Emergencies - Use Adulticides on Limited Basis

Excerpt/Quote: “In the event of a health emergency the county health officer can give us the power to

use adulticides on a limited basis. We would not use adulticides on a wide-scale basis due to the

negative impact on the environment.”

http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/health/ed/mosquito.html

North Carolina (PESTicide EDucation Project): -- During Emergencies -target the treatments, avoid the most toxic products & use less harmful chemicals Excerpts/Quotes:

“EEE is rare and should not be used as a justification for unwise and potentially dangerous pesticide

applications where the cure may be worse than the problem. Safer alternatives to massive broadcast

aerial application of pesticides include:

> Target treatments to areas where the virus has been found in significant numbers of infected hosts

and mosquitoes. For example, it may be appropriate to concentrate treatments around poultry houses,

not people.

> Dibrom (Naled), is very toxic to amphibians, fish and birds and breaks down to dichlorvos which is at

least as toxic to these organisms. Both are toxic to people.” Even federal officials admitted adulticide

spraying might bring relief for only “three days”. ARC questions incurring risks for such minimal “benefits.”

http://metalab.unc.edu/arc/newsletters.htm

“State Alters Mosquito Plans—State Health Director Dr. Ron Levine announced that North Carolina dropped plans to use a highly toxic pesticide called Dibrom (Naled) and is planning to use two less-harmful chemicals.”

The News and Observer 9/21/96, Raleigh, North Carolina

Additional Examples—Using less toxic products Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York

In emergencies, less toxic products were used by Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York. The Resmethrin and Sumithrin adulticides used in these states for emergencies are less toxic [mammal test ratings] than Permethrin and Naled products used in Md. for nuisance mosquitoes or emergencies.

Connecticut, used Scourge/Resmethrin - Mosquito Control Association. Newsletter 10/3/96

Rhode Island, used Scourge/Resmethrin - http://www.nmca.org/paper8a.htm

Massachusetts, used Scourge/Resmethrin - http://home.att.net/~cmmcp2/products.htm

NY, Westchester, used ANVIL/Sumithrin—New York Times - 9/21/99

NYC- used Sumithrin and Resmethrin - http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNBC/926717.asp - 7/25/00

Maryland, Using Highest Toxicity

Md. has continued using Naled, Dibrom and Trumpet products (rated the highest toxicity) for aerial adulticiding since 1996 for either emergencies or for nuisance levels of mosquitoes. An actual emergency has not been declared here by Md’s Health Dept., and one dead crow (in Baltimore) is not a significant threat.

In Worcester County, in the year 2000, aerial adulticide spraying was discontinued by agreement with the County Council, except in case of a health emergency confirmed by Md’s Health Dept. The recent policy change for Worcester County benefits the Coastal Bays environment.

Environmentalists point out that if a less toxic product than Naled were used in Md, both the wildlife and residents would benefit. Toxic adulticide sprays impact the entire population but are likely to more heavily impact the health of children and the elderly, which ironically are the same groups more likely to have adverse effects from insect-borne viruses. Selecting less toxic products appears to be an opportunity to mitigate one aspect of the risk to the susceptible groups. We urge Md., in the event of a health emergency or for nuisance mosquito control, to use only the less toxic products, Resmethrin and Sumithrin, and to avoid the most toxic products (Naled, Dibrom, Trumpet, etc.)

References:

III.1.1 States/Towns having Only Larvaciding

Texas - http://www.applink.net/opengovt/coppell/file/news/city_pr/1997/73271cty.htm

Oregon - http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/health/ed/mosquito.html

Illinois - http://www.city.champaign.il.us/public_works/pwsps.html#skeeters

“ - NCAMP News—Pesticides and You, Vol 16, No.3 (3^rd Qtr.’97)

Ohio - The Courier (Ohio) 6/26/96 http://www.thecourier.com/issues/bkissues.htm

Md., Sharpsburg - Least Toxic Controls Booklet—NCAMP (National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides)

Md., Anne Arundel Communities - http://www.mda.state.md.us/mosquito/aasch.htm

Delaware, Mosquito Administrator, Dr. Bill Meredith, Phone Interview

California - Los Angeles County West -- http://www.palosverdes.com/lacwvcd/wemosq.htm

“ Shasta County District -- http://www.snowcrest.net/mosquito/control.htm

“ Santa Barbara Coastal District—http://www.silcom.com/~vector/mosquito.html

“ Ventura County—http://www.ventura.org/env_hlth/moscon2.htm

“ Alameda County http://www.loe.org/html/transcripts/960621.html#anchor488434

Florida Keys - Keynoter Newspaper July 18, 1998

III.1.2 Thoroughness of Larvaciding

California - http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/mossurvl.html

“ - http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/pconsult.html

New Jersey - N J Mosquito Control Assoc. Newsletter -- 3 October, 1996

Florida - http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~VEROWEB/WHITEP/ch3.htm

Winnipeg - http://www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca/cowtech/search/oop/qfullhit.htw?CiWebHitsFile=/interhom/govern/oppchal/othinsec.htm&CiRestriction=%28%20mosquito%20%29%20AND%20NOT%20%23vpath%20%2A%5C%5Fvti%5F%2A.&CiQueryFile=/iissamples/issamples/query.idq&CiBeginHilite=%3CB%20CLASS=HIT%3E&CiEndHilite=%3C/B%3E&CiUserParam3=../main.htm&CiHiliteType=Full

III.1.3 Health Emergencies—Using less toxic methods

Oregon - http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/health/ed/mosquito.html

North Carolina - http://metalab.unc.edu/arc/newsletters.htm

“ “ The News and Observer 9/21/96, Raleigh, North Carolina

Connecticut - Mosquito Control Association. Newsletter 10/3/96

Rhode Island - http://www.nmca.org/paper8a.htm

Massachusetts - http://home.att.net/~cmmcp2/products.htm

NY, Westchester—New York Times - 9/21/99

NYC - http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNBC/926717.asp - 7/25/00

III.2 Restrictions on Adulticiding

Since all of the mosquito adulticides have higher toxicity than larvacides, the methods which minimize adulticiding are beneficial. The environment will benefit when mosquito control efforts rely mostly upon larvaciding, (with less adulticiding.) The least-toxic method of Larvaciding Only - No Adulticiding was discussed in Section III.1 above. This section describes two other methods which restrict the amounts of adulticiding, -- spraying only-hot-spots, and restricting aerial adulticiding to use only-in-emergencies.

III.2.1 Adulticiding “Only-Hot-Spots”

The method of Adulticiding “Only-Hot-Spots” places relatively small amounts of adulticides into the environment by several techniques. One technique uses smaller equipment such as hand-held sprayers, or back pack sprayers, operated by technicians walking on-foot through an area being sprayed. Another technique is to spray only a limited area, for example, only the yard or immediate vicinity of hot-spots during premises visits.

The following are examples of Adulticiding “Only-Hot-Spots”:

Illinois, Napperville—Truck spraying was stopped. Now using hand-held spraying in hot-spots (heavily wooded

areas harboring mosquitoes)

Also: > Larvaciding of catch basins, swamps, ditches, etc.

> Encourages yard cleanups, rain gutters, old tires, etc.

> Recommends stocking fish in ornamental ponds.

Excerpt/Quote

“Although the majority of the program consists of larvaciding, control of adult mosquitoes is sometimes necessary. The City has not used truck-mounted spraying for the past couple of years. Hand held spraying is utilized in heavily wooded areas where mosquitoes are known to harbor. This is a more effective method of reducing the adult population. Barrier spraying works best in areas where houses are backed up to heavily wooded areas ”

http://naperville.il.us/_private/OldNews/pr070197.htm

http://naperville.il.us/_private/OldNews/pr050498.htm

Calif., Marin & Sonoma Counties - Hand-carried units are favored. Allows precise application to hot-spots, with less

drift to unintended wildlife targets.

Also: > Marsh Management, Source reductions, and trench maintenance.

> Mosquito fish are furnished without charge, and are first preference treatment.

> Larvaciding (Bti and Methoprene) is next.

> Sources found with large majority of pupae are treated with Golden Bear pupaecide. (occasionally)

> Large Public Education program including city newsletters, community bulletin boards,

videos and tapes, TV, radio, lectures with slides for schools, civic groups, clubs, etc. .

Excerpt/Quote “Use of ULV vehicle-mounted units has decreased in favor of small, hand-carried

dispersal units. This allows a more precise application of the pesticide, (less drift to unintended

targets). Adulticides are seldom used by the Marin / Sonoma district except for the abatement

of the treehole mosquito. The pesticide used is pyrethrum (sold as Pyrocide® ), a naturally

occurring substance harvested from Old World chrysanthemums. This material is the least

toxic available for adult mosquito control”

http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

Calif., Lake Tahoe Area -- Hot-spot areas are sprayed by technicians on-foot.

Also: > Larvaciding with Bti and Methoprene.

Excerpt/Quote “Technicians will go into areas (hot-spots) on foot and spray a small

amount of pesticide called pyrethrum, which is a naturally occurring substance harvested

from chrysanthemum flowers. It is the least toxic product for adult mosquito control.”

http://www.tahoe.com/tribune/stories.7.29.98/news/mosqufoggi29Jul7497.html Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 29, 1998

North Carolina, Pamlico County—Adulticiding only for complaints, around homes (in hot-spots)

Also: > Bti larvaciding

> Minnows, as predators of larvae.

> Public education for eliminating breeding sites around homes.

Adulticide is used only for complaint visits, where efforts around homes for least toxic methods failed.

http://metalab.unc.edu/arc/newsletters.htm (Summer ‘98)

III.2.2 Aerial Adulticiding - Restricted to Emergencies

The aerial method of adulticiding produces the most saturation, by blanketing an area with toxins. Locally, it impacts ponds, creeks, estuaries, marshes and drainage systems which are part of the Coastal Bays watershed. Drift of the spray occurs adding toxins directly into waters of the Coastal Bays. People outdoors who may be walking, biking, boating and having backyard barbecues cannot avoid being doused by aerial spraying.

Recognizing the adverse impacts of aerial adulticiding, restrictions have been provided by jurisdictions for the purpose of minimizing the use of the aerial method. Confirmations from Health Dept officials may be required before the decision is made to perform aerial adulticiding.

Instead of the aerial spraying, reliance and emphasis is given to the various non-toxic methods of control: larvaciding, standing water clean-ups, fish, etc.

The aerial adulticide restriction is an important step benefiting people and the environment, and could lead jurisdictions to adopt further less-toxic practices in the future.

COASTAL BAYS AREA: This year (2000) the Worcester County Commissioners adopted the policy of no aerial adulticiding except in case of a health emergency, confirmed by Maryland’s Health Dept., thus benefiting the Coastal Bays area.

Other examples of Aerial Adulticiding - Restricted to Emergencies:

Cape Cod, Massachusetts—Excerpt/Quote

“Biologist and epidemiologist Ralph Timperi, who is director of the Mass. Department of Public Health

laboratory, said that aerial spraying ‘is the last tool to use because it is the most drastic and should be

used only under the most extreme conditions’.”

http://www.sightings.com/politics6/fmos.htm

New York City—Excerpts/Quotes

“NY Health Department spokesman Erich Giebelhaus said ‘ City officials will not be spraying adulticide

unless there is a confirmed case of West Nile in New York’.”

“In an effort to combat mosquitoes, city leaders have declared standing water to be a public nuisance.

The Board of Health approved a resolution giving city inspectors the power to enter private property

without an owner’s consent and remove any containers with standing water. Homeowners could be billed

for the cleanup and fined.”

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/westnile000316.html (March 16, 2000)

Nation/World Wire Reports Apr 20 2000

New York State—Excerpt/Quote

“Aerial pesticide spraying is the ‘least desirable’ way to control the spread of West Nile virus and

should be used only as a last resort, according to a new state plan. Under the new plan, the final

decision of whether or not to do aerial spraying (adulticiding) lies with the local county or city Health

Dept. The state plan envisions greatly expanded efforts to control mosquitoes while they are still young

(by larvaciding) and elimination of breeding sites.

Newsday, Long Island, Feb.19, 2000

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Excerpt/Quote

“Airborne spraying would be used only in ‘an absolute worst case scenario,’ April Hutcheson,

spokeswoman of Pa’s Dept of Environmental Protection said.”

http://www.gburgtimes.com/archives/archives2000/march/3-16.htm

Gettysburg Times—Online Archives March 2000

References:

III.2.1 Adulticiding “Only-Hot-Spots”

http://naperville.il.us/_private/OldNews/pr070197.htm

http://naperville.il.us/_private/OldNews/pr050498.htm

http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

http://www.tahoe.com/tribune/stories.7.29.98/news/mosqufoggi29Jul7497.html Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 29, 1998

http://metalab.unc.edu/arc/newsletters.htm (Summer ‘98)

III.2. 2 Aerial Adulticiding - Restricted to Emergencies

http://www.sightings.com/politics6/fmos.htm

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/westnile000316.html (3/16/2000)

Nation/World Wire Reports Apr 20 2000

Newsday, Long Island, Feb.19, 2000

http://www.gburgtimes.com/archives/archives2000/march/3-16.htm Gettysburg Times—Online Archives March 2000

III.3 Less-toxic Examples in Canada

During this survey, we noted several examples of less-toxic practices for Canadian cities,

summarized below.

CITY OF REGINA, Saskatchewan, Canada

Larvaciding by the City is the principal mosquito control practice. No adulticiding is done. Other activities include:

> Clearing standing water from public lands, parks and lots for sale, with public crews.

> The public is requested to report standing water to the City. Crews then drain the water, or treat it with larvacide.

> The City has erected 35 purple martin birdhouses throughout the city.

> Recommends citizens put a bat or purple martin house in their yards.

> Promotes removal of standing water from yards, publishes list of “What you can do.”

> Recommends Vectobac (a larvacide available in Canada) when water cannot be removed.

> Publishes suggestions to avoid bites—repellents, light color clothing, nets for baby strollers, etc.

The City of Regina explains its reasons for not spraying adult mosquitoes, in the following quotation:

“Chemicals are an ineffective method of adult mosquito control since mosquitoes merely move

out of any area being sprayed, returning after the chemical settles. It is also difficult to contain

the chemical spray or fog to a specific area. Spray kills adult mosquitoes only if they come in

direct contact. Chemicals are also highly toxic to beneficial insects, fish, snakes, frogs and

birds. It may harm pets and wildlife, and cause problems for people.”

http://www.cityregina.com/services/enviro/mosi3.shtml

http://www.cityregina.com/content/parks_and_rec/insect_control/info.shtml

EAST GWILLIMBURY, Ontario, Canada (near Toronto)

Larvaciding (with Vectobac - Bti) is the principal mosquito control practice. No adulticiding is done. Backyard cleanups to remove standing water are promoted. Bats and purple martins are acknowledged for eating mosquitoes.

Excerpts/Quotes

“The program began in 1989, when residents petitioned the Town Council. Dr. Jim Madder (a scientist with a PHD in Entomology) and his company Culice Inc. completed the study in 1990 showing the benefit of larvaciding. Every year, since 1990, larval habitats are treated with a non-chemical, biological control agent eliminating the larvae before they develop into mature into flying, biting adults.

“Residents participate by eliminating potential breeding sites in their yards. One old tire, thrown away in a backyard will hold enough warm water to breed 100,000 mosquitoes during April. “

http://www.town.eastgwillimbury.on.ca/municipl/mosqu.htm

RED DEER CITY, Alberta , Canada

Larvaciding (with Vectobac - Bti) is the only mosquito control. Thorough mapping of mosquito-breeding spots helps the larvaciding program. Mosquito Dunks are also recognized. No adulticiding is done.

Excerpts/Quotes

“ Michael O’Brien of the Red Deer River Naturalists Society and Dr Sandy Murray persuaded the City

Councillors in 1989 to adopt the non-chemical larvacide approach to mosquito control.

“By common acclaim, the job by the city’s mosquito-control team in pinpoint-mapping of mosquito-

breeding spots in and around the community has given Red Deer City an excellent ecological

inventory of its wetlands (allowing thorough larvaciding ).”

http://www.enviroweb.org/hecweb/archive/pestfile/stinging.htm

WINNIPEG, Manitoba, Canada

Continuous and thorough larvaciding is emphasized. Larvaciding maps are continually updated. Cleanups of standing water containers and drainage ditches on public and private property are promoted. Adulticiding is seldom needed.

Excerpts/Quotes

“ Every year, the Insect Control Branch larvicides continuously from late

April through early September. Crews work seven days a week on rotating shifts in

an effort to prevent larvae from emerging as adults.

“Throughout the spring and summer season, larviciding maps are reviewed

and updated by on-site inspections.

“Some mosquito breeding sites disappear each year due to drainage

improvements and property developments. Other sites appear because of

changes in drainage patterns. The Foremen responsible for larviciding, record

and map each change. Technical Assistants inspect new and previously recorded

breeding sites frequently throughout the mosquito season. In the last ten

years, Winnipeg has adulticided only four times.”

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.mbnet.mb.ca/city/parks/envserv/insect/mosquito.html+Winnipeg+mosquitoes&hl=en

References: III.3 Less-toxic Examples in Canada

http://www.cityregina.com/services/enviro/mosi3.shtml

http://www.cityregina.com/content/parks_and_rec/insect_control/info.shtml

http://www.town.eastgwillimbury.on.ca/municipl/mosqu.htm

http://www.enviroweb.org/hecweb/archive/pestfile/stinging.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.mbnet.mb.ca/city/parks/envserv/insect/mosquito.html+Winnipeg+mosquitoes&hl=en http://www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca/cowtech/search/oop/qfullhit.htw?CiWebHitsFile=/interhom/govern/oppchal/othinsec.htm&CiRestriction=%28%20mosquito%20%29%20AND%20NOT%20%23vpath%20%2A%5C%5Fvti%5F%2A.&CiQueryFile=/iissamples/issamples/query.idq&CiBeginHilite=%3CB%20CLASS=HIT%3E&CiEndHilite=%3C/B%3E&CiUserParam3=../main.htm&CiHiliteType=Full

III.4 Open Marsh Water Management

In coastal areas, the practice for Open Water Marsh Management involves digging a series of ditches across the marshes, thus allowing a flushing action as the tide rises and falls. Native fish can then enter the marshes (minnows and immature fry of larger species) to feed upon mosquito larvae.

Current practices for marsh management include the digging of deeper pools within the marshes allowing the larva-eating fish to survive very low tides. When water levels again rise, the fish from such pools can again fan out over the marsh, eating mosquito larvae. A similar technique, allowing fish to survive the low tides, places sills in the ditches which retains some portion of water in the ditches even at low tides. Sills produce a sort of barrier or dam effect within the ditch, allowing high tides to enter but stopping low tides from completely draining the ditch-water. Fish can survive in the remaining water when either sills or deeper pools are provided, and will not be killed by low tides. Meanwhile, the need for both larvaciding and adulticiding is reduced or eliminated.

Another benefit of marsh management is its long-lived effects. After the trenching is done, the same area may not need to be retrenched for another 20 years.

States Using OMWM

Coastal states found during this survey to be using Open Marsh Water Management include: Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York (Long Island), Connecticut, and California.

A study in Cape May County, New Jersey found that trenching a local 548-acre marsh had cost $15,990, whereas, if helicopter treatments had instead been used over the marsh, the costs would have been $342,500 during the 25 years from 1969 to 1994. http://www.umaa.org/ecomosco.htm

One project in Delaware (Milford Neck Area in ‘96) received favorable environmental designation under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and received financial support from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

The Nature Conservancy, and

Ducks Unlimited

Mosquito Control Association Newsletter-- 3 October, 1996

Maryland’s OMWM Activity

In earlier years, until 1989, Md’s OMWM program covered up to 2,000 acres per year, but current marsh management activity is a fraction of that level. Although some naturalists have persuaded Md. to curtail marsh management, the citizens preparing this report point out OMWM offers significant advantages. By reducing the use of toxic mosquito adulticides and re-emphasizing marsh management there are benefits to fish, birds, reptiles other wildlife and people, in the following ways:

> By reducing the toxic practice of adulticiding with marsh management, we avoid spraying toxic chemicals into the air we breathe. ( and also the air and water habitat for wildlife - birds, beneficial insects, reptiles, turtles, frogs, etc.).

> The birds sought to be protected by those opposing marsh management would likely be injured by adulticide chemicals, but would benefit from lack of spraying.

> Marsh management activity in Delaware has been endorsed by four environmental groups (listed above), indicating acceptance by significant naturalists.

> Small fish, and other small creatures of the aquatic food chain have the least resistance to toxins, and thus can benefit the most from marsh management, with the resulting improvement in the quality of their habitat, in turn benefiting those higher in the food chain.

In Maryland a 1998 report indicated the state’s marsh management efforts are currently limited to maintenance of previously ditched areas. Worcester County had the lowest acreage of marsh work maintenance in ‘98. (Excerpt/Quote)

“During 1998, open marsh water management (OMWM) was conducted (on Md’s eastern shore) in Dorchester County (80 acres) in the Crapo-Wingate area; Somerset County (405 acres) in the vicinity of Crisfield, Marumsco and Mt. Vernon; and Worcester County (73 acres) at South Point and Cape Isle of Wight. All work was for maintenance of existing water management (ditch) systems.”

The following are problems in marsh management (noted from Md. Dept of Agriculture sources), and apparently are contributing to Md’s decline in marsh management acreage:

> Federal agencies have not allowed OMWM on federally controlled property in Maryland, but OMWM has occurred on federal property in other states.

> Concerns (primarily from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources) about possible unknown long-term impact on wetland hydrology and unknown impact on certain threatened or endangered species (i.e., black rails) have severely decreased Md’s marsh management efforts since 1989.

Suggested Increase in Marsh Management

From the viewpoint of promoting non-toxic mosquito control, it is recommended that MCBP should endorse increased marsh management activity, within the framework of Goal FW 3.5 of the MCBP Comprehensive Plan. The Coastal Bay shorelines and salt water marshes have a tendency to shift over the years, and there are also a number of new communities being added along shorelines and near marsh lands. Thus, there appears to be opportunities to expand marsh management activities into additional parts of the Coastal Bays watershed.

References: III.4 Open Marsh Water Management

Delaware—http://www.wboc.com/features/outdoor/story.cfm?loader=4407

Connecticut, Delaware, New York-Long Island—Mosquito Control Association Newsletters: 3-October-1996,

3-October-1997, 2-October-1998

New Jersey, Cape May—http://www.umaa.org/ecomosco.htm

Calif., Marin/Sonoma Counties—http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

Calif., San Diego County—http://www.torreypine.org/mudie74.htm#Mosquito Abatement

Maryland—http://www.mda.state.md.us/annual/mosquito.htm—Annual Report for 1998-Mosquito Control Section; 1997-Mosquito Control in Maryland

III.5 GOVT. ACTIVITIES FOR BACKYARDS

Mosquito control agencies send inspectors to visit backyards either as a policy to promote clean-ups, or in answer to complaints. When responding to citizen complaints, the inspector visits are generally welcomed as providing relief from the nuisance mosquitoes. And there are a number of on-the-premises procedures noted during this survey to help provide relief. Details are discussed below.

Other inspections of backyards may be necessary because accumulated trash has been observed, or as a policy to promote clean-ups around homes and businesses. Although these inspections are un-invited, the public will often cooperate with the clean-up program. However, some states have also passed legal requirements, to assist compliance with the programs. Details are discussed below.

Answering complaints/ On-the-premises Procedures

When answering complaints, the steps taken during premises visits typically include the following:

> Prompt response to the complaint calls, (same day or next day, etc.)

> Informing residents about the fact that mosquitoes can only breed in water, and giving them mosquito information sheets, emphasizing standing water removal.

> Inspecting the yard, emptying water containers observed during the inspection.

> Instructing the resident in various how-to-do-it steps to prevent mosquitoes from breeding around their homes: maintaining swimming pools, covering boats and removing bilge drain plugs, cleaning roof rain gutters, adding fish to ornamental garden ponds, repairing dripping outside faucets, etc.

> Applying larvacides to areas which cannot be drained or emptied. Many states recommend that residents use “Mosquito Dunks” for areas where standing water cannot be drained. One town reported giving “Dunks” to residents during the premises visit.

> Some states will deliver larvae-eating fish if suitable pools or ponds are found in yards.

> Minor trench clearing, allowing water to drain away.

> Inspecting nearby vicinity and nearby yards—ponds, trenches with standing water, etc., and larvaciding as needed.

> During the inspections, new/ unmapped breeding sites may be discovered that were not otherwise known to mosquito personnel. Follow-up is needed, for purposes of updating the maps used for larvae surveillance, larvaciding, and/or stocking with larvae-eating fish.

> Setting light traps, for overnight collection of mosquitoes, to confirm their presence, numbers and species. Analyzing the light trap results to evaluate control efforts for the vicinity.

Other Efforts on Complaint Visits:

Mosquito inspectors in New Jersey and Virginia, when answering complaint calls, will thoroughly search the vicinity and neighborhood knocking on neighbor’s doors, inspecting yards, emptying water containers, and leaving “door-knob notices” when neighbors were not at home.

In a Florida county, the mosquito inspectors will take old, discarded tires from homes to the disposal facility. The district accepts old tires at its mosquito control facility any time, and promotes “Amnesty Days” twice a year.

In one VA. county, the mosquito inspectors will also contact other responsible agencies when observing drainage trench maintenance problems, water leaks needing repair, etc.

[References (1) thru (4) below]

Maryland’s Procedures

When answering complaints, Md’s procedures are similar, except that Md. does not perform minor trench clearing—technicians don’t have shovels on their trucks. Also, Md. technicians do not leave “door-knob-notices.” in the neighborhood. With regard to old tires, this survey found no special Md. incentives for promoting the disposal of old tires from backyards, except in Montgomery County, Md. That county allows residents to dispose of up to four old tires at its local Solid Waste Transfer Station. The free disposal of old tires has been promoted in letters to county employees, and on the Montgomery County web site. (5) http://www.co.mo.md.us/services/dep/Mosquito/news&alerts.htm#Employees

When large tire piles are found by mosquito inspectors, notice is given to the Md. Dept. of Environment, and the mosquito agency has no further involvement. A bill designed to toughen Md’s waste tire requirements was not passed before adjournment of the legislature in March, 2000. (Md. House Bill 307, introduced 1/28/2000). Maryland appears to be less pro-active and aggressive than other states in assisting (or enforcing) clean-ups.

Yard Inspections (Un-invited)

Some Govt. agencies take pro-active, aggressive steps regarding yard inspections, and in this way they reinforce their commitment to getting the clean-ups accomplished. These pro-active and aggressive steps include:

> Using aerial observations to find obscure (sometimes illegal) accumulated trash and old tire piles. (Fla, near Disney World, cleaned-up an obscure tire dump, detected by aerial observation.)

> Yard-by-yard, door-to-door (un-invited) visits by inspectors are currently performed in New York City and Delaware, and have been done, at times, in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area.

> Giving assistance: If large trash accumulations and old tire piles are found, mosquito authorities can assist with arrangements for hauling away. Drilling drainage holes in old tires, or filling them with sand, are also recognized remedies.

> Some mosquito agencies increase these activities (aerial inspections and disposal assistance) during their off-season (wintertime).

Md. has not adopted these pro-active steps.

Legal requirements for clean-ups (Examples):

In New York City, extensive efforts for cleaning-up mosquito breeding sites are underway. Inspectors are concentrating on the neighborhoods evidencing infected birds, and where people contracted West Nile virus in ‘99. To promote cooperation and compliance, the City passed provisions to levy fines if homeowners do not cooperate.

Nation/World Wire Reports (6) (Excerpt/Quote)

“In an effort to combat virus-carrying mosquitoes, city leaders have declared standing water to be a

public nuisance. The Board of Health approved a resolution giving city inspectors the power to enter

private property without an owner’s consent and remove any containers with standing water.

Homeowners could be billed for the clean-up and fined.”

Mosquito Control Districts in California also have been granted legal powers to require cooperation by property owners in clean-ups. In extreme cases where the property owner will not correct the breeding source problem, the District may abate the nuisance and file a lien against the property, as provided by the California Health and Safety Code. Two web sites discuss this legal power which is available to all of the California mosquito control agencies. (7, 8) Mosquito control agencies in New Jersey have been given statutory police powers that assist in gaining cooperation. (9) Delaware has granted right-of-entry authority for elimination of breeding sources of nuisance and potential disease-threat mosquitoes. (10) These kinds of powers assist in achieving clean-ups, if cooperative efforts fail.

References: III.5 Govt. Activities for Backyards

(1) http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/complain.htm,

and phone interviews: M. Chomsky, Monmouth County, J. Hansen, Cape May—New Jersey

(2) http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~VEROWEB/WHITEP/ch3.htm—Florida

(3) http://www.co.prince-william.va.us/pworks/env_services/moths.htm—Virginia

(4) http://www.ci.walnut-creek.ca.us/pests.html -- California

(5) http://www.co.mo.md.us/services/dep/Mosquito/news&alerts.htm#Employees

(6) Nation/World Wire Reports Apr 20 2000

(7) http://www.palosverdes.com/lacwvcd/wemosq.htm -- Los Angeles West

(8) http://www.snowcrest.net/mosquito/control.htm -- Shasta County

(9) http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/psd.htm ( Para B-1)

(10) Phone interview, Dr. Bill Meredith, Delaware Mosquito Administrator

IV. Toxicity Information

IV.1 Awareness of Pesticide Toxicity

In recent years, there has been growing awareness of pesticide toxicity. Examination of the toxicity issue is going forward within scientific, public and environmental groups.

Pesticides are unique chemicals, designed to kill or damage living things. They are perhaps the only substances which are purposely applied to the environment in order to kill things. (1) Estimated annual use was 4.5 billion pounds in ‘95, (2) and this enormous amount consumed indicates the scope of the problem. But the insects are still around, giving rise to the question: Can better answers be found, instead of the toxic pesticides? YES, in a variety of ways, steps are being taken toward answers, but the problem is extensive and challenging.

A few extremely toxic pesticides have been banned and slowly phased out by federal regulations--(for example, DDT, Chlordane, and recently Dursban), but many more examples can be found of communities, counties and towns progressing to less toxic practices, and adopting their own less toxic solutions. Less toxic programs are growing, with emphasis on natural controls and prevention methods.

For mosquito control, natural methods and prevention involve control at the source, i.e. the water-breeding sites, (3) using methods discussed in this report. The web contains many sources of toxicity information, which are summarized herein for mosquito control products. In brief summary, larvacides are the non-toxic products, and all adulticides are toxic, ranging from somewhat toxic to very toxic, depending on the adulticide product used.

Of course, the MCBP is well aware of toxicity issues, and is making good progress by initiating plans and programs designed to increase public awareness and to help mitigate and minimize the continuous addition of toxins to the local environment. Other groups throughout the nation are promoting less reliance on toxic chemicals (observed during this survey), including:

> Groups promoting more mosquito larvaciding, etc. and less reliance on toxic methods. These include citizen advocates, medical authorities, and some govt. agencies, as shown elsewhere in this report.

> Organic farmers, environmentalists and naturalists.

> Health advocates.

> Suppliers, offering “Safer soaps” for garden insects, “Mosquito Dunks,” and other natural and less-toxic products.

Awareness and promotion are important components in mitigating toxic practices, and promotional effort is one of the strengths of the MCBP.

Measures of Toxicity

Awareness of the measures of toxicity can assist in promoting less toxic practices. Several methods of determining toxicity of products are commonly used.

The “chemical toxicity” rating system is based on lab tests of rats, to determine the amount of a pesticide causing deaths, sometimes called the LD50 or mammal toxicity tests. “LD50” refers to the Lethal Doses (LD) killing 50 percent of the subjects tested, and “mammalian toxicity” refers to the test subjects (rats). The ratings range from Class I -(the highest toxicity) to Class IV -(the lowest). If a small dosage of a product (droplets) can produce adverse results, a highest toxicity ranking is assigned.

“Adverse results” can be observed while the products are in use, providing additional toxicity information. Records are maintained of illnesses and poisoning occurrences for people including farm workers and pesticide handlers exposed to pesticides during product useage, (although there are some gaps in the recordkeeping.) Records are also maintained of fish diseases and fish-kills, fish-production, bird-counts, etc. Lab tests are conducted using biological samples from exposed individuals, killed fish and wildlife. Adverse results were observed while DDT was in use, leading to that pesticide’s eventual ban. But, this method is the slowest, as the products are already in use, before adverse results can be observed.

Rankings and Labeling (4, 5)

The following illustrates the chemical toxicity ranking system and the label warnings for each class. Estimates are also shown of the dosages to kill a 150 lb. adult, projected from tests on rats.

> Class I -- labeled DANGER/POISON (Highest Toxicity) Killing dose = a few drops to a teaspoon.

> Class II -- “ WARNING Killing dose = over a teaspoon to one ounce.

> Class III -- “ CAUTION Killing dose = over one ounce to more than a pint.

> Class IV -- “ “ (lowest toxicity) essentially non-toxic, lower toxicity than table salt.

All pesticide labeling requires the additional wording “Keep out of reach of children.” Household products (which also are not intended to be eaten) and cosmetics such as talcum powder contain the same wording “CAUTION - Keep out of reach of children.” Care is necessary in all uses of pesticides, and the labeling of any household products and pesticides you purchase should be strictly followed. If a label specifies DANGER/POISON, the product is especially toxic, and you may want to buy a different, less toxic one. If the directions indicate ”use eye protection”, be sure to wear goggles; -- “use in ventilated areas”, you should only use it outside, wear a mouth/nose mask, etc. Also, place all household products, pesticides, cleaners, detergents, etc. where children cannot accidentally get their hands on them.

But for mosquito products, residents are generally unaware of toxicity information since the mosquito authorities seldom provide the facts presented in the following list.

List of Product Toxicities (6)

Class IV—CAUTION -- Non-toxic Larvacides (7)

Bti Larvacides (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) : Vectobac, Bactimos, Mosquito Dunks

Bs Larvacides (Bacillus sphaericus): Vectolex, Spherimos

Methoprene Larvacides: Altosid

No species adverse effects for mammals, fish, birds, honeybees or other wildlife

No adverse results observed, in use.

Class III—CAUTION—Mosquito Adulticides

Natural pyrethrums—Pyrocide, Pyronone,

Sumithrin (Anvil 10 + 10, Anvil 2 + 2), synthetic pyrethroid

Resmethrin (Scourge 18-54, Scourge 4-12) “ “

Permethrin (some formulations), synthetic pyrethroid

Malathion (Fyfanon, Cythion) Organophosphate

Although Malathion is in class III, many adverse results have been observed,

thus increasing its toxicity risks.

Class II—WARNING -- Mosquito Adulticides (one step from highest toxicity class)

Permethrin (some formulations) synthetic pyrethroid

Fenthion (Baytex) Organophosphate

Class I --DANGER/POISON -- Mosquito Adulticides (Highest toxicity)

Naled (Dibrom, Trumpet) Organophosphate

As you can see from the above listing, larvacides are the non-toxic products, all within Class IV. In contrast,

all of the adulticides are toxic, ranging from somewhat toxic in Class III to the most toxic in Class I, labeled DANGER/POISON. Class I chemicals include those affecting the eyes through corrosive effects, and Naled/Dibrom has this problem.

References: IV.1 Awareness of Pesticide Toxicity

(1) Journal of Pesticide Reform, Summer - 1999, Vol 19, No.2, Eugene, OGN.

(2) EPA, Pesticides Sales and Usage, 1995, Washington, DC.

(3) Bio-Integral Resource Center, Mosquitoes -The Water Connection Dr. William Olkowski, Berkeley, CAL. 1987

(4) http://ianrwww.unl.edu/pubs/pesticides/ec2505/htm Univ. of Nebraska, Pesticide Poisoning Signs and Symptoms

(5) http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/def/tox_category.html Environmental Defense Fund, Toxicity Categories

(6) http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/entomology/pest99/pestsafe/insect.htm (‘99 Univ. Ga., Pest Handbook)

(7) Product Toxicology Profiles: Abbott Labs, Sandoz Agro, Inc.

IV.2 Adulticides Have Broad-based Toxicity: Causing Fish-kills, Harming Other Species

A significant environmental problem with mosquito adulticides is their broad-based toxicity, which means that adulticides will kill or injure a variety of other insects and wildlife, birds, amphibians, etc. In comparison, the larvacides have the advantage of targeting only the mosquitoes (and some varieties of flies), but are non-toxic to other wildlife, fish, birds, and are also non-toxic to beneficial insects (honey bees and species important to pollination, lady bugs—helpful in controlling aphids, natural predators of mosquitoes—dragon flies, and other small insects—at the low end of the aquatic food chain).

Evidence of the environmental toxicity of adulticide chemicals includes fish-kills, bird and duck deaths, adverse effects on shrimp, crabs, lobsters, turtles, etc. The organophosphate adulticides—Dibrom/Naled, Malathion, and Fenthion—have shown broad impacts. Further evidence of excessive adverse effects from organophosphates is the recent announcement by the EPA to phase-out Dursban, a widely used organophosphate, (unfortunately at a very slow pace, under pressures from chemical suppliers.) Examples are discussed below.

Florida: Dibrom/Naled kills variety of species

“When South Florida‘s anti-mosquito air force takes wing, mosquitoes are not the only things zapped. Butterflies (including the endangered Schaus swallowtail) are killed by Dibrom (Naled). They can be killed at 1/400^th to ¼,000^th of the dose sprayed to kill mosquitoes, University of Florida (UF) researchers say. Dibrom also kills shrimp and small fish at low levels. It can kill small birds such as warblers and possibly even small mammals such as muskrats, say researchers led by Thomas Emmel, a UF entomologist. They are concerned about its effects on vulnerable creatures such as baby birds, even at low but repeated doses. Dibrom clobbers insects such as bees, wasps and dragonflies that naturally eat mosquitoes and pollinate plants. Insects play an important role in the environment. Near the bottom of the food chain, they sustain higher species. Zoologist Harry Tiebout, Emmel‘s colleague at UF, is concerned about the effects on young birds that eat sprayed bugs, or that cannot fly away if their nests are sprayed.” (Excerpts—Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale. 6/13/93)

“Donna Matvejs, who raises lobsters in the Keys, told the mosquito-spraying trucks to avoid her house, like those of other South Floridians who do not want the spray near them. But sometimes drivers make mistakes. It happened to Matvejs once, and the next day she had 100 dead lobsters on her hands. Even more toxic than Dibrom is one of its breakdown products known as dichlorvos, or DDVP. It is 50 to 160 times more immediately toxic to animals with shells, such as shrimp or lobsters, than Dibrom, according to EPA records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” (Excerpts—Sun-Sentinel, Ft Lauderdale, 6/13/93)

“Jim Stevenson, chief of resource management, Florida Department of Natural Resources, has rejected the use of Dibrom in Florida‘s state parks and wildlife refuges. ‘These are chemicals that kill biological organisms and they are not specific for mosquitoes,’ Stevenson says. ‘They kill dragonflies, honeybees and any other invertebrates that live in the parks. We do not want park visitors or park staff sprayed.’” (Excerpts—Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, 6/14/93)

New York, Staten Island: Malathion found in Dead Fish

About 2,000 dead fish in the waters of Staten Island, found the day after spraying, contained evidence of Malathion confirmed by tests. “Malathion was also responsible for the deaths of fish in Willowbrook Park according to Brian O’Connor of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.” Staten Island ADVANCE (Newspaper) 01/22/2000

Mass, Plymouth County: Massive fish-kill after Malathion spraying

In August 1990, the state contracted for widespread aerial spraying of Malathion to kill adult mosquitoes. By

5 P.M. on the first day of spraying, radio and television reports were citing massive fish kills in southern Plymouth County, the area where planes had sprayed that day. The state did not declare a public health emergency although they suspected possible encephalitis. Environmentalists of the Audubon Society questioned why the state had not used larvacides earlier in the season, a more environmentally sound program. Santuary Magazine, Mass. Audubon Society, Dec. 1990

Florida: Fenthion killed and injured fiddler crabs

Residues of the adulticide Fenthion were found on dead and injured fiddler crabs in Florida’s Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve after mosquito spraying. http://www.pherec.org/99AnnRpt.html

Fish-kills, also turtles, alligators, and birds (agricultural organophosphate):

An organophosphate insecticide, Guthion was implicated by the EPA in the deaths of up to 750,000 fish, and an unknown number of other animals including turtles, alligators, and birds, during the 1991 spraying season. A series of six fish kills during 1992 relating to the organophosphate pesticide prompted Louisiana State Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odum to restrict its use. The pesticide was typically applied aerially. 10/9/92 (Baton Rouge Advocate) By another estimate, “In 1991 at least one million fish in the bayous of Louisiana were killed by aerial applications of Guthion, (organophosphate.) Fish can be poisoned by the presence of even a few parts per billion of pesticides in the aquatic environment.” http://www.pesticidewatch.org/Html/PestProblem/Environment.htm

Daytona Beach: Organophosphate pesticide evidence in duck deaths

Police plucked more than a dozen dead ducks from a neighborhood canal and lake over the weekend, the apparent victims of pesticide poisoning. A woman living nearby saw two men spraying on the canal, and shortly thereafter began finding dead ducks. Later, police found a discarded bag of diazinon, an organophosphate pesticide, in the water nearby. (Excerpts—Daytona Beach - News-Journal, Aug. 25, 1997)

Maryland: Fish-kill lawsuit

A fish-kill of 3,000 rockfish at a Talbot County fish farm resulted in a lawsuit against Md’s mosquito control agency for alleged improper adulticide spraying. The next night after the mosquito spraying, when the owner returned home from working at another location, she found “all the rockfish were dead as well as frogs, crayfish, sunfish and bluegill. They kept popping up for two days.” The suit was settled out of court and details were not published under a confidentially agreement, thus leaving unanswered the questions of product toxicity and whether proper precautions were followed in spraying Permethrin. (The Daily Times - 7/13/97)

Care is necessary in the use of Permethrin near waterways. A setback of 100-ft. is recommended by the labeling, and is prescribed by Md’s mosquito control agency. Most of the roads in communities adjoining the coastal bays are located at least that far from the waterways, since the houses and yards are typically bordering the waters edge. In emergencies, truck spraying would produce less impact, allowing better adherence to setbacks, compared with aerial spraying where significant drift occurs from natural breezes, and from air currents generated by the aircraft’s propeller blades.

The Resmethrin and Sumithrin products have certain toxicities to fish or aquatic life, but generally lower impacts than the organophosphates. In emergencies, the Resmethrin and Sumithrin products are more suitable in the environmentally sensitive area of the Maryland Coastal Bays, and their selection would help mitigate the risk to waterways, compared with Naled, in toxicity class-I (the highest toxicity). Both the Resmethrin and Sumithrin products have very low mammalian toxicity and are practically nontoxic to birds. Their use would help mitigate the risk to fish, compared with stronger chemicals. Agencies in NY, Conn., Mass., and Rhode Island have selected the less toxic products. In an emergency, even the use of Permethrin truck spraying (with proper setbacks) would represent reduced toxicity, compared with Naled.

We urge that Md. authorities discontinue the use of Naled/Dibrom for all uses in the sensitive coastal bays area, even for emergencies, and instead use lower toxicity products (Resmethrin and Sumithrin) applied by trucks.

Appendix C lists the problems observed by local residents after aerial sprayings of Naled/Dibrom in 1996.

References: IV.2 Adulticides Have Broad-based Toxicity: Causing Fish-kills, Harming Other Species

Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale. 6/13/93, 6/14/93

Staten Island ADVANCE (Newspaper) 01/22/2000

Santuary Magazine, Mass. Audubon Society, Dec. 1990

http://www.pherec.org/99AnnRpt.html

http://www.pesticidewatch.org/Html/PestProblem/Environment.htm

Daytona Beach - News-Journal, Aug. 25, 1997

The Daily Times - 7/13/97

IV.3 Adulticide Hazards to People: Organophosphate Problems

Medical authorities and university scientists are well aware of the potential hazards of pesticides to people’s health, including “adverse effects” observed during use. The organophosphate adulticides have received criticism due to observed toxicity effects, which are applicable to Malathion, Fenthion and Naled/Dibrom products. Organophosphates are a class of chemicals which are neurotoxins, adversely affecting nerves and the brain. They are in the same chemical class as Sarin nerve gas, banned by many nations after WW-I.

These pesticides can enter the human body in three ways: 1) through the lungs, by breathing of vapors,

2) through the skin or eyes, by exposure to sprays or residues of sprays, and 3) through the mouth (accidental swallowing). Potential exposures of the lungs, eyes and skin will be readily recognized by people with basic military training in poison gasses, but the general public may be unfamiliar with these ways in which pesticides can produce harm.

The previous Section IV.2 discussed the environmental problems of fish-kills, etc. for organophosphate adulticides, and the following references show the hazards to people.

A recent scientific review by the State University of New York (SUNY) disclosed a variety of adverse effects on people from Malathion including:

> Human deaths and people sickened -- 5 deaths and 2,800 sickened by Malathion spraying in Pakistan,

> Leukemia blood disorders in children at a California Airforce base

> Gastrointestinal, respiratory, neurological, immune system disorders.

http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/~smitl71/research.htm

> Increased cancer of the pancreas and mononuclear cell leukemia linked to Dibrom in tests.

> Elevated brain abnormalities, liver damage found in tests of Dibrom ingredients.

http://www.chem-tox.com/brevard/main.htm

Several health problems from the pesticide Fenthion are being evaluated, including:

> Neurologic problems, numbness, muscle weakness among workers exposed to Fenthion. http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/newsletters/n53_85.htm

> High rates of myopia (nearsightedness) in people exposed to Fenthion is under review by EPA

toxicologist William Boyes. Eye problems in rats given test doses of Fenthion, are being studied

by its manufacturer Bayer Corporation. Dr. Mary Henry, a toxicologist with US Fish and Wildlife Service,

says

“In addition to killing birds, Fenthion can get into the water and kill freshwater animals like mussels, plankton, and fish.”

http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/ridabird.html

National Public Radio-transcript-October 3, 1997-excerpt:

Dr. Matthew Kiefer, Doctor of Occupational Medicine, Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center.

“Organophosphates poison humans by disrupting the nervous system. Your salivary glands secrete. Your

tears secrete. Your bronchial glands secrete. The whole system that drives those glands basically goes

into overdrive. They can enter into the brain and depress the centers that drive respiration.”

http://www.loe.org/html/transcripts/971003.html#Feature2

American Family Physician, and Envirohealth Monthly (Excerpt)

“There are over 10,000 cases of organophosphate pesticide poisoning annually in the United States. These

pesticides are easily absorbed by the skin, eyes, stomach or lungs.

http://www.essential.org/orgs/cchw/ehm/feb95.html

Nerves - the “perfect” target - National Science Foundation -Science Behind the News- Univ. of Wisconsin –

(Excerpts)

“Soon after the first organophosphate compound was invented at the German firm IG Farben in 1934, its

uses as a pesticide - and a chemical weapon agent - were recognized by all sides. Organophosphates, and

nerve agents in general, interfere with the nervous system.

“By the end of the 1930s, German chemists had produced about 2,000 organophosphates, including Sarin

(nerve gas).

“How nerve agents work: Specifically, nerve agents interfere with the signaling system used by the

nervous system. Organophosphates inhibit the action of acetylcholinesterase. That’s a chemical

that breaks down acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that carries nerve signals across the gaps, or

synapses, between nerve cells. When acetylcholinesterase is not around to break down

acetylcholine, too much acetylcholine remains in the gap between neurons. That causes nerves to

remain stuck in the “on” position, signaling muscles constantly. And that causes the typical effects

of nerve gas: tremors, incontinence, heart and lung failure.”

http://whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/025chem_weap/history2.html

Care is necessary in all uses of pesticides, since they are products designed to kill or damage living things. When there are products such as organophosphates showing adverse effects, care may be exercised by selecting other less toxic products, and emphasizing the use of non-toxic methods. Section IV.4 discusses Selection of Adulticides.

References: IV.3 Adulticide Hazards to People: Organophosphate Problems

Nerve gas - National Science Foundation - Science Behind the News - University of Wisconsin -- 11/16/96

http://whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/025chem_weap/history2.html

Malathion - http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/~smitl71/research.htm

Naled/Dibrom - http://www.chem-tox.com/brevard/main.htm

Fenthion - http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/newsletters/n53_85.htm

“ - http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/ridabird.html

National Public Radio - http://www.loe.org/html/transcripts/971003.html#Feature2

American Family Physician - http://www.essential.org/orgs/cchw/ehm/feb95.html

IV.4 Govt’s. Selection of Adulticides

In previous sections of this report, we discussed ways in which mosquito control can be conducted with no adulticiding, or restricted adulticiding, and those methods are the principal ways of avoiding toxicity, by emphasizing the use of non-toxic methods.

But what if there are disease emergency situations still arising, such as we hear reported for West Nile Virus in the August, 2000 news reports?

There is another step mosquito authorities can take, and some are taking, to help mitigate toxicity—by electing to use somewhat toxic products (Toxicity Class III), and to avoid the more highly toxic ones. Although all adulticides are toxic, some are more toxic than others, as discussed in Section IV. 1 Awareness of Pesticide Toxicity and shown in the List of Product Toxicities.

The West Nile Threat and Toxicity Mitigation

New York City and several nearby counties which are currently experiencing threats of West Nile Virus have been mitigating toxicity by using Class III products—Scourge (Resmethrin) and Anvil (Sumithrin)-- and have discontinued or phased out use of the organophosphate product, Malathion.

When New York City relied heavily upon Malathion adulticiding in the Fall ‘99, environmental groups began information campaigns, designed to advise the city and nearby county officials of the advantages of non-toxic prevention methods, of the same kinds as reported within this survey. Early in the year 2000, most of the non-toxic practices have been adopted in NY City’s and Counties’ formalized plans for this year’s mosquito control programs, with emphasis on prevention measures. Also, the city and several nearby counties made changes later in the fall of ‘99, moving to the Scourge and Anvil products, and phasing out the use of Malathion, thus responding to environmental and toxicity concerns.

In Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island their programs already included the Class III product—Scourge (Resmethrin) for health threat situations.

It is equally important to continue larvaciding efforts while performing adulticiding, to help prevent hatching of the next generation of biting insects and to help break the cycle of continuing reliance on adulticides.

NY has continued the larvaciding activities. Some reports of NY spraying presented by the TV media, have not been specific enough, but the web and newspapers have included details indicating that larvacide applications have been continued.

Other Examples -Selection of Adulticides to Mitigate Toxicity

The following excerpts/quotes illustrate selection of adulticides with somewhat lower toxicity and avoiding the more toxic products.

Coastal North Carolina—Plan to Use Highly Toxic Dibrom is Dropped

“The floods of Hurricane Fran created ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes. Hoping to stem an

outbreak of mosquitoes, and the possible spread of encephalitis - a rare virus, state authorities are

preparing to spray Eastern North Carolina with a toxic pesticide that is coming under heavy criticism from

environmentalists and coastal residents. . .

“After week-long deliberations, State Health Director, Dr. Ron Levine announced that North Carolina has

dropped plans to use a highly toxic pesticide called Dibrom and is planning to use two less-harmful

chemicals.”

The following people expressed the dangers of Dibrom: Dr. William Meggs, Professor, East Carolina University, School of Medicine; Ken Rudo, Toxicologist, N.C. Division of Epidemiology, organic farmers, beekeepers, etc.

The News and Observer—Raleigh, North Carolina (9/19, 9/21/96)

Calif. - Marin/Sonoma Counties: Stopped Use of Organophosphates in 1987

“Chlorinated hydrocarbons like DDT and Chlordane are very much a thing of the past,

as are the use of Organophosphate and Carbamate insecticides. Chlorinated hydrocarbons

were removed from the US market in 1964, and in 1987 the Marin /Sonoma district began

a voluntary moratorium on the use of carbamates and organophosphates.”

“Adult mosquito control is used only as a temporary measure, or when nothing else is possible.

“For treehole mosquito control, small hand-carried dispersal units are used. This allows a more precise

application of the pesticide, (less drift to unintended targets). The pesticide used is pyrethrum (sold as

Pyrocide® ), a naturally occurring substance harvested from two species of Old World chrysanthemums.

This material is the least toxic available for mosquito control, and it degrades into non-toxic by-

products. “ http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

Lake Tahoe, California—uses a similar natural pyrethrum product, harvested from chrysanthemums, with technicians going into areas on foot to spray small amounts of the adulticide.

http://www.tahoe.com/tribune/stories.7.29.98/news/mosqufoggi29Jul7497.html

Quantities/Spray Dosages

The New York State Health Dept, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, recently published information indicating the quantities (per-acre) required to be sprayed, as well as the relative toxicities of adulticides. Both measures are important, since the toxics released will be lower when lower quantities are sprayed, along with use of lower toxicity products. Malathion and Naled require higher dosages to be used, in addition to their higher toxicities. But Permethrin, Resmethrin and Sumithrin all have an additional advantage; all three specify lower dosages to be sprayed. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/westnile/final/appendixc4.htm Table 1

These lower spray dosages, in addition to their lower toxicity rankings, further help to mitigate toxicity. However, the Permethrin products require an aquatic setback of 100-ft. to avoid toxicity to fish,

a disadvantage requiring additional care during use.

References: IV.4 Govt’s. Selection of Adulticides

NYC - http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNBC/926717.asp - 7/25/00

NY, Westchester—New York Times - 9/21/99

Massachusetts - http://home.att.net/~cmmcp2/products.htm

Connecticut - Mosquito Control Association. Newsletter 10/3/96

Rhode Island - http://www.nmca.org/paper8a.htm

North Carolina - The News and Observer 9/19, 9/21/96, Raleigh, N. C.

Calif., Marin & Sonoma Counties http://www.sonic.net/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

“ “ “ “ http://www.socioweb.com/~msmvcd/moscontr.html

Lake Tahoe - http://www.tahoe.com/tribune/stories.7.29.98/news/mosqufoggi29Jul7497.html

Spray Dosages - http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/westnile/final/appendixc4.htm (Table 1)

IV.5 Maryland’s Selection of Adulticides (compared with others)

Worcester County:

In the year 2000, Worcester County passed an agreement with Md’s mosquito authorities that aerial spraying will not be done locally unless there is a health emergency, confirmed by the state’s Health Dept. This avoids use of the highly toxic Naled products (Dibrom or Trumpet) for local control of nuisance mosquitoes, and we applaud this environmentally friendly step. But, if an emergency occurs, there are concerns that alternative adulticides should be selected to mitigate environmental effects. Details are discussed below.

Permethrin is still being used in Worcester County for truck spraying, and requires a 100-ft setback from waterways to avoid toxic effects on fish. Resmethrin and Sumithrin products require no setbacks, and thus would be a more environmentally friendly choice for the coastal bays area. Md. has performed some testing of Anvil (Sumithrin), but has continued using Permethrin locally. Others have found Anvil to be effective for aerial or truck application as discussed below.

Other states:

As discussed in the previous section, IV.4 Govt’s. Selection of Adulticides, there are examples where states and towns have used somewhat lower toxicity products for their aerial adulticiding, even for health emergencies.

> North Carolina stopped the use of Naled/Dibrom.

> New York stopped using Malathion, and instead used Scourge (Resmethrin) for truck adulticiding, and Anvil (Sumithrin) for both truck and aerial applications.

> Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island use Resmethrin with either method of application.

In Chesapeake, Prince William, and other Virginia districts, Anvil (10+10) (Sumithrin) has been used successfully during the last two years for truck spraying and the same product would be used if aerial spraying were needed this year. Chesapeake emphasizes larvaciding with the Bti and Bacillus sphaericus products and also uses the Golden Bear larvacide/pupaecide product. Most areas of Virginia have seldom used aerial spraying in their programs, with 3 or 4 years between problem situations. However, Chincoteague, Va. is still using Naled, but has begun tests to switch to Anvil for aerial spraying. Chincoteague’s program relies upon Altosid for larvaciding and performs trench maintenance to eliminate standing water. Biomist 30-30, a Permethrin product, is used for truck adulticiding.

In Delaware, Anvil (Sumithrin) has been used for truck spraying for three years (better for Culex and Anopheles species), and also Scourge (Resmethrin). Unfortunately, the highly toxic Naled is still used for aerial adulticiding. Delaware efforts include an extensive marsh management program, gambusia fish and larvaciding steps.

In New Jersey, Monmouth County is adulticiding with truck spraying of Scourge (Resmethrin), in response to dead birds containing evidence of West Nile virus. Their program emphasizes larvaciding with Bti and Golden Bear larvacide/pupaecide, and they have not used aerial adulticiding for the past 20 years. Products being tested for future use include Anvil, and a new larvacide/pupaecide Agnique MMF. See Appendix A for further discussion of Agnique MMF.

Other Maryland Counties:

Dorchester, Somerset and other eastern shore counties in Md. have been aerially adulticided in the Fall of ‘99 and Summer of 2000 with the highly toxic Naled and also by truck spraying with Permethrin. Since these counties are within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the adoption of lower toxicity products, and emphasis on less-toxic alternative methods would be beneficial to the environment and to people of those counties.

Concerns:

In addition to the hazardous effects to people, and the environmental harm discussed in section IV.2 Adulticides Have Broad-based Toxicity: Causing Fish-kills, Harming Other Species and section IV.3 Adulticide Hazards to People: Organophosphate Problems , the following are recently published concerns for toxicity.

Maryland Pesticide Network- Spring 2000 (Excerpt/Quote)

“The Maryland Pesticide Network shares the state government’s concern about the potential for

mosquito-borne disease. We are also concerned about exposing large portions of our population to highly

toxic pesticides which can also have serious adverse health effects. While we must be vigilant to ensure

no one dies or becomes ill from mosquito-borne illness, we must also be vigilant that the very

populations that are most vulnerable to such disease, are the most vulnerable to the effects of

exposure to such highly toxic pesticides as Naled.”

“Pesticides are not “approved” for use by US EPA, they are simply registered chemicals.

Pesticides are not safe or harmless - they are toxins by nature. The Federal Insecticide

Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) prohibits the use of such words as ‘safe’ and ‘harmless’

by the pest control industry and the pesticide manufacturing industry.”

“Pesticide products’ active ingredients are, as a rule, toxic materials that are intended

to kill living things and, while their human toxicity and ecological effects vary, depending

on the specific materials, they can cause harm.”

http://www.ncamp.org/MDPestNet/Mosquitoaction.html

Montgomery County, Md. website- 7/3/2000 (Excerpt/Quote)

“DEP and DHHS (Dept. of Environmental Protection, and Dept. of Health and Human Services, --

Montgomery County) are concerned about premature, excessive, or unnecessary applications of

pesticides which, while controlling the Culex mosquito, could have potentially toxic effects on other

aquatic life and untargeted biological species, especially if applied improperly. If widespread spraying of

pesticides were considered, County health officials may also have concerns about triggering respiratory

reactions or other adverse effects among certain at-risk populations.”

http://www.co.mo.md.us/services/dep/Mosquito/news&alerts.htm#Letter to Citizens

Recommendation

The use of Naled (in the highest toxicity class) impacts the entire population but is more likely to heavily impact the health of children and the elderly, which ironically are the same groups more likely to have adverse effects from insect-borne viruses. Selecting less toxic products appears to be an opportunity to mitigate one aspect of the risk to the susceptible groups.

If a less toxic product than Naled were used in Md, both the wildlife and residents would benefit.

We urge Md., in the event of a health emergency or for nuisance mosquito control, to use only the less toxic products, Resmethrin and Sumithrin, and to avoid the most toxic products (Naled - Dibrom, Trumpet)

References: IV..5 Maryland’s Selection of Adulticides

Maryland, Chief- Mosquito Control Section, Cyrus Lesser, Phone Interview, and Md’s web site- loc.cit.

See section IV.4 for references to North Carolina, NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island

Virginia Mosquito Control Association, Chesapeake, Va., J. Lemnios, Biologist, Phone Interview.

Chincoteague, Va., Public Works/Mosquito Control-Supervisor, T. Marshal, Phone Interview.

Delaware, Administrator of Mosquito Control, Wm. Meredith, Phone Interview.

New Jersey, Monmouth County, Superintendent of Mosquito Control, M. Chomsky, Phone Interview.

Md Pesticide Network - http://www.ncamp.org/MDPestNet/Mosquitoaction.html

Montgomery County - http://www.co.mo.md.us/services/dep/Mosquito/news&alerts.htm#Letter to Citizens

SURVEY OF MOSQUITO CONTROL PRACTICES—AND LESS-TOXIC ALTERNATIVES : Appendices

Appendix A—New/Emerging Products

The following are summaries of new products for mosquito control observed during this survey.

Agnique MMF 5996 is a larvacide/ pupaecide product which lowers the surface tension of the water and subsequently kills mosquito larvae by inhibiting proper orientation at the “on-water” surface and/or by wetting trachael structures and causing anoxia. Larvae normally use surface tension to suspend for long periods when breathing and/or resting. Emerging and egg-laying adults cannot be supported on the water surface when these materials are present and often drown. The Marin/Sonoma District (Calif.) and several New Jersey districts have been testing this product in field trials. http:/ / www.north-coast-xpress.com / ~msmvcd/ updates.html

Phone interviews: Monmouth and Cape May, NJ Districts, M. Chomsky, J. Hansen.

Tests sponsored by the manufacturer Agnique MMF showed no acute effect on any life stage of the

non-target tested organisms. The organisms tested included the following: Long-nose killifish, Grass shrimp,

Freshwater shrimp, Fiddler crab, Freshwater amphipod, Freshwater isopod, Fairy Shrimp, and Snail.

Other published studies have shown no effects on: daphnia, dragonfly, bluegill, easter oysters, amphipod, crayfish, mallard duck, and many arthropods and microcrustacea are not affected. The green tree frog, when exposed to a constant film presence for six months, showed no adverse effects. The frog progressed normally from tadpole to adult through several generations.

http://www.mosquitommf.com/mosquito/effects.htm

Md. is using a variety of larvacides, but no larvacide/ pupaecide products, presumably based on environmental concerns. However, the Agnique MMF product may not share the same environmental concerns. The larvacide/ pupaecide products have an advantage of wider time frames for effective use, than other larvacide products. At various times, Md’s mosquito agency has tested and evaluated new larvacide (least-toxic) products.

Advanced Technology Mosquito Traps—a new non-toxic method

Mosquito Magnet is a new trap using propane to power the device, and uses no pesticides. This technology avoids the trapping of beneficial insects while effectively capturing significant quantities of mosquitoes, flies and biting midges. The Mosquito Magnet product uses a catalytic converter to turn propane gas into carbon dioxide. A mosquito senses carbon dioxide to be the mark of a blood-bearing mammal, and flies toward what it believes is a meal, into the trap. While held in the trap, the captured mosquitoes, etc. die from dehydration, without the use of pesticides. New York recently purchased over 100 of the Mosquito Magnet traps for use at the Bronx Zoo, the NY Police Dept’s horse stables, and by the NY, Carona waste water bureau near its processing ponds. The U.S. Coast Guard and a Caribbean resort have also reported successful use of these traps. At Necker Island, a Caribbean golf resort, about 400,000 biting midges were caught in the first three weeks after two traps were installed. The Coast Guard bought six of the devices and has ordered six more for use at its station on Great Inagua in the Bahamas. Lieut. Russ Hellstern, a spokesman for the Coast Guard said, “It’s amazing. Since they put in those mosquito machines, you can walk outside without being attacked.” Two sizes are available; the large unit serves about one acre, and the smaller (residential) unit covers about ½ acre. Prices range from about $700 to $1300. Potential uses for this type of equipment include campgrounds, race tracks, golf courses, driving ranges, and other outdoor facilities.

http://www.mosquitomagnet.com/press.html,

http://www.ambiophysics.com/

New York Times, 9/19/99

Mosquito Trapper is a similar trap using similar technology, with a propane powered catalytic converter. This product also avoids any use of pesticides. A large size unit and a smaller residential unit are available. Prices for Mosquito Trapper are similar to Mosquito Magnet. Independent reports from users of this new product were not located. http://www.lifekind.com/mozz_kill.htm

New Traps Differ from Older Devices

The older mosquito traps (light traps) have been commonly used by mosquito agencies to assist surveillance activities. Mosquito technicians empty the light traps after overnight collection of mosquitoes, counting the numbers and species found in each location. This is a “sampling technique”, performed at set intervals, for example once a week. The older light traps, known as New Jersey Light traps, and CDC traps, are effective for this sampling purpose.

The newer mosquito traps are designed to operate continuously, 24 hours per day, and have capacity to collect 100,000 or more mosquitoes, flies, and biting midges, before requiring emptying. The new units are designed to continuously collect large quantities of mosquitoes, and can run for two or three weeks, before needing attention. They use replaceable or refillable propane cylinders, in a similar way to some older light trap models. However, the new traps require no electrical connections and no batteries, which were needed for the older light trap designs.

Advanced Technology Mosquito Zapper

The older design mosquito zappers (with blue lights) were ineffective for two basic reasons: --

1) relatively few mosquitoes were zapped (as low as 2%) and

2) large quantities of beneficial insects were killed, for example dragon flies which eat mosquitoes,

flying insects which feed upon and help control caterpillars, and flying insects which help to pollinate flowers, fruits and vegetables.

Additional problems of old design zappers are the annoying noise of insects being zapped, and the annoying light displayed. The public is generally aware of these problems, and few blue-light bug zappers are still in use. The MCBP should encourage retirement of any old design zappers still in use.

A new product named the Dragonfly is a form of advance technology zapper, using a combination of mosquito attractants—carbon dioxide, octenol and low heat generators. These attractants closely match the chemistry of warm-blooded victims by imitating exhaled air and skin temperatures to attract mosquitoes into the zapper, where electronic impulses zap the insects. The manufacturer states that the unit’s combination of attractants will only bring blood-seeking mosquitoes, flies and midges into the unit, and thus it does not harm other beneficial flying insects. Quiet operation (low zapping noise) is also claimed by the manufacturer. An electrical outlet of 115v. is needed. Price is about $350. Orders are currently backlogged until the 4^th quarter of 2000. Independent reports from users of this new product were not located.

http://store.yahoo.com/nomorebites/dragonfly.html

Appendix B—Houses for Purple Martins, Tree Swallows and Barn Swallows

Time of Year Install houses for martins and swallows between mid-March and Mid-May. Since these three bird species are migratory, it is important to have new bird houses ready and in place when the birds are arriving in the area.

Purple Martins and Tree Swallows

> These birds are attracted to water and open spaces. Chose a location that provides open space for them to soar, -- no trees or buildings within 20 to 30 ft. (further if trees or buildings are tall). If a lake, stream or

marsh is nearby, its a bonus (but not a requirement.) Installations on piers also seem to be a bonus. Martins and Tree Swallows are “clean” because they do not release their droppings near their houses, but distribute the droppings over the country side, including droppings of their young. (Barn Swallows can be “messy” because their nests are made of mud pellets, and their young birds droppings may spill over the edges of their nest shelves.)

Martin Houses

> Martin houses are made in several styles, aluminum, wood, rectangular, hexagonal, gourds (plastic & natural). Martin Houses contain a series of compartments, (usually 12) allowing several pairs of birds to nest closeby. In Ocean Pines, the birds in this area seem to prefer the aluminum- rectangular houses, TRIO and COATES aluminum houses have easy-access doors to the compartments, which make the fall cleanouts more convenient. Aluminum is light weight, easier to raise and lower than other materials. Winter doors are also included in the kit. Assembly of the aluminum martin house from the kit can take 3 hours (if you have no prior experience.) Any handyman can do the job, or your local store may offer fully assembled martin houses, (for example Elliott’s Hardware.)

> Extra perches are also recommended, and they seem to help attract birds to a new house. Order from catalogs, or make them yourself from aluminum rods.

> Suppliers: TRIO houses (by Nature House) are available at local hardware and garden supply stores, such as Elliott’s Hardware, Village Greens, also, Lowes and Southern States in Salisbury. Prices are approximately $ 125, including the telescoping pole. Catalog orders can be shipped in about one week from TRIO (Nature House) phone: 1-800-625-2100, or from Purple Martin Conservation Assoc. (TRIO or COATES houses, also gourds) 1-814-734-4420.

> Use a post-hole digger and “Sacrete” to install the 3-section telescoping pole for the martin house. Wait a couple days for the cement to harden, add your martin house to the pole, elevate, and admire your efforts.

Tree Swallow Houses

> Tree Swallows use either Martin Houses (aluminum-rectangular) or Blue Bird Houses (cedar or redwood are recommended). The inside wall of the Blue Bird House, below the entry hole, should have a series of notches cut into the wood to aid young birds climbing to the entry hole, (or mount a small section of hardware wire-mesh inside, for this purpose.) Extra perches are also recommended.

> The pole may be shorter for tree swallows- 7 to 10 ft, (than for martins 12 to 16 ft).

Barn Swallows—nesting shelf

> Barn Swallows use a platform or shelf for nesting. Wild Bird suppliers may have this type of nesting shelf,

described as a Robin Shelf, (slightly larger, but OK for Barn Swallows.) You could make it yourself, using three wood pieces: 6” x 6” base, 6” x 7” Hi back, and 6” x 6” top. Mount a 2” rim around the front and side edges of the base, with three more pieces. Cedar or redwood are preferred, to help control nest parasites.

> Barn Swallows can be “messy” because their nests are made of mud pellets, and the young bird’s droppings may spill over the edges of their nests. Thus, barn swallows are more suitable for farms, or agricultural style homes with a variety of outbuildings, where they may nest in pairs or groups, without becoming a messy nuisance.

> Suggested locations: Under an eave of a barn, garage or shed, where little rain will fall onto the nest.

Under a pier or bridge. Inside a barn, shed or garage if a door or window is always open. A nearby open field is necessary (or pond or marsh.) A nearby supply of mud for nest construction is a bonus.

Appendix C—Local Problems from Aerial Spraying in ‘96

In 1996, the local communities in the Worcester County area, bordering the coastal bays were aerially sprayed five times with Naled/Dibrom, an adulticide in Class I, the highest toxicity (without any disease threat).

The following excerpt/quote from Mosquito Association minutes, for the Eastern shore of Md. for ’96 illustrates that little emphasis was given to preventive measures (non-toxic larvaciding), but that vast amounts of the toxic adulticide Naled(Dibrom) were used.

“We did relatively little larviciding and relied heavily on aerial adulticide -- treated 276,579 acres with Dibrom concentrate”.

The following are problems observed by citizens in the communities of Ocean Pines and South Point after the 1996 aerial spraying with Naled/Dibrom, indicating adverse environmental and health effects.

In Ocean Pines:

>> Residents saw hundreds of dead and dying crickets lying in the roads each morning after spraying.

>> Bird populations substantially declined throughout that summer. There were no more butterflies or hummingbirds

seen in the area.

>> While golfing, residents who looked up at the spray plane reported eye irritation.

>> Some residents were having an outdoor barbecue when the spray plane flew over. They threw away their dinner

which was ruined by the spray.

>> A six-year old German Shepherd dog first developed a cough and later developed lymphosarcoma (cancer of the

lymph glands) and died at the end of the summer.

In South Point:

>> Residents saw about 20 dead salt-marsh voles (small mammals like moles) after several sprayings.

>> Dragonflies were erratically contorting in pain before dying. Little frogs were found dead. There were no

more ladybugs in this area.

>> Five people reported laryngitis, thick mucous coating their throats and trouble swallowing. Also, three developed

asthma after the spraying. After these problems occurred, they found that many hospitals, including the local

one, Atlantic General Hospital, do not test for pesticide reactions (cholinesterase levels) in their patients.

>> On a summer evening a resident was outside with his dog when the spray plane flew directly overhead. He

experienced a bitter taste in the mouth and within 15 minutes had difficulty speaking and was unable to speak

normally for 24 hours. In the Fall, his dog had severe breathing problems and was diagnosed with lymphosarcoma

with no chance of survival. Deaths of several cats were also reported.

Warnings were not issued:

No prior warnings were given to residents and thus some were caught outdoors during the spraying. Also, one of the community associations declined to publish a list of precautions from the EPA. (One resident had obtained the list, after extensive researching.) The Md. Mosquito Control Section has omitted or minimized publicizing these kinds of precautions. Here is the full list from the EPA:

> remain indoors when applications are being made,

> if outdoors do not look up at the spray,

> bring in children’s toys and laundry before spraying begins,

> do yard work before spraying begins,

> cover outdoor eating surfaces and play equipment, or hose them off after spraying is finished,

> wash exposed skin surfaces with soap and water after touching surfaces that have residues,

> if you get residues in your eyes, rinse with water or eye drops.”

Note: Dry weather and drought conditions during the summers of ‘97, ‘98 and ‘99 helped to avoid a recurrence of aerial spraying, along with increased support for larvaciding by Worcester County. However, we were narrowly missed, since neighboring counties were aerially sprayed with Naled in the Fall of ‘99. In 2000, the Worcester County Commissioners restricted aerial spraying to health emergencies confirmed by the Md. Health Dept.

Appendix D—Maryland’s Program for Controlling Gypsy Moths

It appears that environmental precautions are present within Md’s gypsy moth program, based on the following:

> The Gypsy Moth program provides that the least toxic product (BT) will be used to spray in sensitive areas where there are tide waters, ponds, streams, or bays. The BT product for gypsy moths is quite similar to the mosquito Bti product, a non-toxic mosquito larvacide.

> The least toxic product (BT) is also used where there are endangered or threatened species that could be adversely impacted by insecticides.

>The Dimilin product is used to spray trees on lands away from the critical waterway areas, and areas containing

no endangered or threatened species. Dimilin is rated in toxicity class III—Its key word is CAUTION.

Land owners in the area proposed for spraying are mailed notices of the related public meetings and fact sheets detailing the gypsy moth program, the products to be sprayed, sources for obtaining further technical information, etc. The gypsy moth notifications provide appropriate public awareness and opportunity for comment.

A small area of a neighboring county (Wicomico) was sprayed with BT for gypsy moths in 2000, but Worcester County was not sprayed. Areas in western Maryland were sprayed for gypsy moth control in 2000, including 2,344 acres in Allegheny County and 5,853 acres in Washington County. This was the first time since 1994 that the state conducted gypsy moth suppression in Allegheny County. All spraying was completed in the months of April and May, 2000. Anne Arundel County was treated for the first time since 1993 and St. Mary’s County for the first time since 1992.

Gypsy moth spraying occurred in neighboring states this spring including: Pennsylvania (101,101 acres), West Virginia (26,517 acres), Virginia (20,869 acres). Md. sprayed the trees in 17,365 acres for gypsy moth control statewide in the Spring of 2000. In 1999, a total of 6,306 acres sprayed for gypsy moths throughout Md.

For comparison purposes, much larger areas were treated in Md. by aerial applications for mosquitoes (either larvaciding or adulticiding) as follows:

1996 - - 287,587 acres

1997 - - 82,344 acres

1998 - - 98,728 acres

References:

http://www.mda.state.md.us/forestp/gmprog.html

http://www.mda.state.md.us/forestp/site.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/forestp/spray.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/forestp/bacillus.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/forestp/dimilin.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/press/7-18gmpm.htm

http://www.mda.state.md.us/press/gmothdam.htm

Annual Report, 1998, Md. Mosquito Control Section

Appendix E—Brochures, Flyers

The following brochures or flyers are included in this appendix: (Omitted from webpage)

Maryland’s flyer, for standing water removal

Trio Houses for Purple Martin Birds

Mosquito Magnet—new technology mosquito trap

Acknowledgment:

I want to acknowledge and thank Betty Hemmick who proof-read this report and offered comments and suggestions during the preparation and editing of the report.

Report prepared by Tom Hemmick

Pesticides Sub-Committee

Maryland Coastal Bays Program

September, 2000

Small and beautiful

Yesterday, I watched outside the window a humming bird flying from flower to flower, collecting nectar, with wings moving so fast they were merely a blur. What a beautiful, amazing creature and

a silent, fragile testimony to the benefits of non-toxic methods.

Betty Hemmick