Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272000(24) City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Renton's West Nile Virus(WNV) Response Role: WNV is a public health issue and public health agencies are the experts. Renton's role is to support the federal, state, and local public health agencies in addressing this public health issue by supporting their surveillance program, supporting their education and outreach program(for Renton's citizens and City workers) and applying control measures(to reduce mosquito-breeding habitat& mosquito pools)to City-owned facilities and lands, consistent with public health alert levels and recommended response. Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level 0 Mosquito Inactivity No planned surveillance by the Prepare/update/order informational pieces Update West Nile Response Plan based on Period city. for treatment of private facilities, property, recommendation from the State and local health personal protection,website page,FAQs and departments. (November—March) media articles. Determine best control response strategy for treatment of Check with King County Department of city-owned stormwater management facilities based on Health(KC DOH)and Washington State census data,recommendations from state and local health Department of Health(DOH)for availability departments,other jurisdictions, and best available of updated information and materials. science. Make budget request for staff time to Based on set criteria established above,prepare for prepare and begin public outreach portion of larviciding of city-owned properties,which include the WNV Response Plan. following: • Ensure sufficient budget for larvicide treatment based on treatment strategy, • Identify possible private pest control operators, • Verify NPDES permit is valid for treatment period,and/or • Ensure sufficient number of licensed staff should city elect to larvicide in-house. Prepare/update survey of high-density elderly residential population areas and city-owned surface water facilities. H:Tile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Prgiects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)A27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\City CorrespondenceADraft updated Response Plan 05.0L2005.docAAQ\tb\tp Page 1 of 7 ---------------- R E N T 0 N City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level Prepare/update list of Homeowners Associations with private storm water facilities. Designate Point of Contact for WNV(Surface Water: Allen Quynn, Parks: Terry Flatley, Facilities: Greg Stroh, and Shops: John Thompson). H:AFile S)'S\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(C1P)A27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\Cite CorrespondenceADraft updated Response Plan 05.01.2005.doc\AQ\tb\tp Page 2 of 7 RENroN City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level 1 Mosquito Activity Based on established control Inform city staff of recommended personal Initiate treatment of city stormwater facilities based on Period response criteria,the city will protection measures against mosquito bites established control response criteria. inventory and map mosquito through staff meetings and informational (April—October) habitat on city-owned memos. Inspect city properties and take action to minimize property(ies)(including mosquito-breeding habitats. No positive surveillance stormwater management facilities, Hold intra-departmental meetings to review findings in King County wetlands, and other water bodies) each responsible department's role(s)related It is assumed, at this time, that the city will follow the in the current calendar that may contain mosquito habitat. to WNV. Remind city departments to take following control response criteria under Alert Level 1: year(e.g.,no WNV steps to minimize mosquito habitat on city- positive birds or mosquito Based on established control owned lands within their control. • Monitor for larva and apply larvicide as pools and no WNV cases response criteria, conduct necessary to all city-owned stormwater ponds in humans or horses). mosquito surveillance of city Provide WNV information to city residents: (approximately 7 ponds). properties by larval dipping and • Inspect facilities on city right-of-way based on periodically report results to KC a Place articles in the Renton citizen complaints and known problem areas. DOH. Reporter. • Update and maintain the WNV • Larvicide will be applied based on a minimum Educate city employees(that larval count of 0.3 larva per dip. frequently work in the field)on web page on the city's website. procedures for monitoring • Make KC DOH and DOH Inspect city parks and facilities for the presence mosquito habitat and reporting brochures available at locations of mosquito larva and apply larvicide as dead birds. frequented by the public such as necessary. libraries, City Hall, Senior Center, Participate in discussions of the feasibility of forming Provide city residents with community events(Renton River mosquito control districts in King County. information on how to report dead Days)and the Community Center. birds to KC DOH. • Include WNV brochure with When feasible, submit live Finance's Utility Billing statement mosquito larva samples to Public mailing. Health for species identification. West Nile Virus materials will address issues relating to prevention, emphasizing City staff to keep informed on mosquito habitat reduction and personal WNV issues by attending regular protection against mosquito bites. KC DOH and DOH sponsored H:U=ile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)A27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\Citq Correspondence\Draft updated Response Plan 05.0l.2005.docAAQAtb\tp Page 3 of 7 RE TN oiv City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Derinition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level meetings. Provide designated city staff information/fact sheet on how to respond to citizen questions. Information/fact sheet will include responses to frequently asked questions. Contact known, private homeowner associations regarding larviciding their stormwater facilities. Providing information on contacting private pest control applicators, requirements for treatment,and obtain NPDES permitting, etc. Contact Neighborhood Associations regarding minimizing mosquito breeding habitat on private property. H:Tile SNs\SWP-Surfacc Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)A27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\CitN CorrespondenceADraft updated Response Plan 05.01.2005.docAAQ\tb\tp Page 4 of 7 R E N T O N City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level 2 Mosquito Activity Continue surveillance activities Continue public information activities Continue control response activities under Alert Level 1. Period described under Alert Level 1. described under Alert Level 1. Based on established control response criteria, monitor (April—October) Update city web page based on any new street drains/catch basin in proximity to vulnerable information provided by state and local populations for mosquito production. Larvicide will be Areas with confirmed health departments. applied based on a minimum larval count of 0.3 larva per WNV activity in wild dip. birds and/or mosquito Send KC DOH and DOH"Mosquito pools,but no positive Control Fact Sheet for Private Property It is assumed, at this time, that the city will follow the surveillance findings prior Owners"to persons or organizations known following response control criteria under Alert Level 2: to August 1. to have potential mosquito breeding habitat, facilities,water features, and drainage • Inspect street drains and swale/ditches within '/4- (See Alert Level 3 if systems. mile radius of the Senior Center and residential positive birds or areas with a high concentration of citizens over mosquitoes occur before 50 years of age. Apply larvicides if larval count August I.) is 0.3 larva per dip(minimum). Continue to encourage owners of private stormwater management facilities to take the steps necessary to monitor and treat with larvicide as needed. H:Tile S}s\S\6P-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)A27-2000 A9osquito:Abatement Proeram\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\Cite CorrespondenceADraft updated Response Plan 05.01.2005.doeAAQAtb\tp Page 5 of 7 RENTON City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level 3 Mosquito Activity Continue surveillance activities Continue efforts described in Alert Level 2. Continue control response activities under Alert Level 2. Period described under Alert Level 2. Expand public information to include City It is assumed, at this time, that the city will follow the (April—October) Cable TV,and Renton Reporter following response control criteria under Alert Level 3: emphasizing personal protection, Initial confirmation of particularly for persons over age 50,as • Larvicide all catch basins and swale/ditches WNV positive bird resources allow. with standing water within'/4-mile radius of collected before August 1, reported,positive WNV test surveillance and/or a horse or human Mail residents WNV additional findings in a bird,horse, or human. case; informational packets emphasizing personal protection and methods for minimizing The city may need to respond more aggressively by OR multiple positive mosquito habitat on private property. broadening treatment areas based on recommendation birds or mosquito pools in from the KC DOH and DOH. Additional treatment the absence of a horse or includes: human cases. • Larvicide all catch basins a.Ud Swale/ditches ('y with standing water withi '4-mile radius of reported,positive WNV est surveillance findings in a bird,h e,or human, and/or apply larvicide based minimum larval coulAt of 0.3 larva pe / City staff to review criteria and plan off' r morFw)idespread adult mosquito spraying efforts should the Alert Level increase to Level 4. It is assumed that the state and local department of health, in conjunction with Department of Ecology, will go through the environmental review process and obtain all necessary permits to allow adulticiding in accordance with state law. HAFile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\City Correspondence\Draft updated Response Plan 05.01.2005.doc\AQ\tb\tp Page 6 of 7 R E N OT OT N City of Renton West Nile Virus Phased Response Plan (Draft) Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level 4 Mosquito Activity Continue surveillance activities Continue efforts described in Alert Level 3. Continue control response activities under Alert Level 3. Period described under Alert Level 3. Based on established control response criteria and strong (April—October) recommendation by the Health Department,the city will begin spraying of adult mosquitoes(adulticiding). Surveillance indicates high risk of multiple It is assumed, at this time, that the city will follow the human infections, an following response control criteria under Alert Level 4: escalating epizootic in horses and/or birds, • Apply adulticide within '/z-mile dius of the abundant adult vectors, Senior Center,high con&ut ' n of people over and conditions favoring age 50 years of age and areas of positive "V continued trans-mission to infections reported in birds,horses,and humans humans. and/or apply larvicide based on a minimum larval count of 0.3 larva per dip. KC DOH and/or DOH may declare public health It is assumed that appropriate environmental review and emergency. permitting are completed prior to spraying. H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2005 WNV\City Correspondence\Draft updated Response Plan 05.01.2005.doc\AQ\tb\tp Page 7 of 7 RENTON West Nile Virus (WNV) Phased Response Guidelines for Cities in King County Public Health—Seattle & King County Contact, Dr. Sharon Hopkins, WNV program lead, (206)205-0495 or Sharon.Hopkins@metrokc.gov Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level O Winter(off season) -Analyze surveillance findings from previous -Evaluate effectiveness of educational materials -Evaluate mosquito surveillance and larvaciding No mosquito activity; season and outreach from previous season and update activities from previous year plans for coming season approx Nov—Mar -Review and update mosquito and bird -Develop control plans including capacity to In King County surveillance plans for coming season and -Restock brochures and other educational respond in the event a major WNV outbreak in the secure materials,funding and other resources materials;check with Public Health for availability coming season requires extensive larval control of new materials efforts or adult mosquito spraying -Prepare for larvaciding of city properties by obtaining NPDES permit through the WA Dept of Health; have designated staff obtain PCO licensing,or contract with private pest control operator to provide larvaciding services during mosquito season if needed Spring,summer& Inventory&map mosquito habitat -Inform city staff of recommended personal -Use integrated pest management principles to 1 fall protection measures against mosquito bites via guide control efforts No positive Conduct mosquito surveillance at city Human Resources,city intranet sites,and staff properties by larval dipping and periodically meetings;consider providing mosquito repellent -Initiate source reduction of mosquito habitat at surveillance findings report results to Public Health products to field staff city-owned properties in King County in the current calendar year -Field employees such as Parks or Utilities -Keep city Public Information Officer informed of -Encourage source reduction by homeowners, (e.g.,no WNV crews should report dead bird sightings and WNV status and key public messages consistent businesses,and housing developments positive birds or monitor mosquito habitat with local and state recommendations mosquito pools and -Respond to mosquito complaints from citizens no WNV cases in -Encourage citizen reports of dead birds or -Provide public education and outreach on WNV humans or horses) significant mosquito problems to Public Health prevention emphasizing mosquito habitat -Consider use of larvacides at city facilities,water reduction and personal protection against features and drainage systems identified as -When feasible,submit live mosquito larva mosquito bites having potential mosquito vector species and samples to Public Health for species Examples of public outreach include: where larval counts meet or exceed a identification Establish or maintain WNV information predetermined level in the range of 0.3-5 larva per • on city web site with links to Public dip -With assistance of Public Health,determine At Alert Level 1, larvaciding may be associations between known mosquito vectors Health WNV pages atwww,metrokc.gov/hlth/ til limited to sources irlproximity to www.metrokc.gov/health/westnile and habitat type vulnerable populations such as senior • Encourage citizens to report dead bird sightings&mosquito activity housing,densities of population>50 yrs of age,and outdoor venues used at • Insert WNV prevention messages/brochures in utility dusk and evening hours statements,city newsletters,etc -Prepare plans for control response to higher Alert • Make WNV educational materials Levels:obtain supplies of larvacide or have plan available at community&senior centers, for obtaining sufficient larvacide rapidly if needed parks,sports fields,festivals,and other community events and gathering places -participate in discussions of the feasibility of forming mosquito control districts in King County Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level Summer or fall -Continue activities of Alert Level 1 -Continue activities described in Alert Level 1 -Continue control activities in Alert Level 1 2 Areas with confirmed -Conduct intensified surveillance in areas of - Update city web site emphasizing presence of -Monitor street drains/catch basin in proximity to WNV activity in wild positive findings to identify possible sources& WNV in the area and prevention measures vulnerable populations for mosquito production birds and/or mosquito mosquito species and apply larvacides if indicated pools but no positive -Increase public education emphasizing personal surveillance findings -Expand surveillance in areas adjacent to protection,particularly for persons over 50 -Intensify mosquito habitat/source reduction and prior to August 1 those with positive WNV surveillance findings larval control at facilities.water features,and -Provide personal protection information(and drainage systems in proximity to areas with (See Alert level 3 if -Assist Public Health in conducting live mosquito repellent products if feasible)to positive WNV surveillance findings positive birds or mosquito trapping and intensified larval homeless persons mosquitoes occur surveillance in areas with positive WNV -Provide information and/or support for appropriate before August 1) surveillance findings -Prepare or update news articles for use by control responses by private agencies, senior-oriented newsletters or other publications businesses, and organizations In the city with and encourage public education via local or mosquito habitat and/or facilities,water features regional newspapers with attention to non-English- and drainage systems under their authority speaking residents -Review or develop plans for adult mosquito -Send Public Health's"Mosquito Control Fact control should it be determined,in consultation Sheet for Private Property Owners"to persons or with Public Health,that this control step is organizations known to have potential mosquito necessary in limited locales breeding habitat,facilities,water features,and drainage systems Spring,summer or -Continue with surveillance activities Continue efforts described in Alert Level 2 Intensity habitat reduction and larval control at 3 fall described in Alert Level 2 facilities,water features and drainage systems Keep city Public Information Officer informed and throughout the city Initial confirmation of ready to disseminate the public information that WNV positive bird will be needed if adult mosquito spraying Is Larvaciding of street drains/catch collected before undertaken basins in proximity to vulnerable August 1 and/or a populations may be necessary at this horse or human case; -Expand public information to include TV, radio alert level,based on the experience of and frequent newspaper reports emphasizing other US cities in past years OR multiple positive personal protection,particularly for persons over birds or mosquito 50,as resources allow -Intensify efforts to encourage and coordinate pools In the absence appropriate control responses by private agencies, or horse or human -Mobilize community group efforts for mosquito businesses,and organizations with mosquito cases source reduction such as neighborhood clean up habitat,facilities,water features and drainage days;provide prevention Information at community systems under their authority festivals,health fairs and outdoor events -Be prepared to respond if Pudic Health -Encourage citizens and community partners to determines specific areas of high human risk and actively assist elderly or disabled residents with the need for limited,targeted adult mosquito source reduction,screening windows,screen spraying within your jurisdiction repairs,and use of mosquito repellents and other protection . An example is spraying of a park the day before an evening public event such as a outdoor concert Review criteria and plans for more wide-spread adult mosquito spraying efforts should the Alert Level increase to Level 4 1 Alert Definition Surveillance Response Education Response Control Response Level Spring,summer or -Continue with surveillance activities -Intensify efforts described in previous alert levels -Continue intense larval control and habitat 4 fall described in Alert Level 2 with emphasis on reduction determining areas with significant populations -Engage local community leaders and Surveillance indicates of adult mosquitoes of vector species government officials to speak about WNV -With direction and technical support from Public high risk of multiple Health, initiate on-going adult mosquito spraying human infections,an -Enhance risk communications to public and program in high risk areas escalating epizootic in owners of private facilities,water features and horses and/or birds, drainage systems about adult mosquito spraying -In conjunction with state agencies or Public abundant adult Health,monitor effectiveness of spraying on target vectors and condi- mosquito populations when adult spraying is done tions favoring continued trans- mission to humans. Public Health Emergency may be declared. Guidelines for a Phased Response to West Nile virus using surveillance data The phased response plan uses a range of surveillance data and the timing of the surveillance findings to guide community response to the threat of West Nile virus (WNV). The principal goal is to minimize the health impact of WNV in our citizens, as well as in domestic and zoo animals and in wildlife. We have a limited (but increasing) understanding of the ecology and epidemiology of arboviruses such as the West Nile virus in the US, so it is important to realize that predicting the arrival and intensity of WNV activity in any given area is difficult. It is also important to note that, while prevention and control measures will aid in mitigating the effects of WNV in a community, it is unlikely that human infections can be entirely prevented. Surveillance for WNV in dead birds (especially crows and jays) is likely to provide the earliest warning of the arrival of West Nile virus in our region; citizens and city governments are asked to assist Public Health in its dead bird reporting and testing program. Surveillance for mosquito larva is another critical component which is used to guide cost-effective mosquito control efforts; city governments are asked to monitor for mosquito larva in city-owned properties and report results to Public Health, Public Health also has programs for surveillance of WNV in captured adult mosquitoes ("mosquito pool testing"), monitoring of WNV testing performed by local blood centers, and for collecting reports of equine and human cases of WNV. Cities should also be aware that new mosquito habitat is being created continually by housing developments, public and private construction projects, flooding, and land use changes. Periodic assessments should be undertaken to identify new mosquito habitat and implement surveillance if necessary. City officials are encouraged to seek consultation with Public Health—Seattle & King County in interpretation and application of these guidelines. We also encourage cities to join the Public Health-sponsored WNV Interagency Work Group which meets periodically from spring through fall and which keeps members informed of surveillance findings, recommendations, and educational resources through regular e-mail communications. Dr. Sharon Hopkins of the Environmental Health Services Division is Public Health's lead for the WNV Program and is available for questions and technical assistance. She can be contacted by e-mail (Sharon.Hopkins(Qmetrokc.gov) or telephone (206-205-0495). The mailing address is 999 Third Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104. Also, we encourage city officials to review the many WNV resources available at our web site at http://www.metrokc.gov/health/westnile/ ti`sY O ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIA , A PNf �- , LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M RE DATE: July 11, 2006 JU4 12 2D06 c TO: Allen Quynn, Civil Engineer III °SRTor� FROM: " 1 ason Seth, Records Management Coordinator `s SUBJECT: CAG-05-059—Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc.; Provide Larvicide to City-owned Ponds and Catch Basins The attached original document has been fully executed and is being returned to you. Please transmit an original to the consultant and retain a copy for your file. The City Clerk has retained an original of the document. Thank you. Attachments is\word\memo&letter\cityletters\contract memos\contractmemo.doe ADDENDUM NO. 3 CAG-05-059 Adden #3-06 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES for 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program e a®0('i This Addendum is made and entered into this, /0 day of QuAf, by and between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the"City",and Whitworth Pest Solutio s,Inc.whose address is 2533 Inter Avenue,Puyallup, WA 98372-3428,hereinafter called the"Consultant". WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS,the City engaged the services of the consultant under Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059, dated April 18,2005,to provide mosquito control of the upland areas in the Talbot Hills neighborhood as part of the 2005-2006 Mosquito Abatement Program; and WHEREAS,the City desires to control mosquito populations in City owned stormwater and irrigation impoundment facilities and catch basins and the City does not have sufficient qualified engineering employees with the appropriate licenses to perform the work within a reasonable time;and WHEREAS,the City has determined that to control mosquito populations in City owned stormwater and irrigation impoundment facilities and catch basins,water treatment using larvicide is the most effective way to control mosquitoes in said City facilities, such additional work items and costs being shown in the attached CAG-05-059 Addendum No. 3,Exhibit"A"—Scope of Work,Exhibit`B"—Cost Estimate. NOW,THEREFORE, in accordance with Section VIII Extra Work of the Master Agreement CAG-05-059,dated April 18, 2005, it is mutually agreed upon that Engineering Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059, is amended to include the work and associated budget as follows: 1. The scope of work for the 2006 Mosquito abatement Program Addendum No.3 shall be set forth in Exhibit B of this addendum. 2. The maximum amount payable for the additional work items defined in Exhibit B of this contract addendum shall not exceed$24,480.00,without prior authorization from the City. All other provisions of Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059 dated April 18, 2005, shall apply to this addendum. EXECUTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Addendum No. 3 to ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT CAG-05-059 as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON le ff�/ coIA(Yt.) 7'A 44 Xeh, V II Or. Signature Date Kathy Keolker,Mayor Date Type ottrint Name ATTEST: P `� - �/ Gr aZe�- Title Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk \\lI/:lln..ilTln.n\To...A NA.. A nr%L'hMT FK41.i—\Ar-1- EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK 2006 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM ADDENDUM NO.3 TASK NO. 1: WATER TREATMENT OF CITY OWNED STORMWATER AND IRRIGATION IMPOUNDMENT FACILITIES Treatment Methods and Materials: Water treatment applications of an Environmental Protection Agency registered larvicide will be applied to City owned stormwater/irrigation impoundment facilities using hand applied briquettes or granules. Treatment will be applied in accordance with the product label and other federal and state regulations. Larvicide treatment must also be conducted in accordance with the Aquatic Mosquito Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Waste Discharge General Permit No. WAG-992000. All necessary licenses shall be the responsibility of the consultant to ensure their issuance prior to treatment. The larvicide product to be used is Bacillus Sphaericus(BS)and is sold under the trade name VectoLex. Area of Treatment: The treatment areas consists of the following facilities: Owner Facility Name/Type Facility Location PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division Stonegate/WQ Pond NE 26`h and Lyons Ave PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division NE 10`h St Pond/Detention NE 10`h Stand Anacortes Ave PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division Talbot Ridge 2/WQ Pond S 47`h St and 102°d Ave SE PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division Catch Basins Various Golf Course Hole#18 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(west) Golf Course Hole#9 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(west-central) Golf Course Hole#7 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(east-central) Golf Course Hole#6 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(east) Golf Course Catch Basins Various Parks Maintenance Division Catch Basins Various Facilities Division City Hall/WQ Grady Way Parking Lot Frequency of Treatment: Each water impoundment facility and catch basin as described above shall be tested for the presence of mosquito larve every two weeks. If the larve count exceeds 0.3 larva per dip then larvicide shall be applied in accordance with the requirements of the City obtained Aquatic Mosquito Control NPDES Permit No. 992000. Reporting: Following each treatment,the consultant shall provide to the City a brief summary of all stormwater/irrigation impoundment facilities tested and treated. Information to be provided for each shall include the following: 1. Date,time and street location of facility or catch basin tested 2. Type of Larvicide and EPA registration number 3. Amount of larvicide in gallons or pounds that was applied 4. The number of acres treated 5. Name and address of person applying larvicide 6. Larval count(larve per dip) 7. Number of manhours per facility visited(includes testing and larviciding) Notification Maplewood Golf Course—Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall contact the Golf Course Manager twenty- four(24)hours in advance of entering the Golf Course. Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall arrange with the Golf Course Manager to be escorted onto the golf course and in no circumstances shall Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc., enter upon the golf course without one golf course employee in attendance at all times while on Golf Course property(this is a mandatory safety requirement). Invoicing Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall submit a separate invoice to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility,Parks Maintenance Division,Maplewood Golf Course and Facilities Division for any services it provides under this project. Payment cannot be authorized or payment may be delayed until separate invoices are received. H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp EIl IIIBIT B COST ESTIMATE 2006 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM ADDENDUM NO.3 Task 1. The estimated total cost of Task 1 including Washington States sales tax is $24,480.00. The cost shall be based on a rate of$125.00 per manhour, which includes labor, materials and equipment required to apply larvicide as specified in the scope of work and shall include but not limited to the following: 1. Transportation costs associated with transit from consultant's office to stormwater/irrigation facilities and transit between facilities including catch basins. 2. Material costs for larvicide. 3. Equipment necessary to test and apply larvicide including sampling cups, protective gloves and respirators, etc. At the City's discretion, facilities listed under"Areas of Treatment"above may be eliminated or treatment frequency reduced and other facilities added depending on mosquito levels and recommendations from the Public Health Department. Catch basins will only be treated when requested in writing by the City. A minimum scheduled trip charge from consultant's office to stormwater/irrigation facilities of$375.00 shall apply. Below is the estimated contract cost for the three City divisions, based on the billing rate of$125.00 per manhour for a total of 180 manhours: PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division Costs Stormwater facilities: 3 Total number of treatments per stormwater facility: 8 Total manhours per stormwater facility(including travel time): 0.75 hrs Total stormwater facility manhours: 18 hrs Subtotal cost for stormwater facilities: $2,250.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $198.00 Total cost for stormwater facilities: $2,448.00 1,Z 1 s,q �; '� �- A 5A I rr 14�rn Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 60 hrs Total cost for catch basin treatment: $7,500.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $660.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $8,160.00 H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.docWQtp Total manhours(stormwater facilities+catch basins): 78 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $9,750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $858.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $10,608.00 Golf Course Costs Irrigation facilities: 4 Total number of treatments per facility: 8 Total manhours per irrigation facility(including travel time): 1 hr Total irrigation facility manhours: 32 hrs Subtotal cost for irrigation facilities: $4,000.00 Sales Tax 8.8%): $352.00 J Total cost for irrigation facilities: $4,352.00 2 70Z 9 Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 3 hrs Subtotal cost for catch basin treatment: $375.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $33.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $408.00 Total manhours(irrigation facilities+catch basins): 35 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $4,375.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $385.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $4,760.00 Parks Division Costs Irrigation facilities: 0 Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 61 hrs. Subtotal cost for catch basin treatment: $7,625.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $671.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $8,296.00 Total manhours(irrigation facilities+catch basins): 61 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $7,625.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $671.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $8,296.00 Facilities Division Costs Stormwater facilities: l Total number of treatments per facility: 8 Total manhours per stormwater facility(including travel time): 0.75 hrs Total stormwater facility manhours: 6 hrs Subtotal cost for stormwater facilities: $750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $66.00 Total cost stormwater facilities: $816.00 Catch Basin: 0 HAFile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp Total manhours(stormwater facilities+catch basins): 6 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $66.00 Total cost: $816.00 Total Contract Cost for all Divisions: $22,500.00 State Sales Tax(8.8%): $1,980.00 Total Contract Cost: $24,480.00 Notification Maplewood Golf Course—Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. shall contact the Golf Course Manager 24 hours in advance of entering the Golf Course. Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall arrange with the Golf Course Manager to be escorted onto the golf course and in no circumstances shall Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc., enter upon the golf course without one golf course employee in attendance at all times while on golf course property(this is a mandatory safety requirement). Invoicing Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. shall submit a separate invoice to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility Section, Parks Maintenance Division,Maplewood Golf Course and Facilities Division for any services it provides under this project. Payment cannot be authorized or payment may be delayed until separate invoices are received. H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.docWQtp I P. �ti`SY O� PLANNING/BUILDING/ + _ ♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -N�o� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 3, 2006 TO: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmernizzistrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor(ext. 7248) Allen Quynn, Surface Water Engineer(ext. 7247) SUBJECT: 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program Addendum No. 3 to CAG-05-059, Whitworth Pest Solutions ISSUE: Should the City sign and execute Addendum No. 3 to the 2005 Mosquito Abatement Program consultant contract CAG-05-059 authorizing Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. to treat City stormwater facilities, irrigation facilities, and catch basins with larvicide? RECOMMENDATION: Approve and execute Addendum No. 3 to the 2005 Mosquito Abatement Program consultant contract CAG-05-059, in the amount of$24,480, with Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. BACKGROUND: Washington State and Maine are the only states in the lower 48 to not have a human case of West Nile Virus. However, it is anticipated that Washington State will see its first human case this year. West Nile is a mosquito-borne virus that is spread to humans by the bite of an infected mosquito and not by person-to-person contact. In an effort to reduce the risk of human infection,the City has developed a response plan that includes larviciding City stormwater facilities, irrigation facilities, and catch basins, if needed, with Bacillus sphaericus. The response plan will augment the Department of Health program, which emphasizes prevention as the best protection from West Nile Virus. Larvicide treatment will be conducted in accordance with the City's Aquatic Mosquito Control Permit or as directed by the Health Department. Larvicide treatment is scheduled to begin June 2006 and will continue for the duration of the mosquito season, which typically extends through the end of September 2006. The contract scope of work and budget covers larviciding stormwater facilities, irrigation facilities, and catch basins. These facilities and catch basins are owned and maintained by the Maintenance Division, Parks Division, Facilities Division, and the Maplewood Golf Course. Mayor/Addendum#3,CAG-05-059 July 3,2006 Page 2 of 2 However, the City must authorize targeted catch basin treatment and the decision to treat will depend on whether there is confirmation of the West Nile Virus in King County. The addendum will be funded as follows: PBPW Maintenance Svcs. Division—Larvicide treatment to be funded through the approved Surface Water Utility 2006 Capital Improvement Program budget for the 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program. The approved 2006 adjusted budget for the 2005 Mosquito Abatement Program is$50,000. The estimated cost to treat Maintenance Division stormwater facilities and catch basins with larvicide is $10,608. The remaining balance in the project account of $39,392 will be used to complete the 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program as well as City staff time to administer both the Mosquito Abatement Program Contract Addendum No. 2 and Addendum No. 3. Parks Division—Larvicide treatment to be funded through the Repairs and Maintenance Operating Fund. The estimated cost to treat Parks Maintenance Division catch basins with larvicide is estimated not to exceed$8,296. This unanticipated project was not funded in the 2006 Parks Maintenance Operating Budget. It can be anticipated this amount will be a mandated annual expense in future years. Facilities Division—Larvicide treatment to be funded through the 2006 Repairs and Maintenance Operating Fund. The estimated cost to treat Facilities Division stormwater facilities with larvicide is $816. Maplewood Golf Course: Larvicide treatment to be funded through the Golf Course Operating Fund. The estimated cost to treat the Maplewood Golf Course irrigation pond, stormwater ponds, and catch basins with larvicide is $4,760. Should all ponds and catch basins need to be treated with larvicide, the estimated project cost shall not exceed $4,760. CONCLUSION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests the Mayor sign Addendum No. 3 to the 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program consultant contract CAG-05-059 authorizing Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. to treat City stormwater facilities, irrigation facilities, and catch basins with larvicide. Attachments cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division Director Greg Stroh,Facilities Maintenance Manager Terry Flatley,Parks Maintenance Manager Kelly Beymer,Golf Course Manager H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Issue Paper.DOC\AQtp CONTRACT CHECKLIST(revised March 2005) STAFF NAME&EXTENSION NUMBER: Allen Quynn DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: Utilities/PBPW CONTRACT NUMBER: (Assigned by City Clerk Division.) CAG-05-059 TASK ORDER NUMBER: (If applicable.) Adden#3-06 CONTRACTOR: Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: Provide mosquito larvicide to City-owned ponds and catch basins. ® 1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach memo from City Attorney.) ® 2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach memo from HRRM Administrator.) ® 3. RESPONSE TQ�LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) ® 4. INSURANCE CCER IFICCA AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original.) ® 5. CITY BUSINESS LIICCENSE NUMBER: 5198 (Call Finance Department.) ® 6. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE W-9 VENDOR FORM: (If not already on file with the Finance Department, make sure the contractor completes the form and submits it to the Finance Department.) ® 7. PERFORMANCE$OND VERIFICATION IF PUBLIC WORK CONTRACT: (Attach memo.) 1v`tA ® 8. MEMO TO MAYOR IF COUNCIL APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED: (Explain contract purpose, budget source, work program fit,and scope of work.) ® 9. CHECK FEDERAL EXCLUDED PARTIES LIST (DEBARRED BIDDERS): (Access web site through RentonNet-Useful Links-Excluded Parties List System - Attach printout of search results; debarred contractors cannot be used.) ® 10. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT: (If not,provide explanation.) 11. FISCAL IMPACT: (see 12.13.) A. AMOUNT BUDGETED: (LINE ITEM) $50,000 B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $24,480 12. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED IF: (Prepare Agenda Bill;see Policy&Procedure 250-02.) A. CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER IS $50,000 OR OVER. (Refer to Council committee for initial contract approval; place subsequent task orders on Council agenda for concurrence.) B. FUND TRANSFER REQUIRED IF CONTRACT EXPENDITURE EXCEEDS AMOUNT BUDGETED. (Refer to Council committee.) C. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT IS $20,000 OR OVER. (Refer to Council committee.) D. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. (Requires resolution.) 13. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL: (If applicable.) N/A 14. RESOLUTION NUMBER: (If applicable.) N/A 15. KEY WORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S ELECTRONIC INDEX: Whitworth Pest Solutions, West Nile Virus,Mosquito Abatement DC/forms/city/contracts/cklist.doc/CoR Rev:3/05 CITY JF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Lawrence J.Warren Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L.Fontes Ann S. Nielsen Sasha P. Alessi Whitney A. Faulkner MEMORANDUM To Allen Quynn, Surface Water Engineer RECEIVED From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney APR 112005 Date: April 8, 2005 CITY NTON Subject: 2005-2006 Mosquito Abatement Contract �s STELIS The contract is approved as to legal form Lawrence J. Warren LJW.tmj cc: Jay Covington Gregg A.Zimmerman,-PE Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RE N�TO N SThis paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post oonsuiner AHEAD OF THE CURVE r ' `ECEI VEt DEC '! 4 2007 `SY HUMAN RESOURCES/ CITY0.0 ♦ RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENI����TYVYs M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 12, 2005 TO: Al e uynn, Civil Engineer III, PBPW/Utility Systems FROM: R. Webby, Administrator SUBJECT: Insurance Renewal Review/Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. Pest Abatement Program I have reviewed the certificate of insurance and supporting policy documents for the above- mentioned contract. The insurance coverage,provided for this contract,meets the City's risk management requirements. "Please remember to forward all originals to the City Clerk's office,if on file there" iArisk documents\contract okay.doc Excluded Parties List System Page 1 of 1 Excluded Search Menu- * Resources Current Exclusions / Public User's Manual ► Name ► FAQ ► Multiple Names ► DUNS *Reports Menu ► Agency ► Lists Report State/Country ► Supplemental Report Action Dates ► Agency Report Termination Dates ► Supplemental Agency ► Exact Name and Report SSN/TIN Search Results for Parties Excluded ► State/Country Report ► CT Code ► Lists Data Report by Partial Name : Whitworth Pest ► Supplemental Data Report *View Cause and Solutions ► Cause and Treatment Code Descriptions Treatment Code I► Reciprocal Codes As of 03-Jul-2006 "*'Archive Menu- Procurement Codes Past Exclusions ► Nonprocurement ► Name Codes No records were found matching your search ► Multiple Names request. *Agency&Acronym *Contact Information Info ►Agency Contacts support@epls.gov (Agency Descriptions Email: `State/Country Code ► 1-866-GSA-EPLS Descriptions Phone:1-866-472-3757 ► i "Related Links eplscomments@epls.gov Debar Maintenance Email: Administration ► Upload Login " ' E`GO t� http://epls.amet.gov/epls/servlet/EPLSGetInputSearch 7/3/2006 ADDENDUM NO. 3 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES for 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program This Addendum is made and entered into this, day of by and between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the"City",and Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc.whose address is 2533 Inter Avenue,Puyallup, WA 98372-3428, hereinafter called the"Consultant". WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS,the City engaged the services of the consultant under Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059,dated April 18, 2005,to provide mosquito control of the upland areas in the Talbot Hills neighborhood as part of the 2005-2006 Mosquito Abatement Program;and WHEREAS, the City desires to control mosquito populations in City owned stormwater and irrigation impoundment facilities and catch basins and the City does not have sufficient qualified engineering employees with the appropriate licenses to perform the work within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that to control mosquito populations in City owned stormwater and irrigation impoundment facilities and catch basins, water treatment using larvicide is the most effective way to control mosquitoes in said City facilities,such additional work items and costs being shown in the attached CAG-05-059 Addendum No. 3, Exhibit"A"—Scope of Work, Exhibit`B"—Cost Estimate. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section VIII Extra Work of the Master Agreement CAG-05-059,dated April 18, 2005, it is mutually agreed upon that Engineering Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059, is amended to include the work and associated budget as follows: 1. The scope of work for the 2006 Mosquito abatement Program Addendum No. 3 shall be set forth in Exhibit B of this addendum. 2. The maximum amount payable for the additional work items defined in Exhibit B of this contract addendum shall not exceed$24,480.00, without prior authorization from the City. All other provisions of Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059 dated April 18, 2005, shall apply to this addendum. EXECUTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Addendum No. 3 to ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT CAG-05-059 as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON Sigoture jj Date Kathy Keolker,Mayor Date Type or Writ Name ATTEST: e Llp- � Title Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk a...AA A nn=V till Tk 194 Ann%ACW- EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK 2006 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM ADDENDUM NO.3 TASK NO. 1: WATER TREATMENT OF CITY OWNED STORMWATER AND IRRIGATION IMPOUNDMENT FACILITIES Treatment Methods and Materials: Water treatment applications of an Environmental Protection Agency registered larvicide will be applied to City owned stormwater/i___,�rrigation impo ndment_facihties using hand applied briquettes or granules. Treatment will be applied in accordance with the product label and other federal and state regulations. Larvicide treatment must also be conducted in accordance with the Aquatic Mosquito Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Waste Discharge General Permit No. WAG-992000. All necessary licenses shall be the responsibility of the consultant to ensure their issuance prior to treatment. The larvicide product to be used is Bacillus Sphaericus(BS)and is sold under the trade name VectoLex. Area of Treatment: The treatment areas consists of the following facilities: Owner Facility Name/Type Facility Location PBPW Maint. Svcs.Division Stonegate/WQ Pond NE 261h and Lyons Ave PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division NE 10'h St Pond/Detention NE 10'h St and Anacortes Ave PBPW Maint. Svcs.Division Talbot Ridge 2/WQ Pond S 470'Stand 102"d Ave SE PBPW Maint. Svcs. Division Catch Basins Various Golf Course Hole#18 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(west) Golf Course Hole#9 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(west-central) Golf Course Hole#7 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(east-central) Golf Course Hole#6 Pond/Irrigation Maplewood Golf Course(east) Golf Course Catch Basins Various Parks Maintenance Division Catch Basins Various Facilities Division City HaIUWQ Grady Way Parking Lot Frequency of Treatment: Each water impoundment facility and catch basin as described above shall be tested for the presence of mosquito larve every two weeks. If the larve count exceeds 0.3 larva per dip then larvicide shall be applied in accordance with the requirements of the City obtained Aquatic Mosquito Control NPDES Permit No. 992000. Reporting: Following each treatment,the consultant shall provide to the City a brief summary of all stormwater/irrigation impoundment facilities tested and treated. Information to be provided for each shall include the following: I. Date,time and street location of facility or catch basin tested 2. Type of Larvicide and EPA registration number 3. Amount of larvicide in gallons or pounds that was applied 4. The number of acres treated 5. Name and address of person applying larvicide 6. Larval count(larve per dip) 7. Number of manhours per facility visited(includes testing and larviciding) Notification Maplewood Golf Course—Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall contact the Golf Course Manager twenty- four(24) hours in advance of entering the Golf Course. Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. shall arrange with the Golf Course Manager to be escorted onto the golf course and in no circumstances shall Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc.,enter upon the golf course without one golf course employee in attendance at all times while on Golf Course property(this is a mandatory safety requirement). Invoicing Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall submit a separate invoice to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Parks Maintenance Division,Maplewood Golf Course and Facilities Division for any services it provides under this project. Payment cannot be authorized or payment may be delayed until separate invoices are received. H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp EXHIBIT B COST ESTIMATE 2006 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM ADDENDUM NO.3 Task 1. The estimated total cost of Task 1 including Washington States sales tax is$24,480.00. The cost shall be based on a rate of$125.00 per manhour, which includes labor, materials and equipment required to apply larvicide as specified in the scope of work and shall include but not limited to the following: 1. Transportation costs associated with transit from consultant's office to stormwater/irrigation facilities and transit between facilities including catch basins. 2. Material costs for larvicide. 3. Equipment necessary to test and apply larvicide including sampling cups, protective gloves and respirators, etc. At the City's discretion, facilities listed under"Areas of Treatment"above may be eliminated or treatment frequency reduced and other facilities added depending on mosquito levels and recommendations from the Public Health Department. Catch basins will only be treated when requested in writing by the City. A minimum scheduled trip charge from consultant's office to stormwater/irrigation facilities of$375.00 shall apply. Below is the estimated contract cost for the three City divisions, based on the billing rate of$125.00 per manhour for a total of 180 manhours: PBPW Maint. Svcs.Division Costs Stormwater facilities: 3 Total number of treatments per stormwater facility: 8 Total manhours per stormwater facility(including travel time): 0.75 hrs Total stormwater facility manhours: 18 hrs Subtotal cost for stormwater facilities: $2,250.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $198.00 Total cost for stormwater facilities: $2,448.00 Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 60 hrs Total cost for catch basin treatment: $7,500.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $660.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $8,160.00 H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp Total manhours(stormwater facilities+catch basins): 78 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $9,750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $858.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $10,608.00 Golf Course Costs Irrigation facilities: 4 Total number of treatments per facility: 8 Total manhours per irrigation facility(including travel time): 1 hr Total irrigation facility manhours: 32 hrs Subtotal cost for irrigation facilities: $4,000.00 Sales Tax 8.8%): $352.00 Total cost for irrigation facilities: $4,352.00 Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 3 hrs Subtotal cost for catch basin treatment: $375.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $33.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $408.00 Total manhours(irrigation facilities+catch basins): 35 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $4,375.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $385.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $4,760.00 Parks Division Costs Irrigation facilities: 0 Total manhours available for catch basin treatment: 61 hrs. Subtotal cost for catch basin treatment: $7,625.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $671.00 Total cost for catch basin treatment: $8,296.00 Total manhours (irrigation facilities+catch basins): 61 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $7,625.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $671.00 Total cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $8,296.00 Facilities Division Costs Stormwater facilities: 1 Total number of treatments per facility: 8 Total manhours per stormwater facility(including travel time): 0.75 hrs Total stormwater facility manhours: 6 hrs Subtotal cost for stormwater facilities: $750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $66.00 Total cost stormwater facilities: $816.00 Catch Basin: 0 H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp Total manhours(stormwater facilities+catch basins): 6 hrs Subtotal cost(stormwater facilities+catch basins): $750.00 Sales Tax(8.8%): $66.00 Total cost: $816.00 Total Contract Cost for all Divisions: $22,500.00 State Sales Tax(8.8%): $1,980.00 Total Contract Cost: $24,480.00 Notification Maplewood Golf Course—Whitworth Pest Solutions,Inc. shall contact the Golf Course Manager 24 hours in advance of entering the Golf Course. Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc.shall arrange with the Golf Course Manager to be escorted onto the golf course and in no circumstances shall Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc., enter upon the golf course without one golf course employee in attendance at all times while on golf course property(this is a mandatory safety requirement). Invoicing Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. shall submit a separate invoice to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility Section, Parks Maintenance Division, Maplewood Golf Course and Facilities Division for any services it provides under this project. Payment cannot be authorized or payment may be delayed until separate invoices are received. H:Tile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Bile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\Scope of work.doc\AQtp w INTERFUND TRANSFER Transfer Number: Date: Noymbe✓- Z b , General Description: COW660y\- 40 rwS Cosa- DepartmentTo Be Charged (Transfer Out-From) �� S ysS Description Account Number WO/Function Amount r- Department Authorization: Department To Be Credited (Transfer In - To) Caw Description Account Number WO/Function Amount pZ0 5190 Distribution: White: Finance Department Yellow: Department to be Charged Pink: Department to be Credited Sep 15 06k'0 22.E Pat r s:' 253-845-1133 p -10 2- ,:' Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0044052 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 IIIQII�I1111111iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1101 I1IIII 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE-7/14/2006 DUE DATE 7/14/2006 TERMS -- Net t3,,:.. , City of Renton PO 0 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 AMOUNT DUE 0.00 For Service at: Maintenance Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service!Product Description Quantity!Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @$343.75 each $343.75 l VJ f Maintenance Total Tax: 30.25 Total This Invoice: 374.00 Renton, WA 98055 Payments Received: 374.00 7/14/2006 Invoice: 01-0044052 Invoice Date: 7/14/2006 1.00 Did?ie Wagner- Re: Whitworth Payment on PO 20/0007211 Page 1 From: Teresa Phelan To: Wagner, Diane Date: 11/03/06 9:38:19 AM Subject: Re: Whitworth Payment on PO 20/0007211 Hi Diana, Of course, that works great for me! The account number, if you need it, is: 427.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065020 65020/5354 Thanks again, Teresa >>> Diane Wagner 11/03/06 9:28 AM >>> Thanks for the email Teresa...that's great. I can get a copy for you and start an interfund transfer if you'd like? Please let me know if that will work for you... Thanks again, Diane >>> Teresa Phelan 11/3/2006 8:57 AM >>> Hi Diane, Do you have a copy of the PO 20/0007211 and invoice#01-00044052?After speaking with Whitworth, it appears that invoice should have been billed and paid for by the Maintenance Shops (Utility Systems does the purchase order)and not Facilities. Please provide me with a copy, and I will request a general journal entry to correct the charge. Thanks, Teresa Phelan Administrative Secretary Utility Systems Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 5th floor Renton, WA 98055 Ph: 425 430-7332 Fax: 425 430-7241 Email: tpheian(@ci.renton.wa.us Y o� CITY OF RENTON ♦ '} ♦ Planning/BuildinoublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator December 1, 2006 Ben Hamilton ,, , Zoonotic Disease Program , Washington State Department of Health PO Box 47825 Olympia, WA 98504 SUBJECT: 2006 MOSQUITO LARVICIDE USE REPORT Dear Mr. Hamilton: Enclosed please find for your records,the City of Renton's 2006 Mosquito Larvicide Use Report as required under the NPDES Aquatic Mosquito Control Permit. Please call me at 425-430-7247, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Allen Quynn,/P.E., Surface War Utility Engineer Enclosure H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\West Nile Virus\2006 w74V\2006 larvicide report.doc\AQtp R E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 ® AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer End Of Season Larvicide Use Report Page 1 of 1 2006 YEAR END CHEMICAL USE REPORT FOR : CITY OF RENTON WATER WRIA COUNTY CHEMICAL MT. UNITS CRES EPA PP. LATITUDE LONGITUDE BODY NUMBER DATE CEDAR- Bacillus Cedar- SAMMAMISH KING sphaericus (H- 23.03 GAL. .68 73049-20 7/14/06- 47.4739 122.2049 Sammamish WRIA-08 5a5b) 10/5/06 Green- DUWAMISH- Bacillus 7/14/06- Duwamish GREEN WRIA-09 KING sphaericus (H- 3 GAL. .02 73049-20 10/05/06 [47.4970 122.1623 15a5b) I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein, and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. section 1001 and 33 U.S.C. section 1319. (Penalties under these statutes may include fines of up to $10,000 and/or maximum imprisonment offbetween six months and five years.) 1, t, Authorized Signature _ t Title �c l��ea,� r'r_ Ci Authorized Signer's Printed Name : C, bf n V1 _ Date PRINT FORM, CLOSE V INDOW http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/aquaticpestapp/YrEndRpts.ASP 12/1/2006 Allen Quynn - FW: Mosquito permit draft out for review Page 2 the state. Reminder for those operating under the current permit: don't forget to submit your end of the season larvicide records for the 2006 season. They are due before Feb 1, 2007. Thank you to those that have already turned in their records. Ben Hamilton Zoonotic Disease Program <http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ZOO.HTM> WA Department of Health <http://www.doh.wa.gov/> PO Box 47825 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 236-3364 Fax: (360) 236-2261 Public Health -Always working for a safer and healthier Washington. > From: McLain, Kelly > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:31 PM >To: Barrett, Tony (DOHi); Benner, Brian; Foss, Steve (AGR); > Hamilton, Benjamin (DOH); Hansen, Heather; Haworth, Tom; Lacey, > Lerry; Morrissey, Barbara (DOH); Newberg, Mark; Peacock, William; > Sager-Rosenthal, Ivy; Shoemaker, Kevin; Storey, Angela; Strehle, > Sheila; Switzer, Wayne; Thompson, Jim; Wheeler, Wendy Sue (AGR); >Whitworth, Terry > Cc: Winters, Nancy(ECY); Weaver, Duane > Subject: Mosquito permit draft out for review > Importance: High >The permit is out for public comment!!! The fact sheet and permit can > be found at: > http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/m >osquito/mosquito_index.html >The public hearings will be held on December 12th in Olympia, and > December 13th in Pasco (Columbia Basin College). > Please contact me if you have any questions. > Kelly McLain >Aquatic Pesticide Specialist/Permit Writer >Water Quality Program > Department of Ecology > (360)407-6938 > kelm461@ecy.wa.gov CC: "Napolilli, Nancy (DOH)" <Nancy.Napoli IIi@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Brauner, Jo Marie (DOH)" <JoMarie.Brauner@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Duffy, Anne (DOH)" <Anne.Duffy@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Dykstra, Elizabeth A (DOH)" <Elizabeth.Dykstra@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Free, Cyndi (DOH)" <Cyndi.Free@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Hamilton, Benjamin (DOH)" <Benjamin.Hamilton@doh.wa.gov>, "Nash, David (DOH)" <David.Nash@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Tibbetts, Dorothy (DOH)" <Dorothy.Tibbetts@DOH.WA.GOV>, "Wohrle, Ron D (DOH)" <WohrleRon@DOH.WA.GOV> Allen Quynn- FW: Mosquito permit draft out for review Page 1 From: "Hamilton, Benjamin (DOH)" <Benjamin.Hamilton@doh.wa.gov> To: "Adams, Sue" <fairfieldtown@elkrivertv.net>, "Anderson, Les" <les@ci.stanwood.wa.us>, "Aron, Carl Robert" <c.aron@att.net>, "Ayers, Russ" <russ.a@ihcommunity.org>, "Bambrick, Cathy" <cathy.bambrick@co.kittitas.wa.us>, "Barrentine, Marianne" <mbarrentine@spokanecounty.org>, "Barrett, Tony" <TGBarret@co.lewis.wa.us>, "Benner, Brian" <bwbenner@charter.net>, "Bernard, Bob/ Ramona T." <ramonat@oregonpotato.com>, "Blake, Bill " <bblake@ci.arlington.wa.us>, "Bolser, Ken" <kbolser@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "Bretzke, Daniel " <danielb@ci.burien.wa.us>, "Brodniak, Karen" <ka ren.brod n iak@westwood precision.corn>, "Carlaw, Tim" <tcarlaw@auburnwa.gov>, "Carlson, Ted " <tcarlson@ci.kenmore.wa.us>, "Chennault, Kari " <kchennault@ci.marysville.wa.us>, "Cramp, James" <jimcramp@charter.net>, "Creek, Windy" <dayestone@hotmail.com>, "Davis, Jefferson" <jdavis@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Davis, Todd " <todd@co.kittitas.wa.us>, "Day, Kevin " <kday@co.walla-walla.wa.us>, "Eagle Pest Elimantors" <eagle_pest@com cast.net>, "Eden Advanced Pest Technologies" <jackmarlowe@eden pest.com>, "Ernst, Carol/Kaelin, Dean" <carol_ernst@hotmail.com>, "Fleek, Margaret" <mfleek@ci.burlington.wa.us>, "Gallagher, Tim " <tal lag her@spraguepest.com>, "George, Douglas" <dgeorge@co.grays-harbor.wa.us>, "Giles, Rick" <rick.giles@us.nestle.com>, "Gilmore, Terry" <terryg i I more@com cast.net>, "Gjuka, Joel " <gjukajo@wsdot.wa.gov>, "Gleason, Karen" <bkgleason@hsics.net>, "Gohrman, Henry Finch " <sonny.gohrman@co.snohomish.wa.us>, "Grumbach, Robert" <robert@ci.edgewood.wa.us>, "Halar, Diana" <dhalar@cityoflakewood.us>, "Hansen, Thomas" <thansen@ci.mukilteo.wa.us>, "Harris, Patrick " <pharris@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Haworth, Tom " <thaworth@gcpower.net>, "Henderson, Katie" <katie@cdc.management.com>, "Hixson, Kimberly" <kmberly@uvillage.com>, "Hubert, Alexander" <aahubert2000@yahoo.com>, "Jacobson, Doug" <doug.jacobson@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Jensen, Todd" <tjensen@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Kalenius, Shana" <Shana.Kalenius@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Kessler, Steve" <ccmcd@pacifier.com>, "Lawrence, Jay" <cimcd@wavecable.com>, "Leif, Bill " <b.leif@co.snohomish.wa.us>, "Love, Mikael" <Mikaell@ci.mount-vernon.wa.us>, "Lowe, Michael" <mlowe@wsu.edu>, "Madsen, Nels" <madsen22@gorge.net>, "Manickam, Jey" <jey@totallandscape.net>, "Maulding, Jimmi " <jimmi.maulding@mercergov.org>, "McGauran, Catherine" <cmcgauran@medina-wa.gov>, "Morris, Bob" <bmorris@nwlco.com>, "Morrow, Jon" <JMorrow@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "Mullins, Jennifer" <info@leavenworthmosquitodistrict.com>, "Owyen, Fred" <fowyen@Iwsd.wed net.edu>, "Patterson, Gene " <gpatters@wsu.edu>, "Payton, Norman" <paytonn@wsdot.wa.gov>, "Peacock, William " <bpeacock@spokanecity.org>, "Pennington, Todd " <todd@edenpest2.com>, "Pettit, Bruce" <upwindsailor@comcast.net>, "Phipps, Lee" <lphipps@co.whatcom.wa.us>, "Pratt, Dana " <dana@prattpest.com>, "Quynn, Allen " <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Ritland, Kerry" <kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Rudolph, Jeff" <jrudolp@co.pierce.wa.us>, "Rush, Stacey" <srush@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "Sadler, Mark" <msadler@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Schroeder, Scott" <SSchroeder@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Shaw, Mike " <mshaw@ci.mountlake-terrace.wa.us>, "Spokane ProCare" <info@spoprocare.com>, "Stoneman, Jon " <stoneman@whid bey.net>, "Strand, Christy" <cstrand@cityoftacoma.org>, "Switzer, Wayne " <waynes@edenpest2.com>, "Taylor, Jack" <jackt@co.island.wa.us>, "Thompson, Jim " <gcmcd@nwi.net>, "Total Landscape Corporation" <joe@totaI landscape.net>, "Treleven, Lawrence " <larryt@spraguepest.com>, "Tucker, David " <dtucker@co.kitsap.wa.us>, "Vanderwoude, Carol " <samzauntie@msn.com>, "Vondran, Don" <dvondran@ci.covington.wa.us>, "Wagoner, William " <bill.wagoner@columbiafoods.com>, "Warneke, Stephen" <swarneke@orkin.com>, "Weaver, Steve" <wes@nwinfo.net>, "Whitney, Clint" <clint.whitney@bluestargolf.com>, "Whittaker, Timothy" <tjw@bigdam.net>, "Whitworth, Terry" <wpctwbug@aol.com>, "Williams, Bill " <billw@gorge.net>, "Williams, Jessica" <jilliams@ci.shoreline.wa.us>, "Willis, Joe" <publicworks@medina-wa.gov>, "Willott, Dan " <dan.willott@metrokc.gov>, "Wirth, Steve" <swirth2@gte.net> Date: 11/2/2006 3.08:27 PM Subject: FW: Mosquito permit draft out for review The newly reissued DRAFT aquatic mosquito control NPDES permit is now out for public comment(see link below from Kelly). Once this permit is completed the Department of Health will again obtain this permit from Ecology and offer it(freely and with no SEPA review process) to qualified entities that intend to control mosquito larvae in waters of West Nile Virus Interagency Work Group Subcommittee on Mosquito Adulticiding and Related Issues: Initial meeting, November 30, 2006 Agenda Introductions, announcements Prospects for WNV in KC in 2007 — 2008 Legal aspects - report from Amy Eiden, KC Prosecuting Attorney's Office Develop goals and timeline for subcommittee's work -should this group also address catch basin larvaciding? Are there others that should be included in this group? Determine date and agenda for next meeting • DRAFT t 11/30/06 Emergency Authorities Governor—Emergency Measures to Control Plant Pests or Plant Diseases Emergency Measures The governor may, after finding that there exists within this state an imminent danger of infestation of plant pests as defined in RCW 17.24.007 or plant diseases which seriously endangers the agricultural or horticultural industries of the state of Washington,or which seriously threatens life,health, or economic well-being, order emergency measures to prevent or abate the infestation or disease situation,which measures, after thorough evaluation of all other alternatives, may include the aerial application of pesticides. RCW 43.06.010(13). Definitions of Plant Pest"and "Emergency" See RCW 17.24.007(4)and(20) (attached). P% Conditions and Procedure See RCW 17.24.171 (attached). V Governor—Emergency(All Hazards) Definition of Emergency "Emergency or disaster"means an event or set of circumstances which: a. Demands immediate action to preserve public health,protect life,protect public property, or to provide relief to any stricken community overtaken by such occurrences,or b. Reaches such a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the Governor declaring a state of emergency pursuant to RCW 43.06.010.RCW 38.52.010(6)(a). Proclamation of Emergency The governor may, after finding that a public disorder,disaster, energy emergency, or riot exists within this state or any part thereof which affects life,health,property, or the public peace,proclaim a state of emergency in the area affected, and the powers granted the governor during a state of emergency shall be effective only within the area described in the proclamation. RCW 43.06.010(12). Emergency Orders See RCW 43.06.220 and RCW 38.52.050(3)(e)(attached). King County Executive—Emergency(All Hazards) Definition of Emergency "Emergency or disaster"means an event or set of circumstances such as fire, flood,explosion, storm, earthquake, epidemic,riot or insurrection,which demands the immediate preservation of order or of public health or the restoration to a condition of usefulness of any public property, the usefulness of which has been destroyed or where delay will result in financial loss to the county or for the relief of a stricken community or which reaches such a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the Executive proclaiming a state of emergency pursuant to K.C.C. 12.52.030. K.C.C. 12.52.010.A. Proclamation of Emergency Whenever an emergency or disaster occurs in King County and results in the death or injury of persons or the destruction of property to such extent as to require,in the judgment of the Executive, DRAFT 11/30/06 Emergency Authorities extraordinary measures to protect the public peace, safety and welfare,the Executive may proclaim in writing the existence of such an emergency. K.C.C. 12.52.030.A. Emergency Orders See K.C.C. 12.52.030.B (attached). V Seattle Mayor—Emergency(All Hazards) Proclamation of Emergency Whenever riot, unlawful assembly, insurrection, other disturbance,the imminent threat thereof,or any fire, flood, storm, earthquake or other catastrophe or disaster occurs in the city and results in or threatens to result in the death or injury of persons or the destruction of property or the disruption of local government to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the Mayor, extraordinary measures to prevent the death or injury of persons and to protect the public peace, safety and welfare,and alleviate damage, loss,hardship or suffering,the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in writing of the existence of a civil emergency. SMC 10.02.010.A. Emergency Orders See SMC 10.02.020 (attached). Local Health Officer Broad Powers to Control Diseases/Not Dependent on Proclamation of Emergency The local health officer shall take such action as is necessary to maintain health and sanitation supervision over the territory within his or her jurisdiction. RCW 70.05.070(2). The local health officer shall control and prevent the spread of any dangerous,contagious or infectious disease within his or her jurisdiction. RCW 70.05.070(3). Page 2 of 4 1 Page I West's RCWA 17.24.007 West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 17.Weeds,Rodents,and Pests(Refs&Annos) "W Chapter 17.24.Insect Pests and Plant Diseases(Refs&Annos) -+17.24.007.Definitions Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Department"means the state department of agriculture. (2) "Director"means the director of the state department of agriculture or the director's designee. (3) "Quarantine" means a rule issued by the department that prohibits or regulates the movement of articles, bees, plants, or plant products from designated quarantine areas within or outside the state to prevent the spread of disease,plant pathogens,or pests to nonquarantine areas. (4) "Plant pest" means a living stage of an insect, mite, nematode, slug, snail, or protozoa, or other invertebrate animal, bacteria, fungus, or parasitic plant, or their reproductive parts, or viruses, or an organism similar to or allied with any of the foregoing plant pests, including a genetically engineered organism, or an infectious substance that can directly or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in plants or parts of plants or in processed, manufactured,or other products of plants. (5) "Plants and plant products" means trees, shrubs, vines, forage, and cereal plants, and all other plants and plant parts, including cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, fruit, vegetables, roots, bulbs, seeds, wood, lumber, and all products made from the plants and plant products. (6) "Certificate" or "certificate of inspection" means an official document certifying compliance with the requirements of this chapter. The term "certificate" includes labels, rubber stamp imprints, tags, permits, written statements, or a form of inspection and certification document that accompanies the movement of inspected and certified plant material and plant products,or bees,bee hives,or beekeeping equipment. (7) "Compliance agreement" means a written agreement between the department and a person engaged in growing, handling, or moving articles, plants, plant products, or bees, bee hives, or beekeeping equipment regulated under this chapter, in which the person agrees to comply with stipulated requirements. (8) "Distribution" means the movement of a regulated article from the property where it is grown or kept, to property that is not contiguous to the property,regardless of the ownership of the properties. (9) "Genetically engineered organism"means an organism altered or produced through genetic modification from a donor, vector, or recipient organism using recombinant DNA techniques, excluding those organisms covered by the food,drug and cosmetic act(21 U.S.C. Secs. 301-392). (10) "Person" means a natural person, individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, society, or association, and every officer,agent,or employee of any of these entities. (11) "Sell" means to sell, to hold for sale, offer for sale, handle, or to use as inducement for the sale of another ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7bOB... 11/29/2006 Page 3 of 4 4 Page 2 West's RCWA 17.24.007 article or product. (12) "Noxious weed" means a living stage, including,but not limited to, seeds and reproductive parts, of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that presents a threat to Washington agriculture or environment. (13) "Regulated article" means a plant or plant product, bees or beekeeping equipment, noxious weed or other articles or equipment capable of harboring or transporting plant or bee pests or noxious weeds that is specifically addressed in rules or quarantines adopted under this chapter. (14) "Owner" means the person having legal ownership, possession, or control over a regulated article covered by this chapter including,but not limited to,the owner,shipper,consignee,or their agent. (15) "Nuisance" means a plant, or plant part, apiary, or property found in a commercial area on which is found a pest,pathogen,or disease that is a source of infestation to other properties. (16)"Bees"means adult insects,eggs,larvae,pupae,or other immature stages of the species Apis mellifera. (17) "Bee pests" means a mite, other parasite, or disease that causes injury to bees and those honey bees generally recognized to have undesirable behavioral characteristics such as or as found in Africanized honey bees. (18) "Biological control" means the use by humans of living organisms to control or suppress undesirable animals and plants; the action of parasites, predators, or pathogens on a host or prey population to produce a lower general equilibrium than would prevail in the absence of these agents. (19) "Biological control agent" means a parasite, predator, or pathogen intentionally released, by humans, into a target host or prey population with the intent of causing population reduction of that host or prey. (20) "Emergency" means a situation where there is an imminent danger of an infestation of plant pests or disease that seriously threatens the state's agricultural or horticultural industries or environment and that cannot be adequately addressed with normal procedures or existing resources. CREDIT(S) [2000 c 100 § 6; 1991 c 257 §4.] HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Effective date-2000 c 100: See RCW 15.60.901. Source: Laws 1981,ch.296, § 36. Former§ 17.24.005. West's RCWA 17.24.007,WA ST 17.24.007 Current with all 2006 legislation and Initiative Measure No. 937 (Laws 2007,ch. 1). ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7bOB... 11/29/2006 Page 2 of U� Westlaw.. Page 1 West's RCWA 17.24.171 C West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 17.Weeds,Rodents,and Pests(Refs&Annos) 'W Chapter 17.24.Insect Pests and Plant Diseases(Refs&Annos) 417.24.171. Determination of imminent danger of infestation of plant pests or plant diseases—Emergency measures--Conditions—Procedures (1) If the director determines that there exists an imminent danger of an infestation of plant pests or plant diseases that seriously endangers the agricultural or horticultural industries of the state, or that seriously threatens life, health, economic well-being, or the environment, the director shall request the governor to order emergency measures to control the pests or plant diseases under RCW 43.06.010(13). The director's findings shall contain an evaluation of the affect of the emergency measures on public health. (2) If an emergency is declared pursuant to RCW 43.06.010(13), the director may appoint a committee to advise the governor through the director and to review emergency measures necessary under the authority of RCW 43.06.010(13) and this section and make subsequent recommendations to the governor. The committee shall include representatives of the agricultural industries, state and local government, public health interests, technical service providers,and environmental organizations. (3) Upon the order of the governor of the use of emergency measures, the director is authorized to implement the emergency measures to prevent, control, or eradicate plant pests or plant diseases that are the subject of the emergency order. Such measures, after thorough evaluation of all other alternatives, may include the aerial application of pesticides. (4) Upon the order of the governor of the use of emergency measures, the director is authorized to enter into agreements with individuals, companies, or agencies, to accomplish the prevention, control, or eradication of plant pests or plant diseases,notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 15.58 or 17.21 RCW,or any other statute. (5) The director shall continually evaluate the emergency measures taken and report to the governor at intervals of not less than ten days. The director shall immediately advise the governor if he or she finds that the emergency no longer exists or if certain emergency measures should be discontinued. CREDIT(S) [2003 c 314§ 6,eff.July 27,2003; 1991 c 257 §21.] HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Findings-2003 c 314: See note following RCW 17.24.220. Source: Laws 1982,ch. 153, §2. Former§ 17.24.200. LIBRARY REFERENCES ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearn.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7bOB... 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 30 V Page I West's RCWA 43.06.220 C West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 43.State Government--Executive(Refs&Annos) ',w Chapter 43.06.Governor(Refs&Annos) -+43.06.220.State of emergency—Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting: (a) Any person being on the public streets, or in the public parks, or at any other public place during the hours declared by the governor to be a period of curfew; (b) Any number of persons, as designated by the governor, from assembling or gathering on the public streets, parks,or other open areas of this state,either public or private; (c) The manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of a molotov cocktail or any other device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion; (d) The transporting, possessing or using of gasoline, kerosene, or combustible, flammable, or explosive liquids or materials in a glass or uncapped container of any kind except in connection with the normal operation of motor vehicles,normal home use or legitimate commercial use; (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person(other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business; (f)The sale,purchase or dispensing of alcoholic beverages; (g) The sale, purchase or dispensing of other commodities or goods, as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life,health,property or the public peace; (h)The use of certain streets,highways or public ways by the public;and (i) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health,property or the public peace. (2) In imposing the restrictions provided for by RCW 43.06.010, and 43.06.200 through 43.06.270, the governor may impose them for such times, upon such conditions, with such exceptions and in such areas of this state he or she from time to time deems necessary. (3)Any person willfully violating any provision of an order issued by the governor under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. CREDIT(S) [2003 c 53 §222,eff.July 1,2004; 1969 ex.s.c 186 § 3.] C 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7bOB... 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 4 (^ a v r Y estlC.iYY. Page 1 West's RCWA 38.52.050 C West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 38.Militia and Military Affairs(Refs&Annos) '1W Chapter 38.52.Emergency Management(Refs&Annos) 438.52.050.Governor's general powers and duties (1) The governor, through the director, shall have general supervision and control of the emergency management functions in the department, and shall be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of this chapter, and in the event of disaster beyond local control, may assume direct operational control over all or any part of the emergency management functions within this state. (2) In performing his or her duties under this chapter, the governor is authorized to cooperate with the federal government, with other states, and with private agencies in all matters pertaining to the emergency management of this state and of the nation. (3) In performing his or her duties under this chapter and to effect its policy and purpose, the governor is further authorized and empowered: (a) To make, amend, and rescind the necessary orders, rules, and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter within the limits of the authority conferred upon him herein, with due consideration of the plans of the federal government; (b) On behalf of this state, to enter into mutual aid arrangements with other states and territories, or provinces of the Dominion of Canada and to coordinate mutual aid interlocal agreements between political subdivisions of this state; (c) To delegate any administrative authority vested in him under this chapter, and to provide for the subdelegation of any such authority; (d) To appoint, with the advice of local authorities, metropolitan or regional area coordinators, or both, when practicable; (e) To cooperate with the president and the heads of the armed forces, the emergency management agency of the United States, and other appropriate federal officers and agencies, and with the officers and agencies of other states in matters pertaining to the emergency management of the state and nation. CREDIT(S) [1997 c 49§ 3; 1986 c 266 §27; 1984 c 38 § 6; 1974 ex.s.c 171 § 7; 1951 c 178 § 6.] HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Severability-1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. CROSS REFERENCES ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7bOB... 11/29/2006 CD (King County 3-2006) 12.52.030 PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS 12.52.030 Powers delineated. The executive shall see that the Washington State laws and ordinances of King County are enforced, and shall direct and control all subordinate officers of the county, except insofar as such enforcement, direction and control is by King County Charter reposed in some other officer or board, and shall maintain the peace and order in King County. A. Whenever an emergency or disaster occurs in King County and results in the death or injury of persons or the destruction of property to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the executive, extraordinary measures to protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the executive may forthwith proclaim in writing the existence of such an emergency. B. Upon the proclamation of an emergency by the executive, and during the existence of such emergency,the executive may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders: 1. An order recalling King County employees from vacation, canceling days off, authorizing overtime,or recalling selected retired employees; 2. An order waiving the requirements of K.C.C. 4.04, 4.16, 4.18, 12.16 and 12.18.095 with reference to any contract relating to the county's lease or purchase of supplies, equipment, personal services or public works as defined by RCW 39.04.010, or to any contract for the selection and award of professional and/or technical consultant contracts. Provided, however, that an emergency waiver of the requirements under K.C.C. 4.18, 12.16 and 12.18 shall not amend the annual utilization goals unless the emergency makes it impossible to achieve the annual utilization goals. 3. An order directing evacuation and/or clearing of debris and wreckage caused by an emergency or disaster from publicly and privately owned lands and waters; 4. An order imposing a general curfew applicable to King County as a whole, or to such geographical area or areas of King County and during such hours, as the executive deems necessary, and from time to time to modify the hours such curfew will be in effect and the area or areas to which it will apply; 5. An order requiring any or all business establishments to close and remain closed until further order; 6. An order requiring discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of alcoholic beverages in any or all parts of King County, and/or the closure of any and all bars, taverns, liquor stores, and other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise dispensed; provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic beverages may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the discretion of the executive, be allowed to remain open; 7. An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle; 8. An order closing to the public any or all public places including streets, alleys, public ways, schools, parks, beaches,amusement areas and public buildings; 9. An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties; 10. An order granting emergency postponement of King County permit procedures for public work projects, as defined by RCW 39.04.010, responding to conditions of the emergency and/or for restoration of public facilities damaged as a result of the emergency. Such postponements shall be temporary.All projects must comply with all applicable code requirements. A permit and inspection must be obtained as soon as possible after work has begun, but permit application shall be made no later than six months after the date of the emergency proclamation. 11. Such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property. 12-119 Page 1 of 3 [9[VETI U A 4:10[:�]A Efl Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved November 29, 2006 4:48 PM Title 10 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Chapter 10. 02 - Civil Emergencies SMC 10.02 .020 Authority of Mayor to issue certain orders. Upon the proclamation of a civil emergency by the Mayor, and during the existence of such civil emergency, the Mayor may, in a form that meets the requirements of Section 10.02.025ff57EI, make and proclaim any or all of the following orders: A. An order imposing a general curfew applicable to the City as a whole, or to such geographical area or areas of the City and during such hours, as he deems necessary, which effective hours and affected area or areas may be modified from time to time; B. An order requiring any or all business establishments to close and remain closed until further order; C. An order requiring the closure of any or all bars, taverns, liquor stores, and other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise dispensed; provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic beverages may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open; D. An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of alcoholic beverages in any or all parts of the City; E. An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of firearms and/or ammunition for firearms in any or all parts of the City; F. An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle; G. An order requiring the closure of any or all business establishments where firearms and/or ammunition for firearms are sold or otherwise dispensed; provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of firearms and/or ammunition and in which such firearms and/or ammunition may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than firearms http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s 1=10.02.020.snum.&Sects=... 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 3 and ammunition may, in the discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open; H. An order closing to the public any or all public places including streets, alleys, public ways, schools, parks, beaches, amusement areas, and public buildings; I. An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm, provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties; J. An order requesting federal and/or state assistance in combating such civil emergency; K. An order establishing economic controls in aid of and supplementary to and consistent with federal orders relating to price stabilization or controls including: the convening and establishing of ration boards; auditing retail and wholesale ration accounts; monitoring price control operations and reporting violations to appropriate authorities; assisting in providing essential supplies to disaster victims; advising appropriate authorities concerning rationing, price control, wage and rent controls and allocation of food and other essential commodities; L. An order directing the use of all public and private health, medical, and convalescent facilities and equipment to provide emergency health and medical care for injured persons; M. An order authorizing, in cooperation with utility management and appropriate state and federal agencies, the shutting off, restoration, and operation of utility services in accordance with priorities established for combating such civil emergency; N. An order providing for the evacuation and reception of the population of the City or any part thereof; and O. Such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property; provided, however, that any such order shall, within forty-eight (48) hours of issuance of the order, or as soon as practical be filed with the City Clerk for presentation to the City Council for ratification and confirmation, modification or rejection, and if rejected shall be void. The Council shall consider the statements set forth in Section 10.02.025 IN and may, by resolution, modify or reject the order. If the Council modifies or rejects the order, said modification or rejection shall be prospective only, and shall not affect any actions taken prior to the modification or rejection of the order. The Council shall endeavor to act on any order within forty-eight (48) hours of its being presented to the Council by Mayor. (Ord. 120606 Section 2, 2001; Ord. 116368 Section 203, 1992; Ord. 102850 Section 2, 1973 . ) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 6119106 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s 1=10.02.020.snum.&Sect5=... 11/29/2006 r Lk ALWAYS VIORKINO FOR G S FV h AND Washington WNV Update i. Brief history z. What's happening now 3. Surveillance a. Education s. Control E' 2002 WNV..'ity by County Q I b ActivrtyDmecrod iyr 1 1 2003 WNV Actwily by County O No Aci qD—d WNV Aaivq Dared z- 2004 WNV Aoltvily M Co�^ty ONbA-.,Dere.d ®WNV AaiJvyDeratcd ILA r I 2005 WNV A"",by County OMA—,.yN--.d -WNVA—.,Dx ILIr 2 2006 (Reported by state health departments as of October 18,2006) WNV Activity by County Q No Ac wiry Demcd WNV Al vayDevcrni Idaho, 2006 Some News Headlines: Idaho detects early West Nile virus activity More Idahoan Expected To Contract West Nile Virus 1 Gooding man dies from West Nile virus Condor clucla die of West Nde in Idaho Idaho Leads Nation in Equine WNV Cases Idaho governor approves West Nile virus disaster declarations \ Local Squirrels Dying From West Nile Virus •850+hunnn cases identified Health Officials Announce Two More •Over 140 of those are neutoinvasive Suspected West Nile Deaths •16 deaths Tesn show presence of West Nde vino in Post •Detected in over 300.horses Fills girl and 100 dead birds Experts say aerial pesticide spraying is safe WA WNV Testing History Tested 2003 2004 2005 2006* (No WNV) (No WNV) (WNV Positive) (WNV Pcsve) Horses 102 57 54(1) 32(5) Dead Birds 906 553 660(1) 382(9) Sentinel 435 392 576 441 Chickens Mosquito 582 1015 915(2) 1225 Pools (3) *As of October 18,2005 3 1 �t M .... ,_- *., MN 0 S 10 IS 70 75 aua IT 0 5 10 IS 70 71 30 35 GOM Mosquitoes Trapped and Identified Year 2003 2004 2005 2006* Number 89,574 116,604 128,444 167,705+ Identified *As of October),2005 Twenty-two potential WNV bridge and amplifying mosquito species have been identified in Washington. /. Calexppienr and Cxlexta7o&are 3 considered our most efficient vectors for WNV. Education * ti ,�•rN� �yNawa<<,Ce pup Promos k art At Dog Da a4 Y isabe � eic:: know . usted hat', ^ biting ;ieesta our r picando? gg arE .... v r, —� Web site,news releases,flyers,inserts, posters,bookmarks,newsletters,radio announcements,print adds 4 DOH&Mosquito Control ■Offer assistance to local organizations developing their own mosquito-bome disease response plans and control strategies ■Support the development of organized&sustainable mosquito control programs that utilize IPM ■Offer coverage under our NPDES pemut for aquatic mosquito control(mosquito control entities don't have to payperrnit fee and do environmental review when getting permit coverage through us) Thank You and Many Thanks To Our Partners! Dorothy Tibbetts Zoonotic Disease Program WA State Dept.of Health dorodW.tibbettsajoh wa gov (360)236-3361 Zoonotic Disease Web Page:www.doh.wa.gov/ehn/ts/ZQ!Q.HTM West Nile Virus Web Page:www.doh.vvagqy/wm, 5 DOH Division of Environmental Health Zoonotic Disease Program Washington State Department of Program Staff October 20, 2006 ' _� Health Division of Environmental Health Office of Environmental Health&Safety Dorothy manages all administrative and supervisory activities of the program.She Dorothy Tibbetts, MS, MPH is responsible for program planning, implementation, and evaluation. She Program Manager coordinates and oversees program activities. She plans and implements policy 360-236-3361 review and develops guidelines for policy implementation. She develops zoonotic Dorothy.Tibbetts@doh.wa.gov disease response plans. She coordinates intra-and inter-agency collaborations and partnerships. Ron provides veterinary expertise to DOH, local health jurisdictions,veterinarians, Dr. Ron Wohrle, DVM and state and federal agencies. He provides consultation and training on the Environmental Health Veterinarian prevention and control of emerging and established zoonotic diseases in the 360-236-3369 environment. He serves as the agency lead to coordinate and direct interagency Ron.Wohrle@doh.wa.gov and inter-organizational efforts to promote veterinary environmental public health through involvement of veterinarians in reporting and preventing zoonotic and vector-borne diseases. Dr. Elizabeth Dykstra, PhD Liz provides entomology expertise to DOH, local health jurisdictions,and state and Entomologist federal agencies. She develops, implements,and plans environmental surveillance 360-236-3388 activities for zoonotic and vector-borne diseases. She responds to inquiries and Elizabeth,Dykstra@doh.wa.gov provides technical consultation to statewide partners and the general public. Anne Duffy, MS Anne coordinates database management. She collects and analyzes surveillance Zoonotic Disease Specialist data and develops summaries and reports. She develops educational materials 360-236-3372 and publications and develops and maintains the DOH Zoonotic Disease Web Anne.Duffy@doh.wa.gov Site. She responds to inquiries and provides technical consultation to statewide partners and the general public. David Nash David coordinates the plague surveillance project. He coordinates the DOH Zoonotic Disease Specialist Respiratory Protection Program and other OSHA policies for the protection of staff 360-236-3362 during zoonotic disease field work. He provides assistance to Dr.Wohrle on other David.Nash@doh.wa.gov program projects. He responds to inquiries and provides technical consultation to statewide partners and the general public. Jo Marie Brauner Jo Marie coordinates the statewide mosquito and bird surveillance networks with West Nile Virus Surveillance Coordinator local health jurisdictions, mosquito control districts, tribes, and other local and state 360-236-3064 partners. She provides training and technical assistance on surveillance JoMarie.Brauner@doh.wa.gov techniques and assists local jurisdictions in developing surveillance programs. Ben Hamilton B.S. Ben coordinates the DOH National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Zoonotic Disease Specialist (NPDES) mosquito control permitting process. He compiles and edits the DOH 360-236-3364 WNV Newsletter. He assists with the development of educational materials for Ben.Hamilton@doh.wa.gov print and for the program website. He responds to inquiries and provides technical consultation and training to statewide partners and the general public. Cyndi Free Cyndi provides administrative support for the Zoonotic Disease Program. She Administrative Support coordinates procedures relating to contracts, budgets,communications, 360-236-3384 publications, travel, records, procurements, and other special assignments. Cyndi.Free@doh.wa.gov • •• Public Health Seattle & King County COPY ,- 2005 HEALTHY PEOPLE. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. WNV Letter to cities Alonzo L.Plough,Ph.D.,MPH,Director and Health Officer March ,2005 Dear As the 2005 West Nile season approaches,I would like to extend my thanks to you for your participation last year in the effort to minimize the threat of West Nile virus in King County. Washington State and King County were very fortunate not to see West Nile virus last year;we were the only state in the lower 48 not to have any human or animal cases. With West Nile clearly at our borders(see the enclosed map), however,I urge you once again to be involved as much as possible. King County,through Public Health—Seattle&King County,will continue to conduct human,animal,and insect surveillance,coordinate participating jurisdiction activities and training,conduct outreach and education,and work with county agencies to control mosquito habitat on King County properties,where appropriate and within the scope of the King County West Nile Virus Response Plan. As a partner with King County,it is our hope that the city of will: 1) Update(or develop)your West Nile virus response plan that describes how your city will respond to resident inquiries and mosquito nuisance complaints; 2) Conduct surveillance for mosquito larvae and eliminate mosquito habitat when possible; 3) Apply larvicide where appropriate on city-owned properties; 4) Educate residents,especially your senior citizens,about ways to reduce their risk of being bitten by mosquitoes. Mosquito control and public education are most effective when they occur during peak mosquito season,which is April through mid-October; 5) Attend trainings and/or meetings offered by the County and State health departments; Public Health will be offering a West Nile virus seminar next on April 22ad` 6) Be prepared to manage calls your staff will likely receive iUwhen you have human or animal cases of West Nile in your city. Many cities last year designated a"point person"assigned to coordinate West Nile activities,and have that person able to communicate to top management about WNV issues. If your point person is new or changed,please contact WNV Coordinator at Public Health—Seattle&King County at (206)296-3998. Included with this letter are Public Health's updated West Nile Virus Phased Response Guidelines for King County, a template that you may find helpful in updating your city's West Nile Virus Response Plan,and the announcement for the April WNV training. Reducing mosquitoes by eliminating their habitat and larvae where appropriate will remain a local issue, but one that we are ready to assist you with in any way we can. West Nile virus is placing a burden on all of us,and we appreciate your efforts very much. If you have any feedback on working with us last year,or information or activities you would like to see from Public Health —Seattle&King County,please do not hesitate to contact our West Nile lead,Dr. Sharon Hopkins,at(206) 205-4394 or by e-mail at sharon.hopkinsAmetrokc.gov. Dr.Hopkins should also be contacted for any technical assistance your city needs in carrying out its West Nile virus response. Sincerely, Alonzo Plough,PhD Director and Health Officer,Public Health—Seattle&King County Office of the Director 999 Third Avenue,Suite 1200• Seattle,WA 98104 City of Seattle � King County T(206)296-4600 F(206)296-0166• www.metrokcgov/health Gregory L Nickels,Mayor Ron Sims,Executive Template for West Nile Virus Response Plan Resources: - Do people who are handling WNV know whom to contact if they need educational materials(i.e. WNV video, fact sheets&brochures), or training and/or technical assistance with WNV surveillance, education, or control? Contact person: Leah Helms, Public Health— Seattle&King County, Environmental Health Division(206)296-3998 or leah.helms(a)metrokc.gov - Do people who are handling WNV know whom to contact at Public Health in the event of positive surveillance findings? Contacts: Sharon Hopkins(206)205-4394 or Leah Helms(206)296-3998 Media relations/PIO: Hilary Karasz-Dominguez(206) 296-4767 ♦ Some Educational materials can be downloaded and printed for reproduction from the Public Health website at http://www.metroke.gov/health/westnile Outreach and Education: - Designated staff person to handle media inquiries about WNV in my jurisdiction is: Phone number: - Designated person to handle public inquiries about WNV activities in my jurisdiction is: Phone number: - What are the mechanisms in place to disseminate educational materials to the residents of the jurisdiction? (for example: libraries, city/agency website, newsletters,community service centers, city hall, utility billing, etc.) - Do the residents of your jurisdiction know where and how to report dead bird sightings? Public Health— Seattle&King County-Environmental Health Division(206)205-4394 - Do the residents of your jurisdiction know whom to ask environmental health aspects; dead bird and mosquito complaints;WNV prevention and general West Nile virus questions? All questions go to Public Health—Seattle& King County, Environmental Health Division(206) 205-4394. - For human health questions contact Public Health— Seattle&King County,Communicable Disease- Epidemiology Hotline, (206)296-4949. Surveillance: - Staff person coordinating surveillance: Phone: - Is there a map of potential mosquito habitat for properties owned by the jurisdiction. Potential mosquito habitat includes stormwater ponds,catchbasins, swamps,parks, and other structures, etc. - Are staffs routinely surveying possible mosquito habitat areas or mosquito problem areas for mosquito larvae or adult mosquitoes? - Is there a plan to include residential developments in mosquito surveillance? - Is there knowledge about how to obtain mosquito surveillance equipment and mosquito surveillance training? Contact Leah Helms, Public Health— Seattle& King County, Environmental Health Division, (206) 296-3998. Template for West Nile Virus Response Plan Page 2 of 2 Control: - Person coordinating mosquito control activities: Phone: - is there a staff person(s)in place to field mosquito inquiries from residents of your jurisdiction? - Does the jurisdiction have a NPDES permit (Aquatic Mosquito Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Waste Discharge General Permit)? A NPDES permit is needed to do any mosquito control work over a body of water,and mosquito larvae are found in aquatic environments. - Do appropriate city staff have Pest Control Operator(PCO) licenses in the event larviciding is necessary? Or is there a plan to contract out mosquito control and surveillance activities? - Have staff in place who do mechanical methods of mosquito control(ex: cleaning roof gutters, reducing standing water on properties owned or maintained by the jurisdiction, screens on windows, etc.) (this is for public or city owned properties only). - Designated staff persons to do mosquito control work in your jurisdiction if necessary? Contacts: Phone number: Phone number: Phone number: Phone number: Human West Nile Virus Cases 10/23/06 meeting Hanne Thiede, DVM, MPH Communicable Disease Epidemiology & Immunization Section Public Health — Seattle & King County _r.canzxy;,a., Reported West Nile Virus Cases in Humans, United States 1999 -2006* Year Total WNND WNF/other Deaths 1999-2001 149 142 7 18 2002 4,1`56 2,946 1,210 284 2003 9,862 2,866 6,996 264 2004 2,539 1,148 1,391 100 2005 2,949 1,288 1,661 116 2006* 3,498 1,199 2,299 108 Reported as of 10/17/2006 1 1► WA State West Nile Virus Cases - 2006 County Onset Diagnosed Gender Age Pierce Mid July 9/13/06 Male 40's Pierce Mid July 9/25/06 Female 40's Clark Early 10/11/06 Male 50's September None of the cases were neuroinvasive disease Final 2003 West Nile Virus Activity in the United States (N=9,862) I d.t.. «..c•, Avid, or mw".40 W*OW s. r 3 WA � oa `._ "A I® ru _ DIE in man �, AK VM � !IY` INMte IAIG £rde63Y.2 c:.vwy Final 2004 West Nile Virus Activity in the United States (N=2,539) �Indicstxs n�,.,,�n aia�w�e���si, R �'v�- AYipit,animal a mosquito k+lsuinni. WA VT - ►,�� r MAW + \NI a DE \\MD DCM ANI yyy HI x: r,.e�iP a+m Final 2005 West Nile Virus Activity in the United States (N=3,000) in Indkat"b man diseiut casa(a . ,Awian aAlmal or mo"wto wooi"& ii NHS _ big mom HI /werha Kice TT x.r.«aa>*ua a.rr 3 • 2006 West Nile Virus Activity in the U.S. (Reported to CDC as of 10/17/06) N=3,498 w XwKcat$s human disease case($). 1 Avian,animal of 00squp0 1ef*1W*is. MA fX_ CTM NJ Ole • 140 \ DC wVM NI,; Poona _M%1c C?1K1 G+1� 2006 West Nile Virus Human Neuroinvasive Disease Incidence in the U.S. (Rep. to CDC as of 10/17106) N=1,199 Ti _z t d Anv WKV Ac9,Ay . s n.ax*ez�.rd 4 2006 West Nile Virus Viremic Blood Donor Activity in the U.S. (Reported to CDC as of 10/17/06) N=273 V iremk Blood OvnOrs. WA: �H ti all FH FJ ON u, ` Mn© AL ( {{ S ya" DC AX I�.J C ` N[ �� ! Human West Nile Virus Clinical Cases in Canada, 2006 (Reported to the PHAC as of 10/7/06) I � t f ) f+� E�eMa62A�zvm:u 5 r Idaho West Nile Virus Map for October 13, 2006 • Blue and striped counties have human cases i I W� ti • 857 human cases Idaho * Ada Co: 234 (27%) • Canyon Co: 178 (21%) . Elmore Co: 62 (7%) . Bingham Co: 53 (6%) 'a • 707 (83%) fever • 140 (17%) neuroinvasive s 2006 West Nile Virus Surveillance, WA State 10/17/2006 +� WTiatcom �t, h Okanogan end Skag� Ferry al1 Ste +' Clallam Chdan Jetterson yy Doupl as d�,iy Lincoln Spokane htasYfli, Grays Kittias �� Adams Whitman Ixr� Levds Franklin ariid dim 'a Wahloakum kam Berdon WWI Walta Ott ary HAcltitat ®WNV Activity - e+e�esrn,zcrc+ 6 AGENDA Public Health Seattle & King County Interagency Workgroup Meeting October 23, 2006 1 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. Dorothy Tibbetts Summary of West Nile Virus Activity in Washington 4 DOH { Zoonotic Disease If Program 15 min West Nile Virus Coordinator E" Hanne Thiede, DVM, Human West Nile Virus Cases, 2006 MPH Communicable Disease Epidemiology& ! 10 min Immunization Section �3 Public Health—Seattle & King County ...... Sheila Strehle—City of Response to first positive birds in King County Seattle Scott Schroeder—City 15 min of Kent Sharon Hopkins, DVM, MPH PHSKC I Sharon Hopkins, DVM, Planning for West Nile Virus for 2007 <i MPH • King County Mosquito Adulticiding Committee j xl PHSKC • PH Letter to Mayors and City Executives 30 min Public Health 6 Phased Response Plan (open discussion) Veterinarian WNV ; Program Lead I i Round Table � Questions ` Comments Updates l Notes: Y Page 1 /1 CITY OF RENTON * 1055 S. GRADY WAY •$�N�o� RENTON, WA 98055 (;OFm-%%f 4/25/2006 18/0001189 VENDOR: 091710 SHIP TO: WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS INC 2533 INTER AVE PUYALLUP, WA 98372 FOB Point: Req. No.: Terms: net temp Dept.: PLNG/BLDG/PUB WKS UTILITY SYS Req.Del. Date: Contact: PARKER, LIBBY Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: CAG 05 059 Add #2-06, 2006 Mosquito 19 192 32 �I � l SUBTOTAL 19192.32 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 19,192.32 E 427.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065020 5020/5354 19,192.32 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0032386 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 II 1111111111 II 111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 8/31/2006 DUE DATE 8/31/2006 CUSTOMER# 01-0009763 TERMS Net 0 City of Renton PO# S Grady Way Rent RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 S) a 4 200 AMOUNT DUE 913.92 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS For Service at: Panther Creek Wetland Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Weekly 1.00 @ $840.00 each $840.00 RECEIVED SEP 13 2006 City of Renton Accounts Payahie CHARTER 116 LAWS OF 1965 CONCURRENCE CITY OF RENTOiV CERTIFICATION 1,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY ( I � OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED DATE THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS N DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND oG THAT I AM AUfHORM TO AUTHENTICATE,AND ERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED LI/ U X'- I Panther Creek Wetland Total Tax: 73.92 Total This Invoice: 913.92 Renton, WA 98055 8/31/2006 Invoice: 01-0032386 Invoice Date: 8/31/2006 913.92 Whitworth Pest Solutions C01-0032�387 2533 Inter Avenue INVOICE Puyallup, WA 98372 I II IIII I II III IIII I IIII II IIIIIII II 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 9/7/2006 DUE DATE 9/7/2006 CUSTOMER# TERMS Net 0 City of Renton PO# 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED SEP T 4 20-�cj AMOUNT DUE 913.92 CITY OF RUNT,` N For Service at: Panther Creek Wetland UTILITY SYSTEMS Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Weekly 1.00 @ $840.00 each $840.00 RECEIVED P 13 2006 Uty of Renton Accounts Payable CHARTER 116 LAWS OF 1965 CONCU�R�RENCE CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION PATE l 1 b THE t1NDERSOJED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PE1y(T OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHEDYs THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE(LAIN IS A JUST DUE AND 9 0 UNPAID OBLIGATIONAQVNST THE CfTY OF RENIFON,AND THAT I AMAUfiHORIIED TOAUTHENTiCATE,AID CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNE Panther Creek Wetland Total Tax: 73.92 Total This Invoice: 913.92 Renton, WA 98055 9/7/2006 Invoice: 01-0032387 Invoice Date: 9/7/2006 PLEASE PAY 913.92 THIS AMOUNT A. —71 c?"gre, 'Ir � € Jul 18 06 01 : 15P Pat 253-845- 1133 P. 1 Mosquito Management Day Sheet Year Month Day Person Making application/sampling (-evo t l License # 77y`5 Terry Whitworth Applicator#374 Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 73049-20 Time-Depart Shop > ' 1 AM/PM Time Return to Shop AM/PM ,rl2 QOVC 6-) :vlq_pcc�ic�c,o 7 .go Ant, Total time for billing z5 f4iz S Billing Size Time Location Larval Product Total Rate/ Comments in/out count Name ibs 1000 s ft Golf Course 40,000sgft =';�; Hole#6 o ,z 5 oz Golf course 7'ttp AC',�� s�„r�t� ,u� c_� , -31, Golf Course About 1 acre 7'S1 Hole #7 5 oz Sc M67.j t-\A k _) Golf course 7: I t Golf Course 40,0)0= = 13 Hole #9 5 oz Golf course ' 30 Golf Course 30,000sgft 33 Hole#18 5 oz Golf course g o o i'� E`� t.c '�-r rt N g Maintenance Pond cl;LG NE 10` & 5 OZ I0 a Anacortes Maintenance Pond iD:o'� NE 26 & 5 oz 6. 1= �c-I<�i =ZS Lyons 7' i��►�� �� r1 Maintenance 2 Tanks U �� ' S oZ 36 s ft each it 'J 6 102nd Ave Facilities 9 Tanks City Hall 5 oz 36 sq ft each 1055 S. Grady Way Post-it"'Fax Note 7671 Date pa°g'b To From t \ Co./Dep 1 i C5t i'TCti' C r'!lJ'rl `�t'T.H %d c r Phone# Phone tl 7 Fax#� Fax#V •.�,.� , �/:nt 'kServer-1ldata\Dana\Mosquito Items\Mosquito Management Edited Day Sheet.doc Jul 31 06 1O: 31a Pat 253-845- 1133 P. 1 RECEIVED Mosquito Management Day Sheet JUL 3 1 2006 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS Year o ck,� Month Day Person Making application/sampling LE i o,% License # (� 1 Terry Whitworth Applicator#374 Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 73049-20 Time-Depart Shop U o e 0k)IMM Time Return to Shop . T f - " '3o AM/PM Total time vacxcT L_EK c&j Billing Size Time Location Larval I Product Total Rate/ Comments in/out count Name lbs 1000 s ft Golf Course 40,000sgft -7 21Y Hole #6 ommac ;b5 S oz ,; atir Golf course :qS Golf Course About 1 acre e -5 u Hole#7 I 5 oz ��o w�'�� t•�-+��0 2w1 Golf course ,23 Golf Course 40,000sgft i' z7 Hole#9 :� M Golf course 1! r `moo o j0 oL 5 oz o.'vt� �:, S.�- stbE Golf Course 30,OOOsgft lc ��q Hole#18 1Q Golf course o. I'��z 5 oz Foor.) C� '.AS, + tirc`�t m�t:t, Maintenance Pond 11 i5 NE 10' & 10-15 aTe� oz wEi� vp �N 11.45 Anacortes Pep_ lb S � �g.)sE_ `�o �, ,. � Maintenance Pond f/ SL NE 26 & (g 5 5 oz 1-t- u T c^rj C- ons - Maintenance 2 Tanks a='sue S 47c & t, 36 s ft each �:5c� ? 5 oz 102"d Ave �'4 oz Facilities 9 Tanks City Hall 36 sq ft each 1055 S. 5 oz I. s Grady Way Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date paoges To - From � 1 Co./Dep > C \ �i 64 � Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# \\Server-I\data\Dana\Mosquito Items\Mosquito Management Edited Day Sheet.doc Aug 10 06 10: 50a Pat 253-845-1133 p. 1 -• y C V E D Mosquito Management Day Sheet AL , 0 2006 GiT' OF RENTON UTII_!TY SYS I;-k Year oZo o cQ Month g Day 9 Person Making application sampling LE-10 J 6E0 '%License# Terry Whitworth Applicator#374 Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 73049-20 Time-Depart Shop",L;- O �PM Time Return to Shop ( '.0o AM,� ,j2�woo Z :-1 -100 Total time for billing___ '1 �� cc..Joo S:�'. to.,30 Billing Size Time Location Larval Product Total Rate/ Comments out count Name Ibs 1000 s ft Golf Course 40,000sgft -3C> Hole#6 / M4:. Golf course Golf Course About 1 acre :2.5' Hole#7 Golf course ►� s�c� 2oaz. ,o wss^r �,a� ,�^„� Golf Course 40,000sgft +ct Hole#9 t o N��c' s' Golfcourse : yj 0 9"„0 ,�{ 5 oz ��5� S;D� O,rtr,cu Golf Course 30,000sgft 'So Hole#18 J` �cccS Golf course Maintenance Pond 0'42- NE 10 & 4-15 oz PLC-,V3t>rtcsa•.f� � /'.2 2- Anacortes D p 6cz. 7:7- Maintenance Pond /'.29 NE 26' & 5 oz I;q,5 L ons Ile t9 -- Maintenance 2 Tanks c5Z110 S 47' & /Z 5 oz 36 s ft each /at 2G 102°d Ave "L\ az. Facilities 9 Tanks City Hall 5 oz 36 sq ft each 1055 S. Grady Way C�rv�m�ti7=-5 CCc,J , 1 Ct o f tF7 e7� 'Poo :J J t N `T r� � 9PrS t Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date peof gesb To From Co./Dep Phone# Phone# Fax#r - — •.�` �, Fax# ~ \\Server-I\data\Dana\Mosquito Items\Mosquito Management Edited Day Sheet.doc Aug 24 06 08: 42a Pat 253-845- 1133 P. 1 Mosquito Management Day Sheet Year ;L C),b CO Month `d Day 2 3 Person Making application/sampling Ik=_Yn,) �.i-d T License# Co'7 7 Ce j Terry Whitworth Applicator#374 Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 73049-20 Time-Depart Shop C_o, oo M Time Return to Shop / /S AM/PM Total time for billing -7 Billing Size Time Location Larval Product Total Rate/ Comments in/out count Name lbs 1000 s ft Golf Course 40,000sgft `I o Hole#6 'To -7 oz., 5.oz g trQ-cte L TTZz v% nt rn,oc,� , Golf course S'.i 'La2.1Nt 1N imsoocx Golf Course About 1 acre 23 Hole #7 5 mvv 5 oz Gr- P"" t o t�t�vr, Golf course 9, 6a e.Acz�as 1�Oz Golf Course 40,000sgft :cS Hole#9 n�, a� �.` 5oz Golf course 3 - jAga.AE Golf Course 30,000sgft :q�o Hole#18 5 oz -�Q`'A� aSiJaE C Golf course course ►o'3 Z,ne 3 v rs Maintenance Pond to'.57i' NE 10 & i F-v-v--? 20 5 oz 1 '3'0 Anacortes -y Maintenance Pond NE 26'h & 5 oz _ i/ 'So Lyons Maintenance 2 Tanks Z;20 S 47 & �Z o2, 5 oz 36 s ft each Z r 35 102nd Ave NA Facilities 9 Tanks City Hall 5 oz 36 sq ft each 1055 S. I Grady Way Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date pages 1 To From Co./Dep�i Phone 4i Phone Fax# ` i Fax# ) 1 - AServer-1\data\Dana\Mosquito ltems\Mosquito Management Edited Day Sheet.doc Sep 07 06 01 : 37p Pat 253-845-1133 p. 1 RECEIVED Mosquito Management Day Sheet SEP 0 7 2006 CITY OF RENTON UPI- ,SYS?_!js Year s Oo(P_ Month Day Person Making application/sampling 1 Ev etJ t-AVLicense # Cv-7 -1 Terry Whitworth Applicator#374 - Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 73049-20 Time-Depart Shop C.e_ M Time Return to Shop AM' CM U_X�oD.7. t15- Total time for billing j S Q `��pca2� m���waoD jp:DD Billing Size Time Location Larval Product Total Rate/ Comments in/out unt Name lbs 1000 s ft Golf Course 40,000sgft Golf course ^5 n ntZz �jDL, �� �pPr7 WE.Em_c,0�.rca Golf Course About 1 acre :0 y Hole#7 atv °L & e � � lRCArc � o..� Golf course 'q2 l 0 c.2 5 oz Golf Course 40,000sgft "y1 Hole#9 Golf course ►ok �j Jz. 5 oz tr^9C tV —DzjoC- Golf Course 30,000sgft 1-'1 7- Hole#18 "` 5 Golf course ?:y oz 1 Q e p;i tp0 b iJ IVU.�7tf 5 �5 0�. Maintenance Pond /C:c S i E NE IO & rrto5� SoZ. 5 oz 7(2�a-re ►J 0 -Dt Anacortes � R�N Maintenance Pond o L 510& y & 5 oz N v �,}A%E � ' � Lyons Maintenance 2 Tanks J( -/ T- S 47' & 36 s ft each /' 2,j 102nd Ave a YZ 0 Z_ 5 oz 9 Tanks City Hail 36 sq ft each 1055 S. 5 oz u u Grady Way Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date #of To I pages ` � + From CoJDep N rl rTw` ` Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# t \\Server-lliiata\Dana\Mosquito ItemsWosquito Management Edited Day Sheet.doc 10/091/2006 08 : 12 FAX 2538451133 WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS [a001/001 Mosquito Management Day Sheet Year aflo Month LO Day Person Making application/sampling Le✓vN 14'r License# Co�l'1 Teary Whitworth Applicator#374 — Whitworth Pest Solutions 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 Product: Vectolex CG EPA# 304 -20 ►2' ti 1�� Time-Depart Shope '.,go �M Time Return to Shop .�ST1 MR��M ap, MAp� Total time for billing � ?, z T 1-ERS_ 0 0 Billing Size Time Location Larval Product Total Rate/ Comments in count Name Ibs 1000 a ft Golf Course 40,000sgft 'Z-Co. Hole#6 Golf course ;p �o, �jo z, 5,oz tooRMP` t lv; i Golf Course About 1 acre 0(.o Hole#7 �R�P' i5 �� FIVAlb Golf course D 502 vac o-r Golf Course 40,000sgft No Hole#9 otT' VS,) Golf course :oS 5 oz e e�S o j.m oZ N Llz � Golf Course 30,000sgit Hole#18 PA �Ar oq Golf course 5 oz.' �O �r*, Maintenance Pond 1 0' i(x NE JoLh& 5 oz � � Anacortos o d Maintenance Pond 0:S 1 NE 26 & 5 oz L ons Maintenance 2 Tanks S 47 & 36 s ft each 102"4 Ave IVA �Z�Z 5 oz Facilities 9 Tanks City Hall 36 sq ft each 1055 S. 5 oz l Grady Way Pust-It"Fax Note 7671 Date pa9es� � To From Co./Dep Phone 0 4aL�P Phone If Fax 1 -- i Merver-1\dawDana\Mo9quito Itoms\Moaquito Management Edited Day Shcct.doc Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0044062 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 0914/0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 10/5/2006 DUE DATE 10/5/2006 CUSTOMER#1 01-0009763 1 TERMS Net 0 City of Renton PO# 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 AMOUNT DUE 374.00 d For Service at: Maintenance _I V""' Renton, WA 98055 8 2006 CITY OF RENTON PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT UTILITY SYSTEMS Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @$343.75 each $343.75 %eCJeNeg COIi QU RENCF, CItY of Rp gable DATE: Accounts I AUDATE ' Ci V— CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON C.ER T IIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS D€SCRfBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY Of;RENTON,AND THAT I AMAUTHORIZED TAAUTHrNTICATE AtAcraRTIFY TO SAID CL AIK SIGNE _ Maintenance Total Tax: 30.25 Total This Invoice: 374.00 Renton, WA 98055 10/5/2006 Invoice: 01-0044062 Invoice Date: 10/5/2006 374.00 • Page 1 / 1 **Y 'a')"-ts� CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY " " DATE PO NUMBER RENTON, WA 98055 7/17/2006 F18/0001271 VENDOR: 091710 C O PYIPTO: WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS INC 2533 INTER AVE PUYALLUP, WA 98372 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: PLNG/BLDG/PUB WKS UTILITY SYS Req.Del. Date: Contact: PHELAN, TERESA Pre-Assigned PO#?: NO Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price CAG-05-059,Add 3-06, Maint. Division 10,608.00 Costs,,Larvicide Stormwater&Catch Basins - omro `1 ' -coo SUBTOTAL 10 608.00 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 10,608.00 Account Number Work Order Function Number Amount E 427.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065020 5020/5354 10,608.00 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature r Y Page 1 / 1 U � CITY OF RENTON � , /� � �� � 1055 S. GRADY WAY .DATE PO NUMBER. RENTON, WA 98055 p 7/17/2006 ■ F18/0001271 Co VENDOR: 091710 SHIP TO: WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS INC 2533 INTER AVE PUYALLUP, WA 98372 FOB Point: Req.No.: Terms: net term Dept.: PLNG/BLDG/PUB WKS UTILITY SYS Req. Del.Date: Contact: PHELAN, TERESA Pre-Assigned PO#?: No Special Inst: Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Ext.Price CAG-05-059,Add 3-06, Maint. Division 10,608.00 Costs, Larvicide Stormwater&Catch Basins -�st- r��ty"S 1a,31� ®moo �( 'Zj,o� Mr, .,. 60 . a.m. �.. � SUBTOTAL 10 608.00 BILL TO: TAX 0.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TOTAL 10,608.00 Account Number Work Ordeffunction Number Amount E 427.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065020 5020/5354 10,608.00 Authorized Signature Authorized Signature t�5 / %, , Sep 15 OB i7"'p� 22a Pat '..; i 253-845-1133 ( 3. Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0044054 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 f Il�illll II !II IIGIII II I [!I Illll l l 111 llll 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 7/28/2006 DUE DATE 7/28/2006 `CUSTOMER$ 01-0009763 TERMS Net 3 h» City of Renton PO# 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED — SEP 1 8 2006 AMOUNT DUE 340.00 CITY OF RENTON For Service at: Maintenance UTILITY SYSTEMS Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity I Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @ $312.50 each $312.50 CHARTER 116 LAWS OF 1965 CONCURRENCE CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY DATE 1 OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED 1 NAME IN IT1A THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS iN \-(�V-,\ _ DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE C17Y OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUtHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE,AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNE Maintenance Total Tax: 27.50 Total This Invoice: 340.00 Renton, WA 98055 7/28/2006 Invoice: 01-0044054 Invoice Date: 7/28/2006 340.00 r i v-- t Sep 15 06 -094 ?2a Pat 253-845-1133 �"1, 'p. .4_, i Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0044055 2533 Inter Avenue ff ``IIIII� ((IINN IIJJII�jII''�( Puyallup, WA 98372 _ (II��IIIIIIIIIIlIIIIII1tlIII�III�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIUiUII 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 8/9/2006 DUE DATE 8/9/2006 CUsC'1 ���, T.;,�t2R* 01-0009763 TERMS Net 0--- City City of Renton PO 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED AMOUNT DUE 374.00 CITY OF RENTON For Service at: Maintenance UTILITY SYSTEMS Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @$343.75 each $343.75 CHARTER 116 LAWS OF 1965 CONCURRENCE CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION IGNED DATE 9110 l�� 1,THE UNDERS DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED �� � NAME THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS, ry �` 06 DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND ' G /I/ -1 UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM 4M40RiZED TO AUTHENTICATE,AND CE TIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNED Maintenance Total Tax: 30.25 Total This Invoice: 374.00 Renton, WA 98055 8/9/2006 Invoice: 01-0044055 Invoice Date: 8/9/2006 374.00 Sep 15 OG C3 22a- Pat C, ` 253-845-1133 Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0042 6 2533 Inter Avenue ( Puyallup, WA 98372 1111111111111111�11IM1111111111111111111 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 8/23/2006 DUE DATE 8/23/2006 CUSTGiA -.k 01-0009763 1 TERMS Net 0- - City of Renton PO 1055 S Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 S E P 18 2006 AMOUNT DUE 390.99 UTILITY SYSTEMS For Service at: Maintenance Renton, WA 98055 PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @ $359.37 each $359.37 RECERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE CITY OF NTON DNAMATE UW ��- HE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY NITrz PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED y/ 66 THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED N AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND I OBIIGATIONAGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND TKATIAM C AUTHORIZEDTOAUTHENTICATE, CERTIFY TO SAIDSK3N Maintenance Total Tax: 31.62 Total This Invoice: 390.99 Renton, WA 98055 8/23/2006 Invoice: 01-0044056 Invoice Date: 8/23/2006 390.99 I O I L✓`—I r�)- t 1 -L-V 0-1 Whitworth Pest Solutions INVOICE 01-0044060 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372 I IIIIIIIII IIII(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 253-845-1818 Fax 253-845-1133 INVOICE DATE 9/6/2006 DUE DATE 9/6/2006 CUSTOMER# TERMS Net 0 City of Renton PO# 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 AMOUNT DUE 340.00 S E P 18 2006 For.Service at ;Maintenance CITY OF RENTON Renton, WA 98055 UTILITY SYSTEMS PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT Service/Product Description Quantity/Price Amount Mosquito Control Visit 1.00 @ $312.50 each $312.50 CHARTER 116 LAWS OF 1965 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED ZOOC THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AMNST THE CRY OF RENTON,AND City of Renton THAT IAMAUJ TOAUTHENTIICATE,AND CERTI TO Accounts Payable SAID CLAIM Sd(3NE CONCURRENCE � INI'A2 i"dg;x Maintenance Total Tax: 27.50 Total This Invoice: 340.00 Renton, WA 98055 9/6/2006 Invoice: 01-0044060 Invoice Date: 9/6/2006 PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT 340.00 i _ 1 ";17 A- A y o CITY OF RENTON ♦ A ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Kathy Keolker,Mayor Zimmerman P.E. Administrator ANT� July 13, 2006 Terry Whitworth, Ph.D. Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. 2533 Inter Avenue Puyallup, WA 98372-3428 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM#3 TO MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT(CAG-05-059)NOTICE TO PROCEED Dear Mr. Whitworth: Enclosed please find one original, signed Addendum No. 3 to the 2005 Mosquito Abatement Contract for your records. You are hereby authorized to begin treatments as set forth in the approved contract Addendum No. 3 scope of work and budget. As we discussed,the first treatment will begin on July 14, with treatments to occur every two weeks thereafter until the Contract budget is exhausted, or the City requests to discontinue treatment. It is anticipated that treatment will continue through the end of September. Please call me at 425-430-7247, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Q vt Allen Quyn P. , Project Manager Surface W er 'tility l Enclosure cc: file H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatemen rogram\West Nile Virus\2006 WNV\Contracts\NTP.doc\AQtp R E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 AHEAD OF THE CURVE This papercontains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer 2us April 25th,2006 006 West Nile Vir Eastgate Public Health Clinic Training for Municipalities in King County Agenda Welcome TBD 9:00—9:10 Epidemiology of WNV-Current National Dr. Sharon Hopkins,Publc Health- 9:10—9:40 Picture and outlook for western states in 2006 Seattle&King County Summary of the 2006 National West Nile Virus Leah Helms,Public Health 9:40— 10:10 Meeting in Sf and the BC WNV Training NPDES Permits Ben Hamilton,DOH 10:10- 10:40 Break Break 10:40— 11:00 City of Seattle's WNV Response Plan Sheila Strehle,City of Seattle 11:00— 11:20 No Predictions Here Jo Marie Brauner,DOH 11:20— 11:50 Wrap Up West Nile Virus Portion of the Meeting 11:50— 12:00 Bird Flu/Avian Influenza Dr. Sharon Hopkins 12:00— 12:30 Additional Information: King County West Nile Virus Interagency Work Group Meetings KC IAWG King County West Nile Virus Interagency Work Group meetings are held monthly during the West Nile Virus season to keep municipalities and other county agencies up to date on West Nile Virus activity. If you are not already on the IWAG list sign up by leaving email and contact information on the sign—up sheet on the table in the back of the room or email to leah.helms@metrokc.gov. ti`SY U� PLANNINGBUILDING/ , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2006 TO: Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator FROM: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Directo �w STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor(ext. 7248) Allen Quynn, Surface Water Engineer(ext. 7247) SUBJECT: 2006 Mosquito Abatement Program—Mosquito Treatment Contract Addendum#2 to CAG-05-059,with Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. Surface Water Utility Staff recommends the Department Administrator sign Addendum No. 2 to Consultant Agreement CAG-05-059, dated April 18, 2005. The addendum authorizes Whitworth Pest Solutions Inc., to provide pest control consulting services for the control of mosquitoes in the areas upland and east of the Panther Creek Wetlands (Talbot Hill Area). The treatment of mosquitoes with an insecticide spray is necessary as they present a nuisance to residents living in the area upland of Panther Creek Wetlands. These wetlands are large and provide ideal mosquito breeding habitat. The expenditure required for the 2006 pest control services contract is $19,192.32. In accordance with City Policy 250-02, for contracts which are less than $20,000, the pest control consulting services contract may be signed by the Department Administrator, provided the use of Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. as a sole-source service provider is approved by the Mayor. Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. (Whitworth) has been the sole-source provider of the pest control consultant services for the City of Renton mosquito abatement efforts since 1990. Whitworth is the only known qualified provider of this type of service and is extremely familiar with the overall project area, including the areas where mosquitoes tend to congregate, access trails, wetlands, springs, and adjacent residences. Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc. also has an experienced entomologist on staff to provide assistance in responding to public inquiries of a technical nature. Under the pest control consultant services contract, Whitworth will perform land treatment applications of an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) registered insecticide spray to brush and other upland vegetation using a gasoline-powered, backpack-mounted portable fogger. The applications will be conducted at a maximum frequency of twice per week during the months of April through August when mosquito populations are typically higher. Treatment will be conducted in upland areas away from Zimmerman/Whitworth Add#2 to CAG-05-059 April 18,2006 Page 2 of 2 water or wetland areas as weather conditions allow, and in accordance with the product label and other local, state, and federal requirements. The expenditure required for the Mosquito Abatement Program pest control consultant services contract addendum for 2006 is $19,192.32. Funding for the 2006 contract work is proposed from the approved 2006 Surface Water Utility's Mosquito Abatement Program capital improvement account budget of$50,000. The remaining $30,807.68 will be used to cover cost for the 2006 West Nile Virus Larvicide Contract and staff time associated with managing both contracts. If you have any questions, please contact either Ron or Allen. Enclosures H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2000 Mosquito Abatement Program\2006 Program\issue paper.doc\AQtp Allen Quynn - List of commercial applicators for aquatic mosquito control Page 1 From: "Hamilton, Benjamin (DOH)" <Benjamin.Hamilton@doh.wa.gov> To: "Allen Quynn" <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 5/3/2006 3:28:59 PM Subject: List of commercial applicators for aquatic mosquito control Hi Allen here's last years list. The companies that have permit coverage and could potentially respond quickly to your area are Eden Advanced, Whitworth Pest, Orkin, and Pratt Pest. <<2005 Commercial App Aquatic Mosquito Control List.xls>> Ben Hamilton Zoonotic Disease Program <http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ZOO.HTM> WA Department of Health <http://www.doh.wa.gov/> PO Box 47825 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 236-3364 Fax: (360) 236-2261 Public Health -Always working for a safer and healthier Washington. Carrie Olson -2006 West Nile Virus Response Program Page 1 From: Allen Quynn To: Olson, Carrie Date: 05/15/2006 9:49:13 AM Subject: 2006 West Nile Virus Response Program Hi Carrie: Could you please make a file folder for the following file: SW P-27-2000 2006 West Nile Response Program Contracts A standard 1"folder would be great. Thanks, Allen 2us April 25th,2006 006 West Nile Vir Eastgate Public Health Clinic Training for Municipalities in King County Agenda Welcome 9:00—9:10 Epidemiology of WNV-Current National Dr. Sharon Hopkins,Public Health 9:10—9:40 Picture and outlook for western states in 2006 -Seattle&King County Summary of the 2006 National West Nile Virus Leah Helms,Public Health 9:40— 10:10 Meeting in San Francisco and the BC West Nile Virus Training Permit Review/Update and Planning for Ben Hamilton,DOH 10:10- 10:40 Mosquito Control Break 10:40— 11:00 City of Seattle's WNV Response Plan Sheila Strehle,City of Seattle 11:00— 11:20 No Predictions Here Jo Marie Brauner,DOH 11:20— 11:50- Wrap Up West Nile Virus Portion of the Meeting 11:50— 12:00 Bird Flu/Avian Influenza(optional session) Dr. Sharon Hopkins 12:00— 12:30 Additional Information: King County West Nile Virus Interagency Work Group Meetings SHltyr s�+" m•ar- wj WSAoT nl tZe v,e.j— - S1,-J 3Lbl 5t 5f-',F a Z ssw ?&por 1�,�1�y R` TA l k to /1-blo.,I M PisdI u'('1-1A (�ffyfarneyt I — s (n nib"= 6 �9 � w /83 � 9 / S ! 3 0 r�p.0 - I - --------------------- ..- - Allen Qu nn -2006 King County West Nile Virus Training for Municipalities Page 1 From: "Helms, Leah" <Leah.Helms@METROKC.GOV> To: Alan Quynn <Aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us>, Allan Newbill <allan@clydehill.org>, Bret Heath <breth@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, Brian Carson <Bcarson@ci.seatac.wa.us>, Carl Mueller <carl@ci.carnation.wa.us>, Carter Hawley <Chawley@ci.kenmore.wa.us>, Charlotte Mackner <Town ofs ky@att.net>, Chris Searcy <chrissearcy@ci.enumclaw.wa.us>, City of Beaux Arts <townhall@beauxarts-wa.gov>, City of Medina <rreed@medina-wa.gov>, Dana Stahl POS <stahl.d@portseattle.org>, Daniel Bretzke <danielb@ci.burien.wa.us>, Daniel Smith <daniel.smith@cityoffederalway.com>, David Cline <davidc@ci.burien.wa.us>, David Delph <ddelph@ci.covington.wa.us>, Eric LaFrance <elafrance@ci.sammamish.wa.us>, Frank Zenk <Fzenk@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us>, Gary Kennison <Gary.ken nison@ci.maple-valley.wa.us>, George Martinez <Georgem@ci.north-bend.wa.us>, Glen Baker<Gbaker@cityofmilton.net>, Jack McKenzie <jackm@ci.hunts-point.wa.us>, Jason Paulsen <Bdcity@aol.com>, Jean Lindsey <Jeanl@ci.normandy-park.wa.us>, Jefferson Davis <Jdavis@ci.kent.wa.us>,jerry shuster <jshuster@ci.shoreline.wa.us>, Jesus Sanchez <Jsanchez@ci.shoreline.wa.us>, Jim Jaques <Jjaques@cityofmilton.net>, Jim Morrow <Jmorrow@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, Jimmi Maulding <Jimmi.Maulding@mercergov.org>, Jon Morrow <jmorrow@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, JWalsh <Jwalsh@ci.pacific.wa.us>, Kathy Joyner <Kjoyner@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, Kirk Holmes <Kholmes@ci.snoqualmie.wa.us>, Kristen McArthur<kmcarthur@ci.redmond.wa.us>, Larry Howard <TownhaII@ci.yarrow-point.wa.us>, Leah Helms <leah.helms@metrokc.gov>, Loren Reinhold <Irein hold @desmoineswa.gov>, "Maiya, Andrews" <maiyaa@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, Martin Nordby <martin.nordby@cityoffederalway.com>, Maureen Meehan <maureen.meehan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, Mike Mactutis <Mmactutis@ci.kent.wa.us>, Pat Harris <pharris@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, Phyllis Varner <pvarner@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, Randy Bailey <RandyB@CityofAlgona.com>, Randy Holmes <rholmes@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, Ryan Partee <Rpartee@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, "Schunke, Jim" <jschunke@ci.pacific.wa.us>, Scott Schroeder<Sschroeder@ci.kent.wa.us>, Shannon Kelleher <Shannon.Kelleher@seattle.gov>, Sheila Strehle <Sheila.Strehle@Seattle.Gov>, "Stacey, Rush" <srush@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, Steve Leniszewski <Steven.leniszewski@cityofduvall.com>, Steve Osmeck <Osmek.s@portseattle.org>, Steve Schuller<steve.schuller@cityofduvall.com>, Tim Carlaw <Tcarlaw@ci.auburn.wa.us>, Todd Jensen <tjensen@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, Tom Reber <tomr@cityofalgona.com>, Yosh Monzaki <Yoshm@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, /o=METROKC/ou=DMS/cn=EXEC/cn=elainek <IMCEAEX-_O=METROKC_OU=DMS_CN=EXEC_CN=ELAINEK@METROKC.GOV>, "Adams, Caren" <Caren.Adams@METROKC.GOV>, "Beleford, June" <June.Beleford@METROKC.GOV>, "Bode, Amy" <Amy.Bode@METROKC.GOV>, "Bradley, Lori" <Lori.Bradley@METROKC.GOV>, "Brady, Terry" <Terry.Brady@METROKC.GOV>, "Bretzke, Daniel" <bretzke@comcast.net>, "Brown, Kathy" <Kathy.Brown@METROKC.GOV>, "Bucich, Paul" <paul.bucich@cityoffederalway.com>, "Delph, David" <[ddelph@ci.covington.wa.us]>, "Duchin, Jeff' <Jeff.Duch in@METROKC.GOV>, "Galbraith, Greg" <gregg@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Galvin, Dave" <Dave.Galvin@METRO KC.GOV>, "Griffin, Leo" <Leo.Griffin@METROKC.GOV>, "Harding, Maurice B" <pharding@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Harris, Logan" <Logan.Harris@METROKC.GOV>, "Heaton, Bill" <Bill.Heaton @METRO KC.GOV>, "Hopkins, Sharon" <Sharon.Hopkins@METROKC.GOV>, "Hornsby,Lys" <Ihornsby@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Humes, Diane" <dhumes@ci.snoqualmie.wa.us>, "Johnson, Cathy" <Cathy.Johnson@METRO KC.GOV>, "Karasz, Hilary" <Hilary.Karasz@METROKC.GOV>, "Krank, Ken" <Ken.Krank@METROKC.GOV>, "Lewis, Jill" <jlewis@seattleschools.org>, "Loch, Andy" <aloch@ci.shoreline.wa.us>, "McGauran, Catey" <cmcgauran@medina-wa.gov>, "Ogershok, Rochelle" <Rochelle.Ogershok@METROKC.GOV>, "Olson, Frank" <folson@desmoineswa.gov>, "Peacock, Ann" <Ann.Peacock@METROKC.GOV>, "Sanders, Jim" <jim.sanders@metrokc.gov>, "Sandin, Randy" <randy.sandin@metrokc.gov>, "Sizemore, David" <David.Sizemore@METROKC.GOV>, "Skilton, Christopher" <Christopher.Skilton@Metrokc.gov>, "Sugg, Rick" <rick.sugg@seattle.gov>, "Swanson, Talon" <Talon.Swanson@METROKC.GOV>, "Walsh, Sue" <Sue.Walsh@metrokc.gov> Date: 4/21/2006 8:32:03 AM Subject: 2006 King County West Nile Virus Training for Municipalities REMINDER: 2006 King County West Nile Virus Training for Municipalities Tuesday April 25th from 8:45 am - 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Eastgate Public Health Clinic in Bellevue. ,^'Allen uynn -2006 King County West Nile Virus Training for Municipalities Page 2 Directions to Eastgate Public Health.- Eastgate Public Health Center 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Personal Health: (206) 296-4920 or 1-800-244-4512 Environmental Health Services: (206) 296-4932 Leah Helms RS Health and Environmental Investigator II West Nile Virus Coordinator Public Health Seattle & King County 999 Third Ave, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-3998 Vase$ _ ro e4er 0:K . !� �00 6a t Permit Review/Update and Planning for Mosquito Control Ben Hamihon WA state Dept.of Heahh Zoo d,Disuse Ptognm (360)236-3364 benjamin.hamdton@doh—gm Aquatic Mosquito Control NPDES Permit ■ Required permit when applying larvicides to"surface waters of the state" ■ Apply for permit through Ecology or DOH ■ Ecology:Fee,SEPA,no online-reporting ■DOH:Free,nu SEPA,online reporting • Apply through DOH online at www.doh.wa.gov/wnv and select"Permit For:Aquatic Mosquito Control"link under the Site Directory Permit Update ■ NPDES mosquito permit expires May 2007 ■ Ecology may reissue NPDES permit or develop a state permit ■Either way,there will be a required permit ■ If Ecology's permit process remains the same, DOH will likely obtain the permit and extend it's coverage to qualified entities 1 King County Entities Covered Under DOH Permit,Summary 2005 EMNy Lwlolds Wed 2005 FSBiy Type City of Auburn MdhoPene CRY City of BdI— CNy dly d Bothell CRY Gly d Busies Becillm IhurwVinlds iereelensis(BA) Oty City of Covkgim Bacillus sphaeucm,Ba.-0 CRY thurirgiensis ureelenais(Bti) Ctty of issapuah BonAus thurkglensk brae) ds(80) CRY City or Keanae CRY Oty of Kml City Oty of Kirkimd City Oty d Lake Forest Park B—Aus aphae—.B-M_ Oly Ihlekgimsia wad-we(B5) city of Medina Oly cry of Mercer IM— Clly City a(Renton Bww.ph-, Oly City of Sho, City 'Coy of Seattle used Be orb hee perms 0eough Ecology 2005 Summary Continued Enliy Ld ickles Wed 2005 EMNy Type King comty BaciAue sPhdei Bacilkn Canty gaeegi weelarnis(BO W ashinglan Slate Cep—1 Bashi.sphaercus.So g Side of Trmepatekm Ihuregiensla Wool—(Bill Weshklgim Side Pa and nme Side Reaeakm BWe Sld Gdl Pr'wds tssaguds Wghla Rlvde NesOe Regimd Trdnkg Baolllus ihurkgians s isradmsis(BO) RNde CeMd Recimmd Ridge Rivda UNversky Village f RNde 2005 Summary Continued EMNy Lervbidee Used 2005 EMNy Ty" Eden Advaraed Ped Bacillus th eing de a isredms1, Pesl Gaud Campmy,a Wes T—clogies (BB),McOap.e o Uocl d wigs.MK Prgmty Mnalralecvla s 11—fen Servlcas.EvdeN Schad DlsWcl, Salmon Bey Terminds Inc,Fd,e y Grams.City of Mepb VeAey.New Heart WasNp Cmtw.SeaTeo A Mll Pnt d SeaOe,Lake W MhkgP School D,s t,Achilles USA.Rive RIm Ranh,Bdld lbe OR a Pdk Orkin Inc. Melhoprene Pest Caned Canparry,ded— cm0atedwNh'BNSF rdkoad, Boekg E—Ml.hNVN Shea Oeakm Ch ch W hilworm Pesl Bskus apnaer—.Bec,tt Pest Conlyd Gong .-14es Solutions 1Mvngiensls Israel. an0aietl wiM:Northwest Trek, (Bfi).Methop PM Del—Zoo,Ingle Compmy. PSE in Berkley,W der Gndms w h-ang 'Not ill of the pest cantrd campmy anuacteo soles ore ks Kng County aM not W of these sees regaled lavidde hedm.t. 2 Planning for Mosquito-borne Diseases/WNW Your Response Plan • Education • Surveillance • Control Mosquito Control ■ Habitat reduction ■ Mechanical ■ Biological ■ Larvicides ■Adulticides ■ All of these should be part of an IPM plan for comprehensive mosquito control Mosquito Control ■ Habitat reduction ■ Mechanical --------IN. «PROACTIVE" ■ Biological ■ :long-wh educahnn and ■ Larvicides .1-cillance,DOH strongly supports this app-1, ■ Adulticides "REACTIVE" ■ Still need to plan for this if education,surveillance,and "proa,twe"mosquito control are not enough 3 f Adulticiding: you may not be able to ignore it ■ Should be apart of any IPM mosquito control plan ■ Ignoring it won't keep a potential outbreak away ■ Attitudes for and against may change(or not)depending on the scenario ■ Some questions to ask when planning ■Do we have staff/equipment/experience to do this? ■Can our local pest control companies handle this? ■Who would we contact if we can't handle it locally? ■What is our jurisdictional role and how do we fit in with others? Adulticide & Planning Resources ■ Environmental Assessment of Pyrethrin and Sumithrin® Application for Emergency Mosquito Control a Prepared by Jenee Colton&Richard Jack from ling Counp•Dep:vrment of Natural Resources K Parks,\G'ater:.d Luud Resources Division ■ Research:Human-health risk assessment for WNV and insecticides used in mosquito management ■ —ehponline.org/membe"/2t8K/8667/8667 html ■ Public Health Confronts the Mosquito—Developing Sustainable Mosquito Control Programs xcrho oro/rn 6./FinxlRep aPDF p df Acknowledging Your Current Realities (when it comes to mosquito control) s Lack of resources ■ Lack of community and/or leadership support(especiallc for adulticiding) ■ Lack of authority for property not within your jurisdiction ■ However,your current reality may change=need to plan ■ So the question is... 4 f How can we have a"comprehensive" mosquito control program without being an organized/funded mosquito control district? ■ Answer:You probably can't. Lack of sustained funding and jurisdiction control prevent it. So... ■ You do what you can with what you have and you take responsibility for what you can ■ Identify your gaps in mosquito control(such as private property or areas too large to try and control)and fill those gaps with education and surveillance. The Take Home ■ West Nile virus—unpredictable ■ Planning ahead—good ■ Acknowledging the potential scenarios in your plan—even better ■ Education,surveillance,and mosquito control go hand in hand 5 WNV Epidemiology Update sir J WNV Training for Municipalities in KC S.Hopkins,DVM,MPH — April 25,2006 Via^ _V. 1' WNst Wh Vims ACUvfy Hw n cv:ry -Hw,iMUD,seoVae C.aY. ye, I. Ji v "yY v V�Y Fit W 6 :A_ AaL W*Y Nip Yrus Acfivly t je -� 1 A 2002 • '� t , West Nile Y,us Activity Di— West Nile Virus Activity i tom' r West NMe YIN$Activity West Nile Virus Activity it e .y 2004 West NO, YNs Activity West Nile Vi�u,.AltiitZ —21,2005 !� 2 + ti �1 �r + West Nile Virus A<deity w Reported WNV Disease Cases in Humans, U.S. 1999-2005* Year Total WNND WNF/othr Deaths 1999-2001 149 142 7 18 2002 4,156 2,946 1,210 284 2003 9,862 2,866 6,996 264 2004 2,539 1,148 1,391 100 2005 2,949 1,288 1,661 116 Total 19,655 8,390 11,265 782 •Reported as of 2114/2000 .•Plus D.C. Onset of Human WNV Disease, United States 1999-2005* AS z 'Re orted as of 2I7 U2008 3 U.S.Counties Reporting Human WNV Disease Cases,2005 a 2,949 cases 628 counties ~ 42 states Through 1AMWR week 52(ending 12/31/2005)-628 counties Reported through ArboNET as of 2/14/2006 cnuxcmnvaio WNND County Level Incidence per Million, United States,2005* It`1t I ,rc - I. in•.a nniian .'� • ovum ,uwm � •-,m ❑ M-r+nur,•r aa 'Reported as of 211412006 tR9 Human WNV Surveillance Totals, United States, 2005 and 1999-2005* Category 2004 2005 Total:1999-05 Human cases 2,5319 2,949 19,655 WNND 1,142 11288 8,390 Deaths 160 116 782 States reporting 41t 42t 46t Reported as of 2/14/2006 t Plus DC 4 r a West Me Vims kcbvdy .i ur.vn.�lin.v:ry M� 2005 National WNV Surveillance Summary WNV activity:high in West,persisted in East, However,population-based incidence rates of severe WNV disease highest in mid-west to northern TX • Dates of onset for WNV disease span the year • No cases of transfusion-associated transmission but 3 cases of transplant-associated transmission • Case numbers&deaths in 2005 higher than in 2006 West Nile Virus Activity in California 2005 Vicki Kramer,Ph.D. Vector-Borne Disease Section California Department of Health Services 5 Sequence of WNV detection events in California relative to human case onset,2005 d u 0 0 m 1125 a k3115*j113Z Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Ch.—d-.1PIomm..,«o..,.w Week of onset ma�aaa o.e WNV Activity in CA 2005 Humans infections 928 Horse cases 456 Dead birds 3,046 Mosquito pools 1,242 2 Sentinel chickens 790 N=40 counties with human infection WNV activity In human cases) WNV activity(number of human infections) 2004 Humans 830/28 Horses 540/ 230 Dead birds 3232 Mosquito pools 1136 58 counties WNV activity(no human cases) ■WNV activity(number of human Infections) 6 CA Human WNV Infections 2004 2005 Human infections 830 928 Counties 23 40 Positive blood donors 66 93 Symptomatic donors 15(23%) 42(45%) Human WNV Cases in California,2005 Mar Apr May Jun ( Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 11 WNND N ©WNF N ❑Unk C1 6 a Z ' Nav t t Week of onset tF, � �1 7 CA Dead Bird Surveillance Program 2000 -2005 Year Reported Tested positive 2000 40 20 0 2001 68 18 0 2002 3,666 653 0 2003 8,650 1,765 96 2004 93,057 5,728 3,232 2005 1 109,375 1 9,263 1 3,046 2005: 92 species of WNV positive dead birds Other Corvids Non Corvids (4 species)1% (85 species)16% 4 Yellow-billed American Crow 44/ Magpie 12% x77 Number reported=109,375 Western Scrub Jay 27% Number tested=9,263 —� Number WNV pos=3,046 Ir, Top 6 WNV Positive Non-Corvids,2005 so 45 —House Finch 40 --House sparrow 'American Robin 35 ""'Red-Tailed Hawk --Lesser Gddfinch 30 -�-Northam Mackin bird 25 20 15 10 5 0 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct ' 8 r v' D i Surveillance "j) 2005 - 456 cases \4 4- 1,295 tested i positive counties) :fCDFA Legend _ • �EQuaa TealeGlamaa PoeWe jEmure iesN:e NepaaveNenbnp x r. v...u.... �Np Epune Tea ...c.,..� *.✓Y,�-+�®• ZOIW:WOC8SC3 2005 Equine WNV Data - CA ■456 WNV infected horses(40 counties) ■200(44%d)died I euthanized ■Vaccination status ■20 properly vaccinated ,��,, `,Yid •78 improperly vaccinated •342 non-vaccinated •Median age: 13 years(4 mos—40 years) $12 million appropriated in California state budget to expand mosquito control ■ By July 2005, initial applications reviewed and $9.0 million awarded to 75 local agencies ■ Through Dec 2005,$10.7 million had been awarded to 81 agencies in 47 of California's 58 counties ■ In 2006,the remaining$1.0 million will be awarded for early season mosquito control 9 2006 Public Health WNV Surveillance Program in King County • Continue/expand mosquito trapping Species identification • Testing of suitable pools • Continue citizen dead bird reporting • Map weekly • Record bird species,analyze for clusters • Concentrate dead bird testing • Start mid-July No more citizen drop-off;hire temp to do bird pick-up • Reasons: more efficient,possible citizen concerns about bird flu 2006 Public Health WNV Prevention Program in King County • Continue or expand mosquito habitat reduction&larvaciding by partner agencies • Promote mosquito habitat reduction and personal protective measures by residents • Outreach to low-income,non-English speaking,promote use of mosquito repellents 10 West Nile Virus Updates 2006 National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States, Feb 23-24 2006 in San Francisco and BC West Nile Virus Training for Municipalities 2006 National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States,Feb 23-24 2006 San Francisco •Surveillance •Epidemiology/ Clinical Studies •Field Biology / Ecology •Virology •Mosquito Control •Personal Household Protection Mosquito Borne Disease Global Perspective •Dengue: Brazil 160,000 cases in 2005 ♦Toscana Virus: cases in Europe ♦Usutu: Found Austrian goats in 2005, now found in migratory birds in Britain, May be next West Nile Virus •Yellow Fever: Sub Saharan equatorial cases in 2005 •Chikungunya :Aedes egypti is primary vector outbreaks Africa and Indian Isles in 2005 ♦"Nam Dinh": Arbovirus from Vietnam 1 Surveillance Surveillance Summary of West Nile Virus Activity, United States 2005 •WNV activity: Highest in western states however persisted in the east ♦No cases of transfusions-associated transmission ♦3 cases of transplant-associated transmission • Hurricanes did not appear to affect human WNV •Washington and Maine are the only two continental states with no human WNV cases Surveillance •Summary of WNV 2005 California: -1st positive bird and mosquito in January -June 1st human case of WNV -August 37 of 58 Counties WNV positive -Year end 928 human infections, 456 equine, 3,406 dead birds tested positive -Central Valley, Sacramento County 177 cases •Peak Cases 111 week of August with 96 cases 2 A Epidemiology / Clinical Studies I Epidemiology / Clinical Studies ♦CDC population based study (2003 Colorado): - Increased age is risk factor for encephalitis, limb weakness&death -In addition: o Diabetes&history of alcohol abuse increase risk of WNND Li History of stroke,respiratory failure,or immunosuppression increase mortality among those with WNND o WNND increases risk of limb weakness Field Biology/ Ecology r 3 4 Field Biology/ Ecology •Corvids seem to determine the distribution of human cases in urban landscapes. •The feeding shift hypothesis: - Mosquitoes feed on preferred bird hosts early in the season and shift to humans late in the season when their bird hosts migrate. •Certain species of birds appear to be preferred host for mosquito blood meals. • Small mammals may play an important role for WNV in peri-domestic settings Prevention and Control _J Mosquito Control •California's Sacramento / Yolo mosquito control district: Controlled study that showed the effectiveness of adulticiding and reducing risk of human WNV illness. 4 Sacramento and Yolo Counties C.- Aerial pray versus "Control" Zones F ' Spray vs Control Zones ( 2.5 X population � s 2.0 X area WNV Incidence(per 100,000)within Sac Co Study Areas,2005 HORTH SPRAY SOUTHSPRAY r MO AEW M M"CASES MW MM TM SARAYZOWS 5 ,N it's safe,but public fears:lr , cad ;�a�ed 13t�Set� br eeze Atk J � � �:.-.Y lays �. , ► b u W. Nile �'"�i e Q � 1� forums f a , fray is 1," oel faulted British Columbia ♦No positive WNV surveillance findings .Similar ecological conditions to Washington and King County -climate, mosquito species, avian hosts British Columbia Mosquito Surveillance •Testing only culex species until first positive •Mosquito surveillance for 2006 -High risk areas June 1 -Low risk areas Julyl 6 British Columbia/ Bird Surveillance •2005 Wild bird study found that birds had antibodies to WNV ♦2006 Crow Roost Study: Does the presence of large crow roosts enhance amplification of WNV and do roosts act as a foci for outbreaks of WNV? British Columbia IPM •Local Health districts contract out for mosquito surveillance and control ♦Study ending April 06:Pre-emptive WNV mosquito Control in Catch Basins: Identification of Triggers and Priority Areas for Larval Treatment Wrap Up •BC presentations can be viewed on line htti)://www.bccdc.orq/content.php?i em=270 •USA presentations can be viewed on line http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/we stnile/conf/February 2006.htm 7 No Predictions Here! Washington State Update to Marie Brauner Zoonotic Disease Program The 2005 Picture... Everything BUT a Human! What now? 1 Trapping 1 DU/V. Mosquito Trapping Events 2003 0, El ■ Mosquito Trapping Events 2004 Y u ■ 2 Mosquito Trapping Events 2005 FTI E IN Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Adams Aedes vexans * nn Anopheles freeborni* Coquillettidia perturbans* T(A-r54 Ochlerotatus melanimon* Benton Coquillettldia erturbans* Ochlerotatus cataphylla 'Potential West Nile virus vector Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Cowlitz Culiseta minnesotae Ochlerotatus aborigines Ochlerotatus aloponotum Ochlerotatus communis Franklin Aedes vexans* Anopheles punctipennis* Coquillettidia perturbans* Ochlerotatus campestris *Potential West Nile virus vector 3 Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Grays Hbr Culiseta impatiens* Culiseta minnesotae Ochlerotatus sierrensis Ochlerotatus sticticus* Jefferson Anopheles punctipennis* Culiseta inornata* Ochlerotatus aborigines Ochlerotatus sticticus* *Potential West Nile virus vector Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Kitsap Culiseta particeps Ochlerotatus increpitus King Culex boharti Culex stigmatosoma* Culex morsitans* Pierce Culex boharti Culex stigmatosoma *Potential West Nile virus vector Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Snohomish Anopheles earlei Anopheles freeborni* Culiseta morsitans* Ochlerotatus dorsalis* Spokane Culex minnesotae Culex salinarius* Ochlerotatus sierrensis *Potential West Nile virus vector 4 Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Wahkiakum Anopheles freeborni* Anopheles punctipennis* Coquillettidia perturbans* Culex pipiens* Culiseta inornata* Culiseta minnesotae Culiseta particeps Ochlerotatus aborigines Ochlerotatus fitchii* Ochlerotatus sierrensis *Potential West Nile virus vector Mosquito Species Findings 2004 - 2005 County Species Whatcom Culex boharti Whitman Ochlerotatus sticticus* Yakima Ochlerotatus trivittatus *Potential West Nile virus vector Mosquito Testing - 2005 x, �v ■ 915 mosquito pools tested • 2 WNV-positive pools, Culex pipiens 5 The Birds �,w f Or Bird Species Submitted, 2005 Species Number American Crow 533 American Kestrel 2 American Robin 1 Barn Owl 8 Barn Swallow 1. Barred Owl 2 Black-Billed 31 Magpie Blue Jay, q 1 J-7 1 Bird Species Submitted, 2005 Species Number Cedar Waxwing 1 Common Grackle 1 Common Raven 3 Cooper's Hawk 5 European Starling 15 i1 Great Horned Owl 4 House Sparrow 1 Mourning Dove 4 �1 6 Bird Species Submitted, 2005 Species Number Northern Flicker 3 Pigeon Guillemot 1 Red-headed 1 Woodpecker Red-tailed Hawk 4 Sharp shinned Hawk 8 Steller's Jay 29+2 t 3 Western Scrub Jay 4 5 Other Species 13 63 Surveillance Summary, 2002-2005 3y �- Gj • b7 WNV Activity in Washington State Surveillance and WINIV-Positives Dead Birds 325 006 Sentinel Flocks 387 435 WNV-Positive Set ,t` Equine _ 50 102 WNV-Positive Equine - 2 0: Mosquito Pods 431 582 WNV-Positive Pools _ 1 0 7 WNV Activity in Washington State Surveillance and WNV-Positives Dead Birds 553#576 Sentinel Flocks 392Equine 57 Mosquito Pools 1015 915 2002 WNV Activity by County ED No Activity Detected WNV Activity Detected rs�e 2003 WNV Activity by County 0 No Activity Detected WNV Activity Detected re.ne 8 2004 WNV Activity by County No Activity Detected w WNV Activity Detected w,ne 2005 WNV Activity by County No Activity Detected WNV Activity Detected re,no West Nile Virus Cases by Year Arizona 13 3911 111 Idaho 1 _ 3 13 Nevada 2 44 31 Or on - p� 3 L._ _. 7: Utah 1 11 52 Washington 0 0 0'' Source: CDC,West Nile virus statistics as of February 14,2006 9 What's Next? WNV Surveillance What is the plan for Washington State? o Dead bird monitoring and testing o Mosquito identification and populations o Mosquito testing of Culex species o Sentinel Flocks o Equine Testing Communication LHJs, state agencies, and other partners o Open the lines of communication o Share information o Know one another's capabilities o Keep Department of Health in the loop 10 Mosquito Testing Participating Partners Benton County MCD OHSL& Ramp Clark County MCD CHPPM-W Columbia MCD Vec-Test Franklin County MCD Ramp MCD of Cowlitz County CHPPM-W Mosquito Testing Participating Partners Seattle-King County CHPPM-W Snohomish Health District CHPPM-W Handling Dead Birds ❑Bird surveillance will continue as usual ❑If you pick up a dead bird: ■take necessary precautions Ouse gloves&shovel Oplace on ice or freeze Owash hands or use hand sanitizer ❑If you need supplies for shipping dead birds contact Jo Marie ❑AII birds will be tested at WADDL 11 Bird Processing Information o Testing will continue, follow protocol ■ Birds must be dead no more than 48 hours ■No large die-offs ■Track reports of dead birds that are not tested o All birds will be shipped to WADDL ■ Must have Dead Bird Reporting form ■Ship Monday—Thursday only ■Ship via DOH FedEx account Prevention _ yMNTS TFE I61G SEAL? Prevention Practice prevention measures o Protect yourself, family, employees, and co-workers o Do not give mosquitoes a home o Avoid the bite o Use repellents safely 12 f Wrap-up o All forms of surveillance will continue o Mosquito pool testing will increase o Educate, Educate, Educate ■ Public awareness ■ DOH publications are available o Communicate and work together We Appreciate Our Partnership with You! Jo Marie Brauner Zoonotic Disease Program Washington State Department of Health iomarie.bra uner(aldoh.wa.gov 360.236.3064 Public Health Always working for a safer and healthier Washington Web Sources Zoonotic Disease Web Page: www.doh.wa-gov/ehp/ts/ZOO.HTM West Nile Virus Web Page: www.doh.wa.gov/wnv 13 Credits Source: CDC, West Nile virus statistics as of February 14, 2006 Cartoon Images: Fairfax County Health Department 14 O � J f N +a / LA i f cn +-+ ° 0 LA o o cr � U o � o ,,�o Public Health Confronts the Mosquito Developing Sustainable State and Local Mosquito Control Programs d Recommendations of the { Mosquito Control Collaborative i A Project of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials 9 In partnership with The National Association of County and City Health Officials Supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention February 2005 Acknowledgements The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials would like to acknowledge and thank the Mosquito Control Collaborative members for their participation in the Collaborative's activities and their tremendous contributions to this document.Without their active guidance and input,this project would not have been possible. Chair Doneen B.Hollingsworth,Secretary of Health,South Dakota Department of Health, Representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Other participating South Dakota Department of Health staff:Kevin Forsch,Laurie R.Gill, Lon Kightlinger,MPH,PhD,Barbara Buhler,Colleen Kozel Members Rich Bechtel,National Wildlife Federation,Representing the National Wildlife Federation Carina Blackmore,DVM,PhD,Florida Department of Health, Representing the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Duane R.Boline,PhD,Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Representing the Association of Public Health Laboratories David A.Brown,Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District,California, Representing the American Mosquito Control Association Roland Dartez,JD,Police Jury Association of Louisiana, Representing the National Association of Counties Kirk A.Dymbrowski,RS,Maricopa County Environmental Services Department,Arizona, Representing the National Association of County and City Health Officials Orlo(Bob)Ehart,National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Representing the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Doug Farquhar,JD,National Conference of State Legislatures, Representing the National Conference of State Legislatures Jacquelyn A.Hakim,MS,MPH,Monroe County Vector Control,Pennsylvania, Representing the National Environmental Health Association Robert Kent,New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Tunyalee A.Martin,University of California, Representing The Nature Conservancy Nolan H.Newton,PhD,North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Representing the State Public Health Vector Control Conference Susan Palchick,PhD,MPH,Hennepin County Public Health,Minnesota, Representing the National Association of County and City Health Officials John Pape,Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Representing the Environmental Council of the States Donna M.Rozar,RN,BSN,Wood County Board of Health,Wisconsin, Representing the National Association of Local Boards of Health Joseph Sanzone,Metropolitan Mosquito Control District,St.Paul,Minnesota Ex Officio Members Roger S.Nasci,PhD,CDC National Center for Infectious Diseases,Fort Collins,CO Robert I.Rose,PhD,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services,U.S.Department of Agriculture, Riverdale,MD Consultants Thomas S.Dunlop,REHS,Dunlop Environmental Consulting,Inc.,Snowmass Village,CO Ken Mesch,MPA,Public Health Consultant,Denver,CO Chester G.Moore,PhD,Vector Biology&Control International,Inc.,Fort Collins,CO Merril Stern,MA,Public Health Consultant,Denver,CO Lee Thielen,MPA,Public Health Consultant,Fort Collins,CO ASTHO would also like to thank the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) for its strong partnership in convening the Collaborative and producing the recommendations.ASTHO and NACCHO would like to especially thank the consulting team of Lee Thielen,Tom Dunlop,Ken Mesch,Chester Moore,Merril Stern,and Susan Morrisey for drafting the document.Without their hard work and expertise,this document would not have been possible. Finally,ASTHO thanks the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,National Center for Infectious Diseases,Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Disease for funding this project. It was supported through the CDC Cooperative Agreement to Improve the Nation's Public Health Agencies/Systems—Special Project Mosquito Control (Cooperative Agreement #U50/CCU313903-06).Specifically,CDC staff Roger Nasci,Mary Ellen Fernandez,and Tracy Badsgard provided important guidance and support throughout the project. The Collaborative project was lead for ASTHO by Patricia Elliott,JD,MPH,Principal Director, and Heather Doyle,Senior Analyst.Support for this project was also provided by ASTHO staff Lara Misegades,Helen Fox Fields,and Paula Steib.NACCHO staff participating in the project were Becki Chester,Grace Ibanga,Allison Peterson,and former NACCHO staff Leigh Lipson. To download an electronic version or comment on this report,visit the ASTHO website listed below.For reprint requests or to obtain permission to reproduce this report,please contact: publications@ASTHO.org O ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS 1275 K Street NW,Suite 800 Washington,DC 20005 Phone: (202) 371-9090 Fax(202) 371-9797 www.ASTHO.org www.StatePublicHealth.org Association of State and Territorial Health Officials(ASTHO) ASTHO is the national non-profit organization representing state and territorial public health agencies of the United States,the U.S.Territories,and the District of Columbia.ASTHO's members, the chief health officials of these jurisdictions,are dedicated to formulating and influencing sound public health policy and to assuring excellence in state-based public health practice. National Association of County and City Health Officials(NACCHO) NACCHO is the national organization representing local public health agencies.NACCHO supports efforts that protect and improve the health of all people and all communities by promoting national policy,developing resources and programs,seeking health equity,and supporting effective local public health practice and systems. Table of Contents Executive Summary and Major Recommendations ............................ ... . 1 The Mosquito Control Collaborative............................................ ... . 1 Summary of Recommendations ............................................... ..... 1 PlanAhead ......................................... .. ... .... ... ................... 1 InvolveOthers .......................................... ...........................2 Use the Best Science and Data ............ ........ ...... ............................3 Informthe Public..................................................................3 Introduction and Background:The Mosquito Control Collaborative.............5 Public Health Confronts the Mosquito:Recommendations...........................5 History of the Mosquito Control and the Threats to Public Health ...................6 PlanAhead...........................................................................9 Structures and Roles ...............................................................9 Environmental Considerations .................................................... 14 Legal Considerations.............................................................. 15 Funding Alternatives..............................................................20 Workforce and Training Issues.....................................................22 Evaluation of Mosquito Control Programs.........................................24 InvolveOthers ......................................................................29 Develop a Plan for Involving Others ...............................................29 Actively Involve Stakeholders......................................................30 Inform Policy and Decision Making ...............................................30 Use the Best Science and Data .....................................................35 The Science of Mosquito Control..................................................35 Planning a Mosquito Control Strategy.............................................37 Options for Mosquito Control Activities and Programs.............................39 Level I:Minimal Program.........................................................39 Level II:Intermediate Program ....................................................40 Level III: Comprehensive Program.................................................42 Informthe Public...................................................................47 Define the Goals for Public Information ...........................................47 Create Effective Messages..........................................................49 Summary............................................................................51 Reference ................................. ... . ......................................52 SourcesCited......................... .... ... .....................................52 Glossary of Terms....................... ..........................................54 Resources for Additional Information..............................................56 AppendixA...................................... ...... ...........................58 AppendixB........................................ ... ............................60 Executive Summary an d Major Recommendations vd*"',,� F, r' INTRODUCTION Mosquito control is an important and basic public health function.The rapid spread of West Nile virus across the U.S.in the last five years demonstrates the continuing need for organized n mosquito control activities.States and local communities are challenged to develop and maintain these essential vector control programs,especially in tight budgetary times and when emergency C situations have quieted. rp THE MOSQUITO CONTROL COLLABORATIVE In response to needs voiced by the public and impacted communities,as well as the public health and mosquito control communities,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,National Center for Infectious Diseases,Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases sponsored ASTHO to develop a set of recommendations for creating sustainable state and local mosquito control programs.Because mosquito control involves many players,ASTHO convened the Mosquito Control Collaborative (MCC or the Collaborative),a body comprised of state,local,and federal representatives from public health,environmental,and agricultural agencies,as well as other organizations intimately involved with vector control and public health.Because mosquito control efforts begin at the community level,ASTHO invited the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) to join the project as a partner. O The following document consists of the recommendations developed by the MCC from February through December 2004.The purpose of this document is to serve as a catalyst for discussion and as a working document for public health practitioners and policy makers.The recommendations n O are not meant to answer all questions or meet all needs related to mosquito control.They will, however,be a tool for the public health community as it determines and solidifies the relationship between mosquito control and public health.West Nile virus epidemics have taken a heavy toll on our communities and on public health.The challenges of dealing with the virus have reinforced the role that public health can play in the community—working with community partners and other agencies to protect the public's health from mosquito-borne diseases.Public health agencies will not always be the lead agency in mosquito control;their role will depend on the nature of the community and the circumstances.Public health,however,must be actively involved in mosquito O control when the public's health is threatened.In addition,public health leaders and policy makers can reinforce the need for infrastructure that supports a long-term ability to cope with mosquito control on a continual basis at the community and state levels. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Collaborative identified four major components of successful mosquito control efforts. Each section includes a series of planning and action checklists to aid states and localities in their planning activities. PLAN AHEAD Developing an effective mosquito control program takes time and preparation.Timely action, collaboration with other jurisdictions,and development of a plan to manage the challenges of mosquito control are over-arching requirements that impact all other recommendations and find- ings.Governments should not wait for a crisis to prepare.The Mosquito Control Collaborative has identified numerous strategies for effective planning and ordering of activities.Understanding the structures and roles of the state,local and federal participants,defining workforce and training requirements,identifying legal authorities and funding alternatives,and developing strategies for evaluating programs are elements that should be included in any successful planning effort. I States,localities,and the federal government all have active roles in mosquito control.The exact roles of each will differ among the individual states and localities.Whatever structure is chosen, it should be based on solid legal authority to act.The structure of the funding mechanism for mosquito control activities also impacts the ultimate sustainability of the program or activities. Each government unit must also assess the capacity of its workforce to accomplish its mosquito control goals,including identifying tasks it has the ability to accomplish in-house and those that may need to be obtained from the private sector.Regardless of how mosquito control is accomplished,governments must also consider the impact of the intended control strategy on the public's health and the environment.Finally,a thorough evaluation of mosquito control activities is imperative to establish credibility and learn from previous experiences. INVOLVE OTHERS The foundation to any successful mosquito control action is involving key participants early in the process.Governments should develop a strategy for involving others,which includes identifying and engaging a wide variety of stakeholders.Because mosquito control issues can be contentious, successful programs look to identify all points of view early,present relevant scientific information in a transparent format,and work to a negotiated agreement,where necessary. Governments should take care to identify the individuals,organizations,and agencies with a stake in mosquito control decisions.A variety of mechanisms should be used to target appropriate outreach to stakeholders.Special care should also be given to provide decision makers with solid information upon which to base policy. At Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Public Health Confronts the Mosquito USE THE BEST SCIENCE AND DATA It is critical that science drives the assessment of local and state needs,strategies selected,and design and monitoring of mosquito control programs.There are numerous proven methodologies n and practices that guide the best mosquito control programs.All programs need to be based on an identified need that is matched with local and state resources and technically sound strategies. C A quality mosquito control program has at its foundation a solid understanding of the timing and distribution of human and animal mosquito-borne disease cases.Access to epidemiologic capacity Cn to conduct surveillance of mosquito-borne diseases in the human population,and monitor disease and the distribution of relevant animal and insect populations,is critical to begin any mosquito "i�• control activity.States and localities must also determine their mosquito control needs.A scientific response to combat nuisance mosquitoes may look very different from a program to combat mosquitoes carrying disease. Control strategies can focus on preventing the emergence of adult mosquitoes (larviciding), addressing mature insects (adulticiding),and other prevention measures such as breeding pool reduction and bite prevention.The mix of strategies used by each state and local community will vary based on their individual political,legal,environmental,geographic,and funding concerns. The Collaborative outlines the following three program levels for mosquito control activities based on available resources: O • Level I Minimal Program Describes the activities a community can take with rD n minimal or no resources to support a mosquito control program. O • Level II Intermediate Program Identifies activities that communities with little to moderate resources can undertake even if they cannot mount a comprehensive program. • Level III Comprehensive Program Details the activities,by season,that a community with moderate to full resources can accomplish. O INFORM THE PUBLIC Mosquito control programs need the support of an informed public.Many of the successful strategies for control involve individuals,their families and their neighborhoods.The public also has concerns about the problems related to mosquito populations and about insecticides and spraying.Development of a communications plan that includes public education about preventing the breeding of mosquitoes,personal protection guidance,and the activities and success of the agencies involved is critical to the success of the program. CONCLUSION Mosquito control is a multi-faceted issue.Therefore,some sections of the recommendations contain information that overlaps with other sections in the document.This design allows each section to stand on its own.After each section there is a"Planning and Action Checklist"that high- lights the major decision points and recommendations from that section.Finally,the document, while quite comprehensive and containing many references and resources,does not capture every available resource on the issue of mosquito control.A list of some resources is included at the end of the document.ASTHO will continue to gather and post relevant resources on it website at www.astho.org. 3 Introduction & Background: The Mosquito Control Collaborative INTRODUCTION The mosquito is a highly effective and deadly vector for human disease.The tiny insect has played C a powerful role in spreading such communicable diseases as malaria,encephalitis,dengue fever, and,most recently,West Nile virus.Public health has been a partner with others involved in insect CL control because mosquitoes may be a nuisance,but they may also be a killer.Mosquito control n activities are conducted for many reasons—economics,agricultural productivity,recreational enjoyment,and livestock health and safety.None of these reasons can trump the most important O one of protecting the human population from death and disability from mosquito-borne diseases. Thus,public health has a strong,vested interest in mosquito control. A� In early 2004,the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) assembled the Mosquito Control Collaborative(MCC or the Collaborative).The purpose of the Collaborative was to develop a set of recommendations to address state and local needs in establishing,maintaining, n and funding mosquito control programs.The Collaborative is comprised of representatives of state, local,and federal public health,environmental,and agricultural agencies as well as other organiza- tions intimately involved with mosquito control and public health.Because mosquito control efforts 04 O begin at the community level,ASTHO involved the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) as a partner early in the project.Funding for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Disease. Discussions at the 2003 West Nile Virus conference in New Orleans prompted the formation of y the MCC.At that meeting,public health organizations and agencies discussed the problem of the deteriorating infrastructure for preventing mosquito-borne disease in the United States.Mosquito M�y- control is an important and basic public health function that must be recognized and supported. a One solution identified was to develop recommendations to help states and localities in their O mosquito control activities. � Further motivation for forming the MCC came from the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health (MASH)Act(Public Law 108-75).The Act authorizes grants to states for coordinating O mosquito control programs and assisting local governments with assessment and planning n activities.Grants are also authorized to localities for mosquito prevention and control activities. Q As of December 2004,Congress had not appropriated any funds to cover the cost of the MASH Act.The MCC's recommendations will serve as a resource to states and localities should funds for MASH Act implementation ultimately become available. O The dialogue and recommendations identified through the Collaborative provide guidance C into the future for local and state jurisdictions as they address mosquito-borne illnesses and mosquito control. r•� PUBLIC HEALTH CONFRONTS THE MOSQUITO: RECOMMENDATIONS O The purpose of the document is to serve as a catalyst for discussion and provide useful information to community leaders and staff.It is a tool that public health practitioners and others concerned C about public health protection can use as a guide and as a way to inform policy makers of the issues related to mosquito control.These recommendations are not meant to cover all aspects of mosquito control and the science of mosquito control.The focus of the report is to provide useful,practical information and recommendations that will help public health officials and policy makers understand the long-term role that public health must have in mosquito control to face mosquito- borne threats over time.A public health agency may not be the lead agency or discipline directing mosquito control strategies in the community.Public health,however,must be involved in representing the public health needs of the community. 5 Overview of the Document Mosquito control is a multi-faceted issue.Therefore,some sections of the recommendations contain information that overlaps with other sections in the document.This design allows each section to stand on its own.After each section there is a"Planning and Action Checklist"that highlights the major decision points and recommendations from that section.Finally,the document,while quite comprehensive and containing many references and resources,does not capture every available resource on the issue of mosquito control.A list of some resources is included at the end of the doc- ument.ASTHO will continue to gather and post relevant resources on it website at www.astho.or . HISTORY OF MOSQUITO CONTROL AND THE THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH Mosquito-transmitted diseases have existed in the Americas since long before European settlement. Eastern (EEE),and Western (WEE) equine and St.Louis (SLE) encephalitis viruses are examples of such long-term threats.1 With the coming of the Europeans to the New World,additional diseases, such as malaria,dengue and yellow fever were added to the mix of vector-borne diseases.Most people today are unaware that malaria extended throughout the United States and into southern Canada in the 1800s.2 Before the widespread use of motor vehicles,EEE and WEE viruses caused major epidemics in the horse population that resulted in substantial economic losses. In recent years,with increasing intercontinental movement of goods,people,and animals,a variety of new and exotic disease problems have been encountered.These emerging infectious diseases include Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS),Ebola virus (Reston strain) and West Nile virus (WNV).These diseases are zoonoses,or diseases of animals that can be transmitted to humans. Many zoonoses,such as WNV,are transmitted by vectors,such as mosquitoes or ticks.WNV has spread from coast to coast in only five years.Given the increasing globalization of travel and commerce,it is likely that other exotic agents will be transported and established in the United States or in other areas of the Americas.3 Association of state and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health confronts the Mosquito r•r 04 O n O f '° UQ m y The first organized mosquito control programs were established in the early 1900s.In the eastern O United States,a mosquito control program was established in South Orange,New Jersey in 1901.In the west,another early program began controlling nuisance mosquitoes around the San Francisco Bay area in 1903.By 1997,a national survey found 345 mosquito control districts or programs in the United States.4 These programs served a population of over 97 million,at an estimated cost of O $231.7 million (slightly more than$2.00 per person per year). n O The cost of vector-borne disease prevention is normally less than the cost of control after an epidemic begins.Not only is emergency control more expensive,but there is also the added cost to treat disease cases that might otherwise have been prevented.The total cost of the WNV epidemic Q in Louisiana in 2002 was estimated at$20.1 million.5 The cost of WNV to the U.S.equine industry may be in the billions of dollars. (� O The cost of a single case of EEE can range from about$21,000 for mild,transient illness,to as much as$3 million for individuals who suffer permanent neurologic damage.6 Similarly,the lifetime cost of a single case of severe LaCrosse encephalitis is estimated to range from$48,000 to as much as O $3.1 million.? These numbers fail to address the additional emotional cost to families of victims of mosquito-transmitted disease,the victim's severely changed quality of life,and similar issues. �• In addition to the impact on human and veterinary health,arboviruses frequently have a major impact on wildlife,including threatened and endangered species.In 2002 alone,it was estimated that more than two million birds,including endangered species,died from WNV infection (CDC, unpublished data).In 1984,7 of 39 captive whooping cranes,an endangered species,died from EEE infection in Patuxent,Maryland.8 7 Plan Ahead lip w • i ,. :- ix to INTRODUCTION �d Developing an effective mosquito control program takes time and preparation.Timely action, collaboration with other jurisdictions,and development of a plan to manage the challenges of mosquito control are over-arching requirements that impact all other recommendations and ►�.+ findings.Governments should not wait for a crisis to prepare.Planning may avoid costly mistakes. �p A� The Mosquito Control Collaborative has identified numerous strategies for effective planning ¢' and ordering of activities.Understanding the structures and roles of the state,local,and federal participants,defining workforce and training requirements,identifying legal authorities and funding alternatives,and developing strategies for evaluating programs all should be included in successful planning efforts. STRUCTURES AND ROLES The structure chosen to design,implement,and evaluate a mosquito control program is critical to the success of the program.Organizationally,it will be a challenge to assure that the programs will protect the public's health;that policies developed to give direction to the programs are appropriate; and that a proper assessment of actions is taken. The options available for structuring a mosquito control program are diverse.Control programs in the United States may include independent mosquito control districts;county/city/parish health departments;decentralized and non-specialized agencies,such as public works;private companies, such as mosquito control contractors and pest control operators;or federal agencies overseeing federal land,such as military installations.The best choice for a particular entity depends on many variables that are ideally identified at the beginning of the selection process.Funding of mosquito control is usually dictated by local conditions and may relate to the program structure chosen.Some of the options are:dedicated mill levy,usually through a voter-approved special taxing district;fixed charges added to each household water meter account;local sales tax;or the general revenue fund. Local,state,and federal agencies all have important roles and inter-relationships.Because mosquito control is often a local responsibility,citizens will look to local government as their first contact. State and federal governments are also recognized as playing an important role by providing additional resources and technical assistance to local leaders.The state has a responsibility for overall planning,guidance,and leadership,especially during public health emergency situations. However,the role of the state in mosquito control varies from state to state,with some states providing direct mosquito control services for local communities.While acknowledging the many 9 variations among states and localities,traditional divisions of responsibility can be generalized. Federal Roles The federal government oversees issues of national concern.Congress,the Executive Branch,the federal legal system,and federal agencies create indicators and standards,and disburse funds to state and local governments to be used to respond.Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are available to provide technical assistance to state and local governments.Additionally,the resources of federal agencies,including CDC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) may be available in the event of a disaster declaration. The requirements for accessing emergency resources are stringent,and thorough record keeping is mandatory.Also,the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) is concerned with mosquitoes because they are livestock pests and transmit livestock diseases.Some of these diseases,like certain encephalitis viruses and West Nile virus,are zoonoses that also affect humans.The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has authority to review the health and environmental effects associated with the use of pesticides.Pesticides registered for use in mosquito control have undergone extensive review,and EPA has determined that the products should not have an adverse impact on the environment or human health when used according to label directions.Finally,staff with the U.S.Department of Defense (DOD) provide mosquito control for their installations and can provide technical assistance to surrounding communities. CDC has forged partnerships with other federal agencies and national organizations concerned with mosquito control and mosquito-borne illness.CDC has conducted studies to determine the exposure levels to humans of mosquito adulticides during actual aerial and truck application in communities.9 Annual conferences on emerging infectious diseases and West Nile virus have provided opportunities for dissemination of scientific information and training of state and local officials and other interested parties.Furthermore,community awareness of mosquito control issues has been enhanced by the development of national public information campaign materials and the maintenance of web sites and list-serves to provide timely,credible information to state and local governments and the public. FEDERALROLES Allocation of available resources to state and local governments Creation of standards and indicators Scientific analysis of trends in the mosquito po. stateWeather forecasting Development of public information strategies and campaigns Maintenance of web sites on mosquito control and mosquito-borne illnesses Technical assistance to and local Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito State Roles Sy The implementation of mosquito control strategies differs considerably among states.States often assume mosquito control responsibilities during and after emergencies when local resources are compromised or overwhelmed.Additionally,because of organizational or geographic �+ considerations,some states also provide direct mosquito control services to communities. �p Generally,the state oversees issues of statewide concern and provides support services to local governments.The states are a strategic resource (political,technical,and legal) to local governments just as the federal government is a strategic resource to the states.Interstate and international relationships and agreements may be needed to deal with border areas.Additionally,state and/or local jurisdictions may need to establish agreements with DOD installations to ensure consistent mosquito control.State agencies work with the media to assure that consistent messages are communicated statewide to physicians,veterinarians,and the public,and provide educational materials to the clinical community and the general public.State public health laboratories also play an important role in mosquito-borne disease control efforts.State agricultural and/or environmental agencies may require training,certification,and/or licensing for those intending to use pesticides as a part of their overall control program. Mosquito control policy continues to evolve as new issues emerge.A compilation of state-specific mosquito control statutes by the National Conference of State Legislatures illustrates the many different approaches to mosquito control policy and implementation of programs.Many states delegate responsibilities for mosquito control and mosquito-borne illness to one or more state agencies while others have established mosquito control districts. Often the lead state agency is charged with developing a statewide planning process to address new and emerging mosquito control issues.Some states have already developed statewide plans for mosquito control.Representation from key stakeholders is important to the success of the planning process. ROLESSTNIT mosquito-borneDevelopment, collection, and analysis of state-specific data on Development of state-level policy recommendations implementation of laws and regulations regarding mosquito control, disease surveillance, and reporting MaintenanceCoordination with federal agencies and neighboring states Development of state plans to address mosquito control Allocation of available resources to assist with local programs for mosquito control of . •n hotlines and web sites Development of statewide public information campaigns Technical assistance to local jurisdictions Evaluation of statewide efforts to combat mosquito-borne illness Public health laboratory Training and certification of pesticide applicators 11 Local Roles Mosquito control generally occurs at the local level.Cities,counties,special districts,and multi- jurisdictional districts have historically performed mosquito control activities,whether operated for nuisance control or to protect the public's health.Support for this effort(financially,scientifically, legally,legislatively) may come from the state.Local taxes and fees are more common sources for funding programs. The decisions that are made about mosquito programs are usually made by county commissioners, city council members,and other local elected or appointed officials.The agencies selected to handle these programs vary from public works to public health.Appointed boards,especially local boards of health,have a responsibility to support and encourage efforts that protect the public.Land use control is generally a local issue.As a result,planning boards should also be included in a community mosquito control program.For example,creating stormwater management sites adjacent to communities,schools,and businesses may exacerbate mosquito management problems. Mosquito control issues should be considered in the design and maintenance of constructed stormwater and wetland sites. Local government often works with the state and,occasionally,the federal government for comprehensive programs and,in some instances,they work together to provide services for state and federally-owned properties and land.Some of the challenges in mosquito control can come from disagreements on how to handle federal land,state land,and local parks and natural areas. Strategies to shape action should be developed well in advance of a response action being taken. No single agency can effectively respond to an environmental public health emergency of the magnitude of mosquito-borne illness.Partnerships are needed for success. LOCALROLES EducationDesignation of a lead agency and authority within the jurisdiction Development of a mosquito control program given available resources 7 Coordination among local agencies including public health, medical, and veterinary communities Coordination with neighboring jurisdictions Surveillance, monitoring, and reporting of virus activity and mosquito-borne illness Coordination with state lead agency of localofficials if needed, boards of health may issue or recommend emergency orders and declare a state of emergency Development of public information campaigns to educate public (especially high-risk g • • Evaluationof • • • control efforts Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Public Health Confronts the Mosquito Special Districts A� Special mosquito control districts that carry governmental authority will make decisions that impact constituents living within district boundaries.Boundaries between districts and local governments may overlap.Intergovernmental agreements are frequently used to assign responsibility, ram+ accountability,and to add clarity to programs that occur within multiple jurisdictions.To maximize �p economies of scale,multiple local communities can participate in cooperative agreements. Mosquito control districts can be the option of choice to handle mosquito-borne public health threats with greater consistency over multiple seasons.Many states have enabling statutes that allow districts to be established by voter approval.These districts establish an infrastructure for monitoring and control actions,as well as provide a mechanism for funding.They can be one town,multi-county,or even state-wide.Mosquito control districts institutionalize mosquito control locally. STRUCTURES ROLES-PLANNING ❑ Determine if the state has legal authority for mosquito control planning and action at the state level. Are current statutes and regulations adequate to support decisions that must be made?Which agency will have the authority at the state level? If not identified in statute,the governor may designate a lead agency for mosquito control, or legislation may need to be enacted to designate the lead agency and their responsibilities. ❑ Determine if the locality has necessary legal authorities to conduct mosquito control activities. Which agency will have the authority at the local level? ❑ Consider how best to structure mosquito control activities and programs. Are special districts a good option for the community? ❑ Identify a collaborative format for elected officials and their appointees to address the problem. ❑ Determine a method among governments to assign mosquito control responsibility based on the level of expertise and capacity of the agencies involved. ❑ Clearly identify and understand the roles and responsibilities of the lead state and local agencies. ❑ Determine how funding will be structured and where the money will come from. ❑ Identify how existing environmental public health programs, such as air quality, food safety and water quality services, will be maintained if resources are overwhelmed by an emerging threat, such as West Nile virus. Identify a plan to keep other important programs functioning and at what level. ❑ Evaluate agency capability to fit into a response system that can "grow" as the event becomes larger and "shrink" as it decreases. Determine how to create such a system and how it will be activated. ❑ Determine how federal, state, and local parks and natural areas be will handled. Establish or activate agreements to facilitate negotiations and action. ❑ Assign a designated spokesperson with responsibility to interact among governmental agencies and with the public and media. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Mosquito control activities,by their very nature,have an effect on the environment.The ecosystem consists of a web of inter-relationships among organisms.Every practical effort must be made to minimize the negative consequences of mosquito control on the environment.This is the premise behind integrated pest management(IPM),which endeavors to use all available methods to control mosquitoes or other pest species to minimize adverse side effects within an ecological context and avoid economic damage. One way to do this is to use scientifically-collected information to narrow the targets of mosquito control.Not all mosquitoes are harmful.Targeting is done by identifying and controlling only the mosquitoes that are nuisance and disease vectors.Even if control actions are limited to a single species in a specific location,a program cannot totally eliminate the environmental impact on other species in the system.There are,however,options that have differing degrees of effects on the environment.The goal is to choose the control tactic for the situation that has the least negative environmental impact. It is more prudent to target larval mosquitoes over adults.Methods such as adulticide spraying, should be considered only when more targeted controls,such as source reduction and larviciding do not adequately reduce populations.Narrow spectrum larvicides(e.g.,biological toxins,insect growth regulators) are preferred over broad spectrum larvicides.How the insecticide is applied also determines how targeted an application is.Only insecticides that are U.S.EPA registered as mosquito adulticides or larvicides can be legally used and then only according to their EPA- approved directions for use.These insecticides have undergone toxicity and environmental safety testing to ensure that their labeled directions for use are as safe as possible,effective,and with negligible adverse effects.The overarching caution is to keep negative impacts on non-target species to a minimum. How the effect of an action is perceived is often a matter of values and opinion,and also often difficult to evaluate.How virus-infected mosquitoes are controlled is a public health decision to be made by communities based on many factors including science,the level and quality of information,economics,legalities,technology,politics,and emotion.Nevertheless,it is important to evaluate environmental impacts of a mosquito control program and strive to minimize the non-target impacts. To the level possible and practical,programs should include a review to assess the potential environmental impacts of the various control methods planned.Only with good information about the benefits and consequences can policy makers and the public make appropriate choices about the kind of mosquito control program they want in their community.A decision matrix can help everyone understand the issues and decision points. [See Appendix A.] State and local health agencies and universities may have entomologists and environmental specialists who can help mosquito control programs evaluate environmental impacts.Some agencies also have environmental epidemiologists,toxicologists,and other professionals who evaluate health risks.Close dialogue between these agencies and mosquito control programs during the planning process is advantageous when the program is implemented and people react to control activities in their community.If a local government has a mosquito control consultant,she or he may be able to advise the agency about how to find resources for an environmental review or assessment. Special care must be given to wetlands and sensitive natural areas.Wetlands,streams,and even constructed drainage systems can provide habitat for an array of wildlife,including amphibians, mammals,birds,and insects.Wetlands also help control flooding,improve water quality,and provide recreational opportunities.Draining healthy wetlands is a controversial and often an inappropriate option,while controlling breeding sites like sewer catch basins,puddles,containers, and poorly designed or poorly managed stormwater management areas are practices routinely incorporated in IPM programs. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito High levels of mosquito production frequently occur in wetlands that are used to treat domestic ►-d sewage or animal wastes (often referred to as constructed wetlands).While aquatic plants added to oxidation ponds improve wastewater treatment,they also lead to increased mosquito populations. � Different physical designs and operating strategies for aquatic plant-based wastewater treatment systems can increase or decrease mosquito problems.Therefore,engineering considerations are important in the design and maintenance of aquatic plant systems used for the treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff.Careful design before construction and monitoring after construction can keep mosquito breeding within acceptable levels.Early input by mosquito-control professionals can keep constructed wetlands from becoming a public health problem. There is a major difference in what can and should be done for routine,integrated mosquito control actions,and what is done during a major public health emergency.The concepts of relative risk and human values are obviously different in these different circumstances.Keeping the public and environmental interest groups informed about relative risks is also critical.10 It is important to include broad representation from the public in formative meetings leading up to implementation of a mosquito control program. ENVIRONMENTAL • ACTION Identify environmental interest groups in the community. Involve the appropriate professionals and environmental interest groups early in the process. Determine the community's levels of confidence in: a) its local government, and b) the available scientific information regarding risks to the public and the environment. Create a program to collect and identify mosquitoes by species and numbers to enable targeted control efforts. Identify the scientific resources available to the community's program to evaluate risks and benefits of mosquito control actions. ❑ Analyze how to control mosquitoes in a way that protects the environment while still reducing the risk of disease-carrying and nuisance mosquitoes for the public. Perform an environmental review of potential impacts prior to program implementation. Are there any applicable laws or regulations requiring an environmental impact assessment? ❑ Make the results of the environmental review available to a broad public audience. ❑ Choose a knowledgeable and articulate spokesperson to carry environmental risk information to politicians and the public. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Communities and states must have a solid legal foundation for their mosquito control activities.An analysis of existing state and local laws,regulations,inter-jurisdictional agreements,and other legal mechanisms should be an activity of every control program.Many state and local governments are already well prepared with the necessary legal infrastructure.Examples of laws from these state and local governments,and template laws,provide an excellent start for those less prepared.Moreover, West Nile virus concerns may provide another opportunity to revise and update those authorities. 15 a r i In many states,specific statutory provisions and protections outline the legal parameters for a mosquito control program.Some states provide statutory guidance through general health statutes and rules and general liability limitations.Depending on the existing laws in a given state,the public health threat level,and the existing political circumstances,it may be prudent to develop and introduce specific legislation dealing with the legalities of mosquito control.Government agency managers need to work closely with elected officials and the public to respond to any outbreak of mosquito-borne disease.These discussions should occur in advance of an outbreak.Relationships are best established before a crisis,and the roles that each party plays should be understood by all involved. There are hundreds of mosquito control programs throughout the country,each one with a different set of enabling authorities under which it operates.However,there are commonalities that exist in the authorities that are required to manage a successful program.These are: (1) legal authority to exist and operate as a public entity; (2) general or specific definition of function; (3) enforcement authority;and(4) funding authority(discussed in the following section"Funding Alternatives").Mosquito control programs must also anticipate and define potential liabilities and learn to manage the consequences of program activities. Establish Clear Legal Authority The legal authority for a local mosquito control effort can be derived from state,county,and municipal laws.It can be general,such as general health or safety powers,or it can be specific,such as a mosquito control district.Below are examples of legal authority options that may give governmental leaders ideas for initiating or upgrading authority for their programs.The options are listed as a spectrum from basic to complex. • General Public Welfare and Safety.Counties and municipalities have under their articles of incorporation a duty to maintain public safety.These are broad powers that can be used to authorize mosquito abatement.Lack of specificity usually means that a mosquito control program so authorized may have to continually justify its existence,procedures,and funding. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito • Local Public Health Authority.This usually is characterized by a local board of health and a b local health agency.Their enabling authority often has more specific language to protect the public from epidemics and nuisances.Environmental health programs historically include vector control to prevent encephalitis,even if mosquito control activities are not currently funded. Recent outbreaks of West Nile virus have caused many local public health agencies to build "0 control programs based on these authorities. �:r • Statutory Enabling Authority to Establish and Operate a Mosquito Control Program.State legislatures can provide enabling legislation to allow a county or municipality to operate a mosquito control program.Usually,there are funding opportunities provided by the statute. • Statutory Enabling Authority to Establish Mosquito Control Districts.This option is a preferred way of institutionalizing a mosquito control effort because it is specific,sustaining,and provides a proven funding mechanism. • Statutory Statewide Mosquito Control Program with Options for Participation by County and Municipal Governments.This type of program is found where there is a major problem with pest mosquitoes.Complex regulations are promulgated by a commission,which prescribes parameters for control activities for counties and municipalities.Local governments can form districts and programs at their option. Define the Lead Agency and Its Functions Issues related to legal authority for mosquito control actions include defining in law who is responsible for those actions and efforts.An important question is,"What agency should have (or gain) authority for a mosquito control program in a given area?"Usually,control activities are the job of local government.Authority at the state level can empower local agencies and authorize their control activities.If there is an existing agency that is already involved,such as a local public health or public works agency,its role could be expanded more economically than starting a new agency. State agencies may operate services in rural or unincorporated areas where local communities may lack resources or initiative to develop a program. The more explicit and directed local government response is to establish a mosquito control commission and district.The district and its governing body become the focus of legal,as well as technical,public,media,and funding issues.Establishing a mosquito control district creates a funding mechanism for abatement actions through the ability to assess a tax.A district also defines responsibility.Where pest mosquitoes have been a historic community problem,mosquito control districts or even state mosquito control agencies may have been created. In the absence of a district or a state program,local municipalities and county governments are responsible by default.In the case of recent West Nile virus activity,many political leaders were in that position for the first time with little expertise,funding,or legally prescribed guidance.A city or county with no mosquito control district may have a local health agency.Many cities and counties have funded and authorized local health agencies to control mosquitoes.Others have contracted the work to private mosquito control companies.The benefits of privatization include quick response in an emergency,workforce benefits due to the seasonal nature of the work,and,importantly,shift- ing liability to the private sector.If contractors are used,it is important to maintain governmental agency oversight of their activities. Enforcement Authority All states and counties have provisions in law dealing with public nuisances.Most have provisions to declare a property a public health nuisance or hazard and require mitigation by the owner.In the case of significant mosquito breeding harborages,such as tire piles,control authority is best when it is specific.Authority should include the ability to order mitigation,to levy fines if the owner is non-compliant,and to allow access for surveillance and control activities. 17 Environmental Permits and Regulations Permits may be required to apply pesticides.The Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1947 as amended(FIFRA)11 requires detailed record keeping of pesticide uses and conditions. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and state departments of environment or agriculture have jurisdiction over pesticide use and require applicators to be trained and licensed/certified. Additionally,state and federal water and wetland protection laws may require additional permits. Finally,there may be applicable federal,state,and/or local requirements to conduct environmental impact assessments. Emergency public health orders and declarations may reduce the need to obtain some of the permits and approvals,at least in the short-term.Each state is different in the permits they require and the exemptions for emergencies that are provided.Ongoing control programs are usually not exempt from permitting requirements.Most state wildlife agencies have provisions for the sampling and killing of wildlife for public health surveillance. Anticipate and Define Liabilities There are significant legal issues associated with the application of pesticides.In addition to govern- mental agencies charged with environmental protection,there are individuals and organizations that may strongly oppose pesticide use.Legal action and lawsuits can come from these groups,as well as from disease victims and their families who believe that government did not act fast enough nor did enough mosquito control. Liabilities include impacts on the environment,such as effects on beneficial insects and animals, water supplies,plants,and also inanimate objects such as car finishes.Ways to limit liabilities include assuring proper and specific legal authority,following legal and labeling guidance,using state-of-the-art integrated pest management(IPM) (also called integrated mosquito management or IMM) techniques,carefully managing practices and employees,promulgating liability limiting legislation,and contracting control actions to reputable companies.When contracting for services, it is important to clearly define liabilities and indemnification in the contract.Personal liabilities are involved not only with pesticide exposure to the public,but also with exposure of the applicators themselves. Consequence Management The development and operation of a mosquito control program requires careful consideration of all the consequences—including the negative ones—of its component activities.Some involve immediate reactions with legal liabilities;others may be subtle,long-term effects.In general, operation of a mosquito control program will require regular consultation with the appropriate legal counsel and risk management officer for the agency.Many of these consequences can be managed through relevant inclusions in state and local laws and through precautionary procedures. Listed below are potential consequences to be aware of when initiating or managing a mosquito control effort.Clearly,this list is not inclusive,as there are myriad circumstances and environments, and every community is different. • Pesticide use.Pesticide use involves permitting and legal responsibilities.There are very specific parameters prescribing their safe and legal usage.State and federal laws regulate pesticides. Every state has a pesticide control office,and the use of some products may be restricted to state certified applicators.Compliance with state and federal clean water laws and acquiring the appropriate permits are critical.Certain people and groups may have special issues related to pesticide use.These include chemically hypersensitive individuals,aquaculturalists,organic farmers,and bee keepers.Consequences of pesticide misuse may include adverse regulatory actions,personal lawsuits alleging injury,damage to the environment(both acute toxicity and longer term effects),damage to insects considered beneficial,and damage to inanimate objects such as automobile paint. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito • Biological controls.There could be a possible negative reaction due to perceived adverse and ►� unknown effects of biological agents on the environment.Mosquito-larvae-eating fish (such as Gambusia and killifish) and other biological controls may be regulated or prohibited by a state wildlife agency.The lead mosquito control agency should regularly consult with the state wildlife agency if using biological controls. • Property rights.A mosquito harborage may exist on private or preserved land.Even with clear Sy legal authorities,these situations may require negotiations at high levels for resolution.Right- of-entry lawsuits may be minimized by including access provisions for mosquito purposes in public health laws. • Funding and ballot initiatives.The political consequences of raising any kind of taxes for mosquito control could be significant.Governments must consider how the public will react and what other social programs will be impacted. • Liability for contractor negligence.Contractors can make high-impact mistakes that bring with them the potential for liability to the government agency.Contracts should be written that protect public agencies from lawsuits due to contractor negligence. [See Appendix B: Bid and Contract Specifications.] • Employees at risk.The physical safety of employees working with potentially dangerous pesticides and other potential hazards is an important concern.Federal and state laws require adequate supervision and thorough training in pesticide handling for employees. • Personal privacy.Medical and personal information is necessary for epidemiological investigation.This information is confidential and sensitive,and should be treated as such,with procedures developed for its protection. • Public education and communication.Public education about mosquito-borne risks and precautions can be seen by some as a threat to tourism economies.Meeting with tourism groups, business leaders,and local politicians assures that they understand the importance of public education to reduce illness and unnecessary deaths.Also,spokespersons should be sensitive to business interests as they craft the message they send to the public.A single spokesperson during an outbreak is needed for clear communication and message consistency.An excellent introduc- tion to risk communication is available from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).12 • Personal responsibility.People may reduce their efforts to protect themselves from mosquitoes if they believe that government is controlling the disease vector.Information campaigns must stress the continued importance of personal protection activities to prevent mosquito bites,as part of the overall community mosquito control activities. • No action.There can be significant consequences to doing nothing or having an inadequate response to West Nile virus or other mosquito-borne disease threats.Individuals who became ill and their families have sued agencies for lack of adequate response.Program directors and elected officials have been held responsible in the past by the public for failing to take action. Governments must be prepared to manage the consequences if they choose not to have an active mosquito control response. 19 LEGAL ' ' • PLANNING ❑ Review existing legal authorities and determine if they are specific enough to enable an adequate mosquito control program. Are current emergency powers authorities sufficient to use in an outbreak?Are specific state statutes and/or local ordinances needed to establish ongoing mosquito control activities? Do they provide sufficient enforcement authority to perform mosquito control activities? ❑ Regularly consult with legal counsel for issues of potential liabilities. Do the general public health and safety provisions adequately prevent liabilities? ❑ Inventory the pesticides and other control methods used in mosquito control activities. Determine the applicable regulations and permits covering the control activities. ❑ Contact all regulatory and land use authorities prior to any control activities. ❑ Carefully review all elements of the mosquito control activities to determine the possible consequences of each element. Develop a strategy to minimize and address these consequences. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Financial options follow the organizational and legal decisions.Communities and states have choices regarding how to fund mosquito control programs.Alternatives can range from dedicated mill levies and surcharges on utility bills to general tax revenue and special assessments of properties.Each community must decide the level of funding that they are willing to devote to mosquito control and the best ways to raise or commit those resources. One of the most difficult tasks in initiating and maintaining a mosquito control program is identifying and acquiring sustainable funding for the program.Mosquito control programs usually have more than one funding source.The benefits of diversified funding are obvious and include flexibility,stability,and the ability to add cumulative resources in times of an epidemic.Options for funding mosquito control activities include: • County and municipal general fund.These funds can be one-time or sustaining.They usually go to a local office or agency(such as a local health department),but can go directly to a contractor for mosquito control services.A mosquito control program can seek support from multiple coun- ties and municipalities to reach an economy of scale adequate to support a reasonable program. • Mill levy.This is a property tax,generally collected through a special tax district (mosquito control district or other district),that usually requires voter approval.Mosquito control districts may have borders independent of existing political boundaries.Resources collected by local governments are published and can be monitored by control program support groups. • Benefit assessments.Some states and regions use benefit assessments for property owners based on particular benefits to that property.These may be levied by a mosquito control district or other entity. • Utility bill surcharge.Added to consumer billing,a utility bill surcharge has low administrative overhead to collect and can often be added without voter approval.This mechanism is useful when a city or county has its own utility program,such as electricity or trash pickup. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito • State general fund.Legislative funding can be one-time or sustaining.Sustaining funds are usually associated with a statutory statewide program. • Federal grants.As seen during the current West Nile virus epidemic,the CDC may provide emergency money to state and local governments in need as pass through dollars from state agencies. A� • State and federal emergency funds.Federal,state,county,and municipal governments have emergency accounts for disaster relief.Control efforts for epidemics may qualify for this source of support. • Private grants.Where special land and wildlife resources are at risk or responsible for mosquito harborages,grants may be available to defray control activities.Private entities that maintain wetlands for parks or wildlife refuges have contributed to the cost of control efforts. • Reimbursement by government agencies.Other government entities,especially federal agencies, can be sources of funds.Agencies whose operations or land holdings add to the magnitude of a mosquito control program,such as the Army Corp of Engineers or the National Park Service, have contracted with local control programs for service. New funding may be available in the future from the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act of 2003 (MASH Act).13 The MASH Act authorizes grants through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to states for coordination of mosquito control programs within a state and assisting localities by providing assessment and planning grants.The MASH Act also authorizes operating grants directly to localities that have conducted assessments and have coordinated with the state to prevent mosquito-borne diseases.As of December 2004,funds have not yet been appropriated for the MASH Act. THE COST OF • • • CONTROL Stopping . starting mosquito control programs .• to serious implicationsfor disease, program cost, and economic impacton • one eastern state, the mosquito control division of the state's department of public health was eliminated as a cost saving measure in 1993. By 1996, towns had started their own mosquito control programs but at a higher cost. Some communities hired private companies to provide mosquito control for recreational areas. Other communities posted signs in parks warning people that they would not receive refunds for camping and use fees if they found the number of mosquitoes unacceptable. Ultimately,the state mosquito control program was reinstated in 1997 after mosquitoes tested positive for eastern equine encephalitis. Recreation, the economy, and public health protection suffered due to the lack of a comprehensive program during the interim period. 21 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES - PLANNING AND ACTION CHECKLIST ❑ Identify funding sources that are currently available for a mosquito control program. Survey agencies that have successful programs to find an appropriate funding model. Talk to people who have experience in acquiring funding for programs. ❑ Identify the right program for the jurisdiction before asking for funds. ❑ Develop strong and diverse support from the community for the program. Is there a local elected or appointed official who is identified as a leader in fiscal matters that can become a champion for the program? ❑ Leverage funding of activities by seeking funds from multiple sources. ❑ Seek sustained funding sources, at least as the base for a program. ❑ Use scientifically sound data to support funding efforts. ❑ In the case of emergencies, determine in advance if funds can be temporarily diverted from a lower priority program. ❑ Determine if there is an existing special district (e.g., park district)that might be used to carry an additional program to control mosquitoes. WORKFORCE AND TRAINING ISSUES It is important that a team responding to a mosquito-borne illness or any environmental public health emergency possess both technical and communication skills.Credibility is enhanced if the person communicating the crisis to citizens has an understanding of how to converse in terms the public can comprehend.Everyone has the capacity to learn enough from a scientifically rich discussion to make an informed decision.Underestimating or overestimating the capability of a lay person to understand an issue can result in serious public relations problems and cause a program to fail,no matter how good the intentions.It is beneficial for mosquito control personnel who communicate frequently with the public to receive training in risk communication.Additionally, there are several workforce and training considerations that are important to a mosquito control program. • Certification of applicators and supervisory personnel.Individuals who apply pesticides should be certified,in the appropriate category(usually public health),by the responsible state agency (usually the department of agriculture).It is also recommended that supervisory personnel are certified.14 The American Mosquito Control Association and many state and regional mosquito control associations produce and distribute training manuals for pesticide applicator certification.15,16,17,18 • Entomologists.At least one individual must be available who has a thorough background in mosquito biology and identification and can identify all common species occurring locally. • General training in mosquito biology and control.All technical staff must have sufficient understanding of the biology of mosquitoes so that they can perform the activities associated with surveillance and control.Such training is often available through government agencies,state or regional mosquito and vector control associations,university extension,or commercial sources, including home study courses.18 • Other specialists.Individuals who take blood samples from sentinel chicken flocks or wild birds must have appropriate training.Special permits or licenses are required for wild bird sampling. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito It is highly advisable for ongoing control programs to have an individual who can perform insecticide resistance testing.Other specialties might include a media and public relations specialist,GIS technician,and an ecologist or biologist. PP • Zoonoses epidemiologist.This individual will track human and animal cases through case reporting systems,as well as map the results of mosquito pool testing.The position is responsible for analysis of the data and making recommendations related to the level of control actions A� needed.Such positions are usually housed in state health agencies. C+ State agencies should assess their workforce needs and may be able to initiate training opportunities and financial support for workforce development.State universities and local colleges can partner with health agencies to implement training programs.Professional associations can also provide pertinent training,often in partnership with state agencies. To bridge gaps in capacity,communities may want to consider hiring consultants to provide temporary leadership,assist with hiring private contractors,and supply hard-to-find expertise as well as continuity. WORKFORCE ❑ Identify the staffing and expertise needed for a comprehensive mosquito control and surveillance program. Differentiate between full-time and temporary worker responsibilities. ❑ Identify skill levels of each worker and compare those to the job responsibilities being assigned to that person.What qualifications will be needed to compose a well-rounded team that will have the support of the citizens? Make sure properly credentialed people are filling roles appropriate for their skills, knowledge, and abilities. ❑ Determine who will make up the primary response team and how they be selected.Will staff be paid or voluntary or both? ❑ Determine whether adequate staff, equipment, and other resources exist within the governmental agencies responsible for the program. If they do not exist, investigate the use of private contractors. ❑ Confirm that the personnel system is equipped to handle the staffing and expertise needed for the program and for maintenance of other programs impacted by mosquito control demands. ❑ Determine how to incorporate temporary personnel if they will be used to implement a mosquito control program. How will they be paid?What skills and professional disciplines will be required of temporary personnel? ❑ Establish an organizational chart specific for the response action. ❑ Determine a communication protocol for the effective release of technical information and educate all staff about the protocol. ❑ Consider adding lay people from the community who can represent and advise on the interests of the citizens. ❑ Investigate liability issues when using volunteer and/or contract workers. ❑ Implement an accounting system to keep track of all of the resources used, including paid and volunteer staff. ❑ Create an evaluation process for private contractors and incorporate that evaluation into the contracts. 23 EVALUATION OF MOSQUITO CONTROL PROGRAMS The nature of the decisions made as part of mosquito control activities can be of great public significance.To determine the success of a mosquito control program,an agency should create an evaluation protocol.The program assessment should be objectively implemented with the ultimate goal of improving the program.Such a review must be done to establish credibility with those directly impacted by control activities,supporters and funders,and to learn from past experiences.Without a rigorous effort to identify how well the program performed,there may be unsubstantiated objections from many observers.There are examples available of evaluation tools that may be helpful in developing assessments for mosquito control programs. At least three aspects of a mosquito control program should be evaluated individually in order to determine the effectiveness of mosquito abatement efforts:public response,technical issues,and legal issues.Once completed as stand-alone reviews,they should be combined in the aggregate to determine if common issues or concerns are identified.As part of the evaluation,an agency must consider both process and outcome measures to provide understandable measures of performance to the public. Public Response A government should determine the public's response to two different facets of its mosquito control activities—process and action.The public is broadly construed to include:residents,visitors,elected officials,interest groups,and the media.An agency should evaluate if the public felt included in the decision making process about the control program.A survey can be used to gauge public opinion: were they included in the decision making?Were they listened to and their ideas acted on in a positive way?If their individual or collective ideas were not a part of the final control plan,was a proper explanation given before the program was activated?Were the elected and appointed officials given sufficient information to make good policy decisions? Additionally,mosquito control programs include community awareness strategies that encourage citizens to participate and not depend wholly on government or district personnel to solve the problem.A follow-up survey,polling or face-to-face meetings should take place to determine if the messages were heard and if they were acted upon satisfactorily.For example:did individuals voluntarily drain standing water from their property?Did they use insect repellent? Did they immunize their livestock?Did they empty water from birdbaths,discarded tires,and other containers that can hold water and serve as a breeding ground for mosquitoes? Technical Issues An evaluation of all of the technical aspects of mosquito control is a significant undertaking and includes an appraisal of issues such as science,surveillance,epidemiology,medical interventions, and integrated pest management.A specific appraisal of each of these will involve establishing objective criteria that can be peer reviewed and withstand challenge from many fronts.The technical section may be the most questioned due to the complexity of how each individual component fits with the others to create a scientifically defensible action.Using the best available science to support a mosquito control program is central to minimizing public concern and protecting the environment from unwanted outcomes. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito Many governmental agencies and special mosquito control districts may not have the capacity to design and implement a mosquito control program due to resource constraints.A private contractor may be the best choice to perform the work of mosquito control.Carefully designed and defined A� review criteria will be necessary to determine how well the work was administered.Work performance standards should be created to provide an objective view of the success of the program. Performance standards should be included in all contracts. [See Appendix B:Bid and Contract Specifications.] The services of an independent consultant may be necessary if the local agency lacks A� the expertise to perform an evaluation of the contractor's work. ¢+ The Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) sets minimum record-keeping requirements for pesticide handling,storage,application,and disposal.11 Additionally,state regulations may mandate an inventory of products from cradle-to-grave—each chemical must be traceable from point of origin to point of application—to track where the material is at any given time. MORE BREAKDOWN OF OF THE CHEMICAL USED IS • IMPORTANT Where was the chemical applied? used?How much was How was it applied? What were the spray volumes? . . . the application? Was GIS mapping used to define treated? What was the application rate, especially for adulticides? For adulticide applications, which areas or premises were not treated (no-spray sites)? Legal Issues As detailed earlier,grounding a jurisdiction's mosquito control activities in law is vitally important. Legal issues may be evaluated separately from the others due to their unique nature,but an assess- ment should be regularly undertaken in cooperation with legal counsel.What legal authority exists that can support mosquito control?Was the authority used properly?Did those with the authority reach beyond the margins established by the law without properly following legal protocol?Were those in charge unable,for whatever reason,to use the legal authority to its fullest in order to obtain a more successful program result?Was the intent of the law applied and was it adequate to meet intended consequences?What enforcement activities were aided by the law?What enforcements were hindered due to limitations in legal authority? 25 Develop Process and Outcome Measures A successful evaluation progression will include both process and outcome measures.These include inputs,outputs,and quantitative outcomes of the mosquito control program.It is important to craft measures that are easy to understand,yet provide real information about progress on mosquito control efforts. The process measures include how many or how much was expended in the effort.For example: • How much money was spent? • How many people did it take to operate the program? • How much and what type of control agents were used? • How many mosquitoes were collected and identified? • How many light traps were used? • How many miles were traveled or covered while adulticide spraying? • How many complaints were registered? This type of information is invaluable when designing and creating a budget for a program.It is important to keep track of these data to satisfy those who want to know the numbers and compare their community's program with other programs. The outcomes are more difficult to measure.Outcomes go beyond the counting of activities and inputs.There is increasing pressure for accountability and informing citizens of the actual benefit of programs.The public wants to know if they will be at decreased risk for disease if a program is implemented.They wish to know the impact on equine infections from disease with the program being planned.They also wish to know if adulticide spraying is now necessary because the risk to human health from mosquito-borne illness is greater than that posed by the chemicals.These impact statements should be substantiated by science and conveyed to the public in a persuasive manner by credible people.Some non-subjective,easily measured outcome statistics are: • Average percent reduction in numbers of mosquito larvae based on pre- and post-treatment sampling(dipping).Evaluation of adult mosquito control is also desirable,but can be expensive and is more difficult to evaluate because of mosquito movement from outside the control area. • Reduction in numbers of mosquito complaint calls compared to previous years,to the long- term average,or to neighboring areas without mosquito control. • Changes in infection rates for humans and susceptible livestock or pets. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health confronts the Mosquito b EVALUATIONACTION General Evaluation Considerations f�71 ❑ Determine who will perform the mosquito control program evaluation. ❑ Identify what criteria will be used to objectively review pre-and post-program implementation activities. ❑ Decide how the evaluation outcomes will be used to improve future program success. ❑ Develop evaluation outcomes that are transparent and can be openly communicated to the citizens. ❑ Create an evaluation tool that is flexible enough to provide needed information from an evolving program. ❑ Determine what "outcomes" of the program will most accurately offer a critique of the program in terms the public can understand. Public Response ❑ Contact recognized community leaders to include in evaluation activities.This may include a member of the media, stakeholder groups, and citizen representatives. ❑ Create a feedback mechanism to determine how the public feels about their role in the decision making process. ❑ Establish a follow-up mechanism such as a survey to determine the success of volunteer efforts. ❑ Determine the success of public education and outreach campaigns in getting the public to act on mosquito control recommendations. Legal Issues ❑ Inventory all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, rules and guidelines that give authority to perform a mosquito abatement program. ❑ Determine if the existing laws are sufficient to support the program. ❑ If existing laws are not adequate, investigate what changes are needed to perform the functions of the program. ❑ Establish whether laws were properly administered. Review any legal challenges brought or decided about the mosquito control activities. Technical Issues ❑ Create a peer review process of scientific data and recommendations. ❑ Determine if the communication protocol for the effective release of technical information has been followed. ❑ Track resources used for the program. ❑ If private contractors are used, create an evaluation process for assessing their performance and incorporate measures into bids and contracts. 27 Involve Others r a INTRODUCTION r--� The foundation to any successful mosquito control action is involving key participants early in the process.Governments should develop a strategy for involving others,which includes identifying and engaging a wide variety of stakeholders.Special care should be given to informing decision makers to give them solid information upon which to base policy. DEVELOP A PLAN FOR INVOLVING OTHERS ' Communities and states may organize task forces or advisory committees that involve other agencies,neighboring jurisdictions,stakeholders,other interested parties,and the public.Mosquito control decisions,like all potentially controversial and important public decisions,are made in a political environment.Elected officials may be under pressure as they deal with options for the community.Health officials can provide scientific,technical,and medical information to support decision makers.County extension agents can help link communities to many university researchers and experts. Where there is disagreement over the proper course of action to address a public health situation, advocates for the action and those opposing will be present.The presence of strong leadership is critical to emerge from such a situation with a negotiated outcome that serves the majority of citizens.In a situation with diverse opinions,it is essential to present the relevant scientific and public health information in the clearest and most transparent manner possible.If there is agreement on defining the problem,attention shifts to how best to respond to the threat.If there is debate around the problem,focused discussion to resolve differences must precede any subsequent response. A proactive approach to responding to differences of opinion is valuable to the general public. Citizens living in an area that is proposed for aerial spraying for mosquitoes,for example,will have varying opinions as to how and when it should occur,or if it should occur at all.Having a well thought out approach instills confidence.The importance of providing unbiased information to the debate cannot be overstated.The U.S.EPA is a source of accurate information,19 as is the National Pesticide Information Center.20 Such information will carry the dialogue forward. Remember that it is crucial to use plain language that is understood by the general public. Developing a sound plan for stakeholder participation and community awareness begins with a compilation of information.This includes: • Historical approaches to mosquito control in the jurisdiction • Review of legislation or regulation governing mosquito control • Description of current efforts • Collection of all available data on mosquito-borne illness and nuisance mosquitoes • List of key constituency groups that have expressed interest in the issue or have strongly opposed controls • Compilation of best practices from similar jurisdictions • Identification of mechanisms for working with the media The primary responsibility for developing a stakeholder participation plan will generally be delegated to staff of a local governmental agency.Unless a designated mosquito control district has been established,this work will typically be tasked to the local public health agency,environmental protection agency,or public works agency. 29 ACTIVELY INVOLVE STAKEHOLDERS Inclusion of people and organizations representing a wide array of backgrounds and opinions is paramount in creating ongoing support for mosquito control programs and developing consensus on the best approach for mosquito control.Examples of key stakeholders to involve include: • Business,civic and governmental organizations such as chambers of commerce,neighborhood associations,cooperative extension services,parks and recreation,zoos,service clubs (e.g.,Rotary club,4-H)and industry groups (e.g.,pest control operators,outdoor recreation sites). • Environmental advocacy groups,bee keepers,organic farmers,ranchers,fish farmers,and outdoor recreation enthusiasts. • Medical/hospital providers,veterinarians,emergency personnel,schools,the media,and advocates for special populations(e.g.,the elderly,immunocompromised). • Other participating agencies bring strengths to the program,and these attributes should be capitalized upon by properly applying them to the larger effort. Jurisdictions can look to other examples of public health programs in their community for models of stakeholder participation.Examples may include tobacco control,HIV prevention programs, child and adult immunization programs,injury prevention(e.g.,seat belt,safety seat and impaired driving prevention) and environmental protection programs (e.g.,lead poisoning prevention, air pollution etc.). Methods for stakeholder participation may include surveys,focus groups,telephone polling,public meetings and hearings,and roundtable discussions.Creation of mailing lists and email list-serves will provide additional points of contact and discussion among community partners. Involvement of the media in promoting understanding of the problem,enlisting editorial support, and disseminating information is important.Most print and electronic media have specialists assigned to health and environmental issues.Local media can assist by providing information to the public regarding upcoming meetings and opportunities for input. INFORM POLICY AND DECISION MAKING Officials at the city,county,and state level all need to engage in discussions regarding mosquito control.Members of boards of health have a vital role to play in advocating for protection from mosquito-borne illnesses.To accomplish this,elected and appointed officials need accurate, clear,and concise data to make informed decisions about mosquito control.Policy makers will generally prefer brief written materials that identify a single contact person.Information presented to policy makers should include:surveillance data and current epidemiological trends regarding mosquito-borne illnesses;scientific information regarding mosquito habitats and seasonal patterns; options for a basic mosquito control program;costs associated with mosquito control;public awareness campaign plans;and legal and regulatory implications.Examples of successful models and options from places with demographic and geographic similarities may also be of help. Successful programs typically identify one or more champions who understand the issues and are willing to serve as an advocate and spokesperson in their legislative body(e.g.,state legislatures, town council,county commission,etc.).Champions are often individuals who have been directly impacted by the issue.They may have a family member or constituent who became ill or they may have credibility with the public on issues of public health.Colleagues usually look to them for advice on health issues. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito INVOLVE •THERS - PLANNING AND ACTION CHECKLISTC O C General Stakeholder Considerations ❑ Consider how elected officials and their appointees will work in a collaborative format O to address the problem. How will agencies work with elected and appointed officials? � ❑ Determine how collaborating government officials and agencies will enlist citizens in the decision-making process and create a fluid mechanism that will ensure the completion of tasks in a timely manner. ❑ Determine how divergent views will be addressed and resolved. ❑ Determine how leaders of advocacy groups and those in opposition will be chosen. Who will sit at the negotiating table? ❑ Once agreement is reached between all parties, decide how the message will be communicated to citizens to maintain support when implementation of the plan begins. State Actions ❑ The lead agency for mosquito control should develop a planning process.This may include meetings of stakeholders, surveys, regional focus groups or town meetings, and other mechanisms to gain input and support for the plan. ❑ The lead agency should identify other stakeholders to include in statewide planning efforts,which may include: • Elected and appointed officials including such state boards and committees as state boards of health • Other state or federal agencies(public health, environmental protection, natural resources, agriculture, emergency management, military) • Conservation groups (land, water, air) • Statewide organizations representing local government (counties and municipalities) • Business and industry (agriculture, tourism, medical/hospital, veterinary, pest control) • Public health (public health association, environmental health association, local health departments) • Recreation groups(fishing, outdoor sports) • Statewide media ❑ Consider input from private and quasi-governmental agencies, such as special districts, as experts in a particular function of the program. ❑ The lead agency should develop partnerships with land grant universities and medical and veterinary schools that have expertise and research and outreach capabilities. ❑ The lead agency should complete a plan for mosquito control, disseminating the plan to all stakeholders at the state and local level. ❑ Develop mutual aid agreements or memorandums of understanding with all partner city and county agencies, states, and countries. ❑ Establish a response system that is universally accepted and can be understood by all participants in the project if an epidemic is occurring. Look to existing response systems such as the Incident Command System as an option to manage the event if an epidemic is occurring. ❑ The lead agency should evaluate the success of mosquito control strategies and identify plans for addressing emerging issues. 31 INVOLVE • ACTION Local Actions ❑ Identify a lead agency for mosquito control at the local level. ❑ Review state plans and consult with the lead state agency for mosquito control. ❑ Identify jurisdictional boundaries and forge partnerships with neighboring counties and municipalities. ❑ Develop and implement a plan for stakeholder participation and community awareness. Key elements include: • Identification of champions for mosquito control who are willing to serve as advocates and spokespeople in their legislative bodies. • Develop briefing materials on such items as historical approaches to mosquito control; current surveillance data; lists of key constituency groups; a compilation of best practices from similar jurisdictions;financial, legal and regulatory options for local plans; and public awareness campaigns for local officials. ❑ Develop methods for stakeholder participation that may include surveys, focus groups, telephone polling, public meetings, and roundtable discussions. ❑ Create mailing and email lists to provide additional points of contact and discussion among community stakeholders. ❑ Identify a primary spokesperson to inform the community about implementation of a mosquito control plan and to address issues and concerns regarding spraying, and if necessary, the presence of mosquito-borne illness. ❑ Work with the local media to develop public information strategies and assist with campaigns to prevent mosquito-borne illness and promote community understanding and acceptance of the mosquito control program. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito M Involve Others 6 jog, v/ U OF A i A INTRODUCTION C-11 It is critical that science drives the assessment of state and local needs,strategies selected,and design and monitoring of mosquito control programs.More is being learned each year as scientists and other experts continue to study mosquito control and disease transmission.These historical lessons and current best practices must guide the development,implementation,and evaluation of quality mosquito control programs.21,22,23,24,25,26 There are numerous proven methodologies and practices that guide the best mosquito control programs.All programs need to be based on an identified need that is matched with state and local n resources and technically sound strategies.There may be gaps in knowledge in some areas such as �p outcome evaluations. n Focal or homeowner-based mosquito control strategies may be perceived as an alternative by the public in affected communities.There has been a rapid proliferation of backyard mosquito control equipment and technologies,as well as suggestions for new or unproven alternatives to currently ¢, recognized effective mosquito repellents.However,there is little data on the efficacy of these methods,machines,and materials either for area-wide or focal programs,especially for mosquito- borne disease control.Some of these technologies may result in the misuse of pesticides and have ,rt other negative impacts.If the public believes that these alternatives are best for them (for example, P because of intensive advertising),they could rationalize not authorizing public support for community-wide mosquito control.Therefore,organized mosquito control programs could suffer. These methods also do not adequately address the need for surveillance,monitoring,source reduction,or larval control—all basic components of integrated mosquito management.In addition to not providing area-wide protection,focal strategies usually are more expensive than the annual per person cost of organized mosquito control. THE SCIENCE OF MOSQUITO CONTROL A quality mosquito control program has as its foundation a solid understanding of the biology of the mosquito species that occur locally.This includes such information as where the larvae are found,where the adults rest,what time of day the adults look for a blood meal,and what control measures are most effective against each species.In addition,control of disease-transmitting mosquitoes requires information on the timing and distribution of human and animal cases. Epidemiology Public health mosquito control efforts are driven by information accumulated and analyzed using the science of epidemiology.Epidemiologists at CDC,state health agencies,and local health agencies work cooperatively to monitor mosquito-borne illnesses.Monitoring the timing and distribution of both human and animal cases of mosquito-borne illness provides the basis and the targets for mosquito control in the field.21 Human case surveillance for mosquito-borne diseases involves receiving and recording reports of illness;confirming diagnoses;interviewing doctors and patients to determine the timing,geographic location,and conditions of infection;and scientifically analyzing the data accumulated. Monitoring human cases alone is considered inadequate when dealing with mosquito-borne disease.28,29 Using epidemiological techniques to monitor equine and avian cases is very important in establishing early trends and allowing reasonable response times for control activities. Reporting networks for animal cases involve veterinarians,laboratories,wildlife agencies,agriculture agencies and organizations,and also the general public.These reporting systems require proactive 35 AS IDENTIFIED BY •A OF • ' impactHUMAN CASES OF MOSQUITO-BORNE DISEASE ARE TO: 1. Assess the local, state, and national public health other mosquito-transmitted . 2. Demonstrate the need for public health intervention programs; important3. Allocate resources; 4. Identify risk factors for infection and determine high-risk populations; 5. Identify geographic areas in need of targeted interventions; and 6. Identify geographic areas in which it may be appropriate to conduct analytic studies of and ongoing effort to implement and maintain.State health agencies collaborate with these partners to establish,maintain,and analyze these databases.The state also helps define the parameters of reportable cases and keeps physicians informed of changes in case definitions,routes of transmission,and treatment regimes.Developing guidelines and fact sheets on clinical features and treatment for physicians and personal protection guides for the public are ways the state health agency can provide important services to the medical community and the public. Surveillance of Animal and Insect Populations Zoonoses are different from human-to-human diseases because they involve other animal hosts and, frequently,insect or tick vectors.Much of the activity(transmission) of zoonotic pathogens takes place out of sight of,and physically removed from,humans.However,attacking the zoonotic cycle has the greatest impact in reducing the threat of disease in humans and domestic animals.By the time these diseases are detected in the human population it is often too late to have any impact on the transmission cycle.In fact,the zoonotic portion of the cycle may already be declining when human cases appear.At that point,the only effective strategies are avoidance,personal protection, and chemical control of the adult vectors (mosquitoes in this case). To understand surveillance and monitoring strategies,it is necessary to know something about the ecology of the area,the mosquito species present,and the disease agents likely to be found.This information will set most of the parameters for the layout of the surveillance system.In general, adult mosquito collections (e.g.,from light traps or gravid traps) are highest when traps are placed in an ecotone (i.e.,the junction between two habitat types,such as forest and grassland,park land and urban housing,etc.).In monitoring for virus activity,roosting or nesting habitats of the bird hosts should also be considered in deciding where to place traps.Note that this is different from the placement of traps to detect the emergence of adult mosquitoes from larval habitats. Public Health and Nuisance Mosquito Control The objective of public health mosquito control is to prevent transmission of mosquito-borne diseases to humans.Reduction of nuisance mosquito species may be an added benefit,particularly in areas where tourism and other outdoor activities are major contributors to the local economy. Agricultural production may be impacted as well.Agricultural workers may be negatively impacted with health problems and productivity loss.Livestock may suffer death,disease,weight loss and/or production loss. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito Nuisance mosquito management frequently focuses on different species and different habitats than public health mosquito control.However,a well organized integrated pest management (IPM, (A sometimes also referred to as integrated mosquito management or IMM) program can provide the CD basis for effective management of vector species. fl+ rD Monitoring or surveillance as a part of a nuisance-based mosquito control program differs somewhat from virus surveillance programs.In the latter case,the objective is to detect activity of �p the vector species at the earliest possible point in time.Collections of larval mosquitoes in new or previously identified habitats often form the core of nuisance-focused surveillance.Adult mosquito surveillance is used mainly as an assessment tool to judge the effectiveness of control measures in n nuisance-based control programs.In disease prevention and control programs,adult mosquito surveillance plays a much larger role,since the risk of pathogen transmission is often linked to adult mosquito density,infection rates,and age structure of the female population. PLANNING A MOSQUITO CONTROL STRATEGY Communities need to define their desire and need for mosquito control before they create a program.A scientific response to combat a nuisance mosquito may look very different from a program to combat mosquitoes carrying disease.However,it is important to remember that there is not a clear distinction between"nuisance"and"vector"species of mosquitoes.For example,Aedes A� vexans,perhaps the most widely distributed nuisance species,also appears to be involved in transmission of West Nile virus,as well as transmission of eastern equine encephalitis virus in some areas. It is important to recognize that mosquito and mosquito-borne disease control programs cannot be created at a moment's notice,as too many agencies across the United States have learned in the wake of West Nile virus.As detailed in the"Plan Ahead"section,effective,efficient,and publicly embraced programs need to be planned and initiated well in advance of the onset of a disease outbreak or mosquito control emergency following a disaster.The best disaster or emergency responses come from ongoing programs with trained personnel,adequate equipment,and good procedures already in place and operating. Communities need assistance in assessing the existing and necessary scientific and technical infrastructure for a program.Citizens need to know what proactive and reactive options are available.Communities need models of successful programs to weigh against their resources.They need information about minimum criteria and standards for programs with limited resources. They also need models for threat assessment that are timely and site-specific. Mosquito Control Strategy Basics There are several ways to prevent the emergence of adult mosquitoes,which is generally the most economical strategy.Larvae are confined to the aquatic habitat,which can be clearly identified and treated.Methods include: i • Source reduction (remove,cover,drain,fill) of larval habitats that are not environmentally sensitive or protected • Chemical control(conventional and microbial larvicides) • Biological control(mosquito fish,etc.) • Public education (role of the homeowner in reducing peridomestic larval habitats)— schools,service clubs,radio and TV,other focal points in the community Larviciding operations should be monitored by dipping or other accepted technique to assess the efficacy of the application. 37 If larval control fails,is inadequate,or not feasible in a given setting,it may be necessary to control the adult mosquitoes that emerge from the larval habitats.Adult mosquito control must cover a larger area,since adults of many species can fly long distances (ten miles or more for some species), which can drastically increase the cost of protection.Adult mosquito control methods include: • Personal protection (use of repellents,clothing,maintain door/window screens) • Public education (educate,gain public support for the program,source reduction around the home) • Adulticides (usually applied as ultra-low volume(ULU) sprays by truck-or aircraft-mounted equipment) Because adulticiding can be a divisive issue in many communities,its use should be clearly justified by using a decision matrix that specifies what events will trigger a given level of response.A decision matrix specifies a range of activities or responses to a given set of predictive parameters. [See Appendix A:Decision Matrix.] For example,recent temperature and rainfall,mosquito density, levels of virus transmission in sentinels,etc.,can be factored into decision-making.The decision matrix helps policy makers avoid indecision and provides justification and confidence for a particular course of action. Use area maps to indicate treated and untreated areas,and specify reasons for not treating an area (e.g.,environmentally sensitive,opt-out,outside district boundary,no mosquitoes,etc.). Environmental parameters,such as temperature,wind speed and wind direction should be recorded during each application. Adulticiding operations must be closely monitored,and the efficacy of the application should be assessed by pre-and post-treatment trapping,landing counts,or other techniques.All relevant application parameters (e.g.,droplet size,flow rate,etc.) must be monitored in accordance with the product label and appropriate federal or state regulations. Once communities have identified that mosquitoes are presenting a threat to the community,action must be taken based on the resources available to the state or community and the severity of the threat.Human disease and mosquito surveillance programs are necessary components for a public health mosquito-borne disease control program. MOSQUITO • R• ACTION CHECKLIST ❑ Determine the community's need for surveillance of vector-borne disease. ❑ Determine what is involved in vector-borne disease surveillance.What agencies or groups will be involved in carrying out the surveillance program? How will coordination and communication be handled between the participating agencies? ❑ Identify the options for establishing a vector-borne disease surveillance and control program.What strategies work best for a given locality?What is the state's role? ❑ Discuss how the community can control or reduce mosquito populations effectively and with the least cost and environmental disruption. ❑ Coordinate local mosquito control programs with state and federal public health agencies to receive training for the operation of surveillance systems. ❑ Get local agencies involved in gathering data about disease and mosquito population patterns. Monitoring networks require maintenance and resources. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito OPTIONS FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS Once the community has decided that there is a need for some sort of organized response to a mosquito or mosquito-borne disease problem,it is necessary to decide on the type of response and r•r the magnitude of the effort.These decisions will be impacted by a variety of considerations,such as the severity of the problem,the financial resources of the community,public perceptions and attitudes,and the availability of technical expertise.This section deals with the technical aspects of �p organized mosquito control. A primary focus of the MCC effort is to define the range of options for local mosquito programs n from the simplest,but still effective,program,to the ideal program where resources are not the gip• primary limiting factor.While this section provides options for local mosquito control programs, the role of the state in mosquito control varies from state to state,with some states providing direct n mosquito control services for local communities.Therefore,these options can be used by both state and local governments.This document assumes that the programs described focus on both disease vector control and nuisance control.It also assumes that the area to be protected has been defined through some process(buffers around the community,city/county boundary,etc.).The C following options describe three program levels: • Level I(Minimal) A� Minimal or no resources to support mosquito control activities • Level II(Intermediate) Little to moderate resources to support a program • Level III(Comprehensive) Moderate to full resources to fund a complete mosquito control program LEVEL I - MINIMAL PROGRAM (Minimal or No Resources to Support a Program) i Even when there is no staff or budget within the local community,there are things that can be done to reduce the threat of mosquito-transmitted disease and,to some extent,the irritation of pest mosquitoes.Here are some low-cost or no-cost options that will be helpful in many situations. Public education.Remember that some aspects of mosquito control are personal responsibilities. Each citizen should be made aware of ways in which they can prevent mosquito breeding on and near their property;how they can reduce the risk of being bitten by observing personal protection measures;and how they can help to inform local health agencies by reporting bird deaths or other unusual events.However,knowledge does not always lead to action.Public recognition or other rewards may increase action by the community. • Many public information brochures and other materials are available from the CDC and from state and local health departments.These can be reproduced at minimal cost and distributed with monthly utility bills or other community mailings. • The public schools can be an excellent means of educating the public.The American Mosquito Control Association,the CDC,and other groups have teaching materials for the K-12 grades,and these may be available free or for a small charge. 39 • Citizen action groups can be an extremely effective resource to spread information about mosquito control,homeowner participation,and similar issues.Be sure to refer citizens to sites with reliable information. • Educate and inform the local media.They are an important resource for delivering mosquito control messages to the public. Source reduction.Community cleanup programs can be an effective way to eliminate larval habitats from backyards,commercial sites,and abandoned premises.Service groups (e.g.,Rotary,Lions, Kiwanis,4-H clubs),churches,scouts,and similar programs can be enlisted in the effort to increase community awareness and to support cleanup programs. I ELEMENTS OF A MINIMAL PRO ❑ Institute a public information program emphasizing personal responsibility, ways in which people can prevent mosquito breeding, and how they can reduce the risk of being bitten by observing personal protection measures. ❑ Encourage reporting of unusual events, such as dead birds or sick domestic animals, to local health agencies. ❑ Institute community cleanup programs to eliminate larval habitats from backyards, commercial sites and abandoned premises. ❑ Citizen participation (reporting suspected mosquito larval habitats, reporting dead birds or other unusual events) is essential for efficient data gathering. ❑ Educate and inform the local media. LEVEL II — INTERMEDIATE PROGRAM (Little to Moderate Resources to Support a Program) Communities with limited to moderate resources available will have some capacity to conduct mos- quito control activities,but cannot mount a comprehensive program.In this situation,the first question often is,"Should we use a contractor or should we develop an in-house program?"The answer depends on what other resources are available.In particular,the knowledge and training of individuals in the local health or public works department (or mosquito control program if one is being developed) are factors.Other issues that will impact the decision include the size of the community being served,proximity to other communities (with or without existing mosquito control programs),ecology of the region,and support by the community. • In the absence of existing local expertise,it may be advisable to use a reliable contractor or,if fea- sible,form a collaborative or other arrangement with an adjoining county,parish,or municipality with an existing mosquito control program.Responsibility for program oversight and monitoring must be assigned to the appropriate agency.That agency should have the knowledge base and physical resources to carry out the program effectively. • Regardless of which approach is selected,there should be a clearly defined statement of services or deliverables,and a clear performance evaluation document.What activities will be performed? What resources (equipment,staff,insecticides,etc.)will be provided?How often will inspections be conducted?How will efficacy be measured?What happens in the event of non-performance? The second common question deals with where to allocate the scarce resources.The answer will 1 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito again depend somewhat on local conditions,but there are some generalizations that can be made. The end objective is to have a fully integrated mosquito management program that relies on a Cn thorough understanding of the ecology of the mosquitoes of the area,the extent of the disease threat or nuisance problem,and the history of the community. • The program should include all of the public education and source reduction activities identified in Level I above.Some funding could be directed at improving programs in the public schools or, if needed,additional source reduction activities (e.g.,draining or filling extensive larval r•r breeding sites). � • The next step will be to focus on larval mosquito control,begun early in the season.This requires some knowledge of the local mosquito species and their ecology.Where are the larval habitats? When do they appear in the spring or summer?Thus,some mapping and record keeping will be needed.If insecticides are used,records must be kept of when,where,and how much of each material was used on any given day.In some localities,pre- and post-treatment larval counts are P required to show whether the treatment was effective. Z • One or two mosquito traps should be purchased and placed in operation.The CDC portable light d trap or any of several similar traps have been shown to be effective.These traps can be placed at crucial sites within the community,perhaps where past experience has indicated particularly A� severe pest problems or increased disease activity.This will aid in assessing the effectiveness of the program.For example,trap counts before and after a particular control activity can be compared. As more resources become available,adjust the number of traps according to the size of the district and the variety of habitats within the district. • If additional funds are available,it may be worthwhile to purchase or contract for equipment for adult mosquito control (ULU sprayers,etc.).Since mosquitoes can fly substantial distances (from less than 1 mile to more than 15 miles,depending on the species and conditions),it may be difficult to protect communities with large outlying areas that can generate millions of mosquitoes.However,these methods can increase protection of the community from mosquitoes if an adequate area can be covered and the insecticides are applied appropriately—usually at dusk or after sunset,depending on the species being controlled. PROGRAMELEMENTS OF AN INTERMEDIATE J Continue measures established in the minimal-level program described above. Augment public education and source reduction efforts. ❑ Decide on the program format (e.g., in-house, contract, multi-jurisdictional collaborative). ❑ Decide which agency has the resources and expertise to conduct the program. Define the scope of the program-including such things as area to be covered and services to be performed-in relation to the available resources. Emphasize public education and source reduction, augmented by larval control. Consider adult mosquito control if sufficient resources are available. ❑ Ensure that all staff and public health advisors are appropriately trained and certified or licensed. ❑ Institute basic mosquito population monitoring to define the problem. ❑ Use passive disease monitoring (e.g., dead bird reporting) as an indicator of possible disease activity. Submit birds and/or mosquitoes for virus testing if such services are available. 41 LEVEL III — COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM (Moderate to Full Resources for a Program) Communities with moderate to full resources will be able to develop and implement more compre- hensive mosquito control programs.The recommendations in this section are drawn largely from the American Mosquito Control Association's Bulletin#4.30 Please refer to that document or to the many excellent training manuals developed by state mosquito control associations for additional guidance in organizing a full-scale program. A general principle of integrated control programs is that a specific control measure is only institut- ed when an action threshold,or"trigger,"is met.An example of thresholds and suggested responses for West Nile virus activity is shown in Appendix A,Decision Matrix.These are broadly defined thresholds,and individual states or communities may wish to institute more precise thresholds that reflect local experience and concerns. One of the first things to recognize,once funding becomes available,is that mosquito control is a year-round activity.The information in this section gives a general picture of the activities that will be needed for a basic year-round mosquito control program. PRE- OR OFF-SEASON ACTIVITIES General Issues Many activities of the mosquito control program will normally be carried out in the"off season" when mosquitoes are not a problem—usually during the winter.These activities include staff training and certification;equipment purchase,repair and calibration;budgeting and other financial activities;and analysis of the previous year's data.In some areas,source reduction activities (see below) can also be done at this time. Much of the information collected during mosquito control activities consists of maps,tables,and charts.Most of the information also is linked to a physical location.For this reason,it is useful to have a mapping program available to the mosquito control program.This can be done by coordinat- ing with another city or county department that already has a geographical information systems (GIS) section or activity.Alternatively,there are inexpensive software programs that can be used if the expertise is available within the control program.The CDC offers a free software package, EpiInfo,which also contains a simple GIS program,EpiMap.31 This provides an inexpensive entry into the world of in-house data management and mapping.EpiInfo can also be used to design data collection forms,data entry screens,and elementary graphing capabilities. Surveillance Surveillance,as applied to vector-borne disease,is the organized monitoring of levels of virus activity,vector populations,infections in vertebrate hosts,human cases,weather,and other factors to detect or predict changes in the transmission dynamics of arboviruses.Since all of this information is rarely collected by a single agency,it is extremely important that the various data- collecting agencies actively communicate and exchange information.28,29 • Review all published data,past health department records,and other data to determine the types of mosquito-borne diseases,numbers of cases by year and date of onset(or diagnosis),economic and other costs,if known.Review complaint calls for nuisance mosquitoes by year and date,and determine the peak periods of nuisance problems. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health confronts the Mosquito • Collect and review historical meteorological data for the area:temperature,rainfall,humidity,and wind direction.Plot this information against mosquito abundance (or nuisance calls) to see if there are any predictors of high mosquito abundance,disease transmission,etc. • Map the locations of high-risk populations (e.g.,elderly citizens),using local census or other community data.This will allow the program to prioritize resources if an epidemic should occur. �D • Collect and review topographic maps,aerial photography,and other similar resources to help in r+ locating probable larval habitats,concentrations of bird or other hosts of mosquito-transmitted viruses. n M • Use the data collected above to decide where to place light traps or other sampling stations,and where to concentrate efforts to monitor larvae. n �D • Based on the foregoing information,select the areas at greatest risk within the service area (city,district,county,etc.) and plan to concentrate the available resources in those areas. Species Delimitation d In some respects,a mosquito control program can be compared to a military campaign:it is crucial >y to know the enemy.The more that is known about the important species in the area,the more likely they can be effectively and economically controlled. • Habitat mapping.The off-season is a good time to map the locations of larval habitats within the mosquito control district.It may also be useful to map major sources of mosquitoes that may be located outside the boundaries of the control district,if these are known or suspected sources of problems during the mosquito season. • Seasonal characteristics.If not already done,take this opportunity to construct graphs of season- al abundance of mosquitoes,by species.This should be done for larval surveys as well as adult surveys.Over several years,it will be possible to construct an average count for each species,by week.When the current counts for a particular species rise above the long-term average,this may indicate an emerging problem. Control Activities This is the most visible part of the program,but its success is strongly dependent on attention to the points covered above. • Source reduction.Several types of source reduction can be carried out during the off-season: clearing of stream channels,community cleanup (e.g.,door-to-door inspections,tire amnesty programs),and similar activities. • Larval control.Most control is done later in the season,but some areas can be treated before they become flooded by spring rains or runoff. • Adult control.No adult control is done at this time. • Public education.Public education,especially activities focused on K-12 school programs,can be carried out at any time of the year.Arrange for presentations at meetings of civic groups,nature groups,service clubs,and other groups that have an impact on the local community.To reach the agricultural community,coordinate activities with local county extension agents where those services are available. 43 EARLY-SEASON ACTIVITIES Surveillance In early-season activities,as above,surveillance gathers the intelligence data needed to combat the mosquitoes and prevent disease transmission. • Larvae.With the arrival of spring warming and rain or flooding,Aedes and Ochlerotatus eggs will hatch,and diapausing Culex females will emerge,take a blood meal,and begin laying eggs. This is the time to begin monitoring larval populations.Triggers for control action should be determined:how many larvae per dip represent a health threat or a nuisance problem? • Adults.Similarly,light traps,gravid traps,or other methods should be used regularly to monitor adult mosquito abundance.Triggers for control action should be determined:how many females per trap night of a particular species pose a health threat or a nuisance problem? • Disease surveillance.Vertebrate hosts(e.g.,dead birds as indicator for West Nile virus) should be monitored for evidence of virus activity.This may be simply recording and mapping the locations of dead birds reported by the public.Depending on other resources,a state laboratory or other facility may be available to perform virus testing on dead birds.Test kits are available for testing dead birds and mosquito pools without elaborate laboratory facilities.Mosquito infection rates can be an important indicator of a disease threat.The state health laboratory or other facility may be able to provide this service.Infection in domestic animals(horses,etc.) and humans is an indicator of impending trouble and an indication that immediate action is required. [See Appendix A:Decision Matrix.] Species Delimitation • Habitat mapping should be continued during the course of the mosquito season.New locations should be plotted on the map or entered into the GIS database.New locations should be added to the inspection and treatment routes of the field staff. • Seasonal abundance characteristics may give evidence of approaching problems.Are the numbers of Culex pipiens far above normal?What about Culex tarsalis(western states)? Is Aedes vexans more abundant than normal? Control Activities • Source reduction.Activities can continue during this period.Efforts should concentrate increas- ingly on the elimination of potential disease vector species'larval habitats. • Larval control.Biocontrol agents,such as mosquito eating fish (Gambusia spp.and others), copepods,or other agents,can help to balance out a good control program.`Biological pesticides" such as Bacillus thuringiensis var.israelensis(B.t.i.) and Bacillus sphaericus are effective mosquito control agents. • Chemical control of larvae includes a variety of materials.Larvicidal oils and monomolecular films cover the water surface and prevent the larvae from breathing.Growth regulators,such as methoprene,affect the development of the mosquito larvae,preventing the adult from emerging from the pupa.Several other materials are available in some areas or for particular applications. • Adult control.Selective use of adulticides may be advisable if there is evidence of virus activity early in the season,or if nuisance species are at high levels. Association of state and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito • Public education.Newspaper,radio,and television announcements can be prepared to increase ci public awareness of the threat of mosquito-transmitted disease.Coordination with local media v� can increase the community's awareness of the types of work done by the mosquito control program. �D MID- AND LATE-SEASON ACTIVITIES �D Activities for the remainder of the mosquito control season will be much the same as for the early season,with the exception that more and more effort will be dedicated to larviciding and,when n needed,adulticiding.Disease surveillance data will guide the level of mosquito control,especially �D control of adult mosquitoes.Public education and close contact with media resources will be a continuing need. n �D As mosquito populations decline with the onset of cold weather,the program will return to the pre-season/off-season routine,in preparation for the next year. V ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVEPROGRAM A� ❑ Continue measures established in the intermediate-level program described above. Augment public education and source reduction efforts. ❑ In collaboration with other relevant agencies and stakeholders, define the full scope of the expanded program. ❑ Establish an advisory board or similar structure to provide feedback and communication between the program and relevant stakeholders. ❑ Hire and train appropriate professional staff needed to fulfill the requirements of the expanded program. ❑ Procure the necessary equipment, chemicals and other materials needed to carry out the expanded program. ❑ Build on the existing monitoring program, establishing a long-term database for comparison to current-year data. ❑ Prepare an emergency response plan for dealing with vector-borne disease outbreaks. ❑ Increase disease surveillance activities by instituting sentinel flocks, mosquito testing or other techniques as appropriate. ❑ Build risk maps to assign priorities to areas within the district using census data, mosquito abundance data, disease incidence and other relevant data. ❑ Maintain good communication among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state public health and local public health agencies. ❑ Evaluate the governmental disease surveillance network. ❑ Evaluate and improve the disease reporting system among physicians, hospitals, laboratories and public health agencies. ❑ Develop and maintain a responsive animal and vector disease reporting system among veterinarians, wildlife agencies, the public, mosquito control contractors, laboratories and state and local public health agencies. ❑ Keep the public and public officials informed regarding disease incidence projections, cases identified and response planning. 45 Inform the Public lip Vi A� �Gxxx 1 . INTRODUCTION ,...� Mosquito control programs need the support of an informed public.Many of the successful O strategies for control involve individuals,their families,and their neighborhoods.The public also has concerns about the problems related to the mosquito populations and about insecticides and spraying. Informing the public shows a respect for the community and will lead to a stronger,better supported program that is tailored to the community and its values.Development of a communica- tions plan that includes public education about preventing the breeding of mosquitoes,personal protection guidance,and the activities and success of the agencies involved is critical to the success of the program. n t' A • 1 {� r i 7 DEFINE THE GOALS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION The public information challenges of mosquito control are many.Mosquito control includes two areas of responsibility:individual and public.Areas of individual responsibility relate to personal actions residents can take to reduce personal risk from mosquitoes,such as eliminating breeding pools on their property and using insect repellants.Public responsibility relates to the development and maintenance of community-wide mosquito control activities and programs.Public information strategies will vary based on which area of responsibility is being impacted and the goal to be achieved.The information needs vary depending on whether the goal is to: • Educate policy makers and gain their support for policy issues; • Inform the public about mosquito control generally; • Provide instructions to the public to prevent exposure and lower risk; • Educate the public regarding a permanent control strategy; • Deal with a public health crisis,such as West Nile virus; • Inform the public of pesticide risks and benefits;lo • Inform the public about the use and timing of pesticides in their community;or • Gain support for financial resources for mosquito control. 47 i A respected spokesperson should be identified.This may be the local health official or another public official with credibility and profile in the community.The spokesperson(s) could come from academia,the medical community,the local hospital,or public health.The lead agency at the local level will want to designate a public information officer or team to develop materials,inform the press,respond to questions,and network with information officers in related organizations,such as emergency medical services,hospitals,county or city manager's offices,the state,etc. Strategies to inform the public can include press education prior to the mosquito season;educa- tional meetings with policy-makers such as city councils and county commissioners;preparation of materials such as fact sheets for the public;web-site development;plans for a hotline and recorded messages;and regular information to the public about mosquito surveillance and disease incidence. MOSQUITO ' • PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTION It is easy for policy makers to forget that mosquito control has public health implications. M For example, in 2004, one western state proposed to take 25% of the revenues from its mosquito control districts to help address the state budget shortfall. After human cases of WNV were identified, the funding was left in place with the mosquito control districts. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito CREATE EFFECTIVE MESSAGES A proactive approach will involve developing a simple message,which resonates and is memorable. Many states have already initiated public health campaigns such as the 2003"Fight the Bite"cam- paign.When developing campaigns,it is important to have a unified message across the state.Other public health campaigns may serve as models for community awareness.A successful campaign: • Utilizes web sites,public service announcements and information hotlines as tools for CD community education and involvement; • Develops multiple strategies to reach people at home,work,school,in shopping areas and in places of worship; n • Provides succinct messages to the public throughout the year and emphasizes prevention as the best protection against illness;and • Assures that programs are sustainable even in the absence of mosquito-borne illness in the community. INFORM • ❑ Develop an information exchange process that will keep the public in tune with decisions and anticipated actions. ❑ Determine who should be included in the public information network to plan for the information campaign or campaigns.What sister agencies or neighboring jurisdictions need to be involved? ❑ Decide if there will be proactive press education prior to the mosquito season. ❑ Determine who will develop and update web sites.What links will be established? ❑ Decide what specific information can be given to the public about the use and timing of pesticide applications. ❑ Identify language barriers that need to be considered when developing campaigns. ❑ Anticipate objections to the program by a minority opinion that may be vocal enough to disrupt the project or lead to minority reports. ❑ Establish a follow up mechanism such as a survey to determine the success of education and outreach. ❑ Develop a pre-season campaign to educate the public. ❑ Designate a spokesperson to handle medical questions and work with the coroner's office and the hospitals if death and/or illness occur. ❑ Prepare fact sheets for physicians and the public. ❑ Educate key decision-makers. ❑ Maintain statewide data and coordinate information campaigns with a single, unified message to the public on prevention of mosquito-borne illness. 49 � h i�� .� ifs 1 t � F� ��� \t �i yl x -'.� •1 r� ��� � �, _ ' ���` 1 � yt �` ,.� ` �t,, � ,,� r�. i k` �' �l �% i _. 1 �� -- 3Y"4 _ 'G. .,. � fi � a1L�+t��ps �� a�� !(;v fit. I�' 1 �„ �+(„ 1' p `. _��.,„'- .mot- .. r�, ,} � •Y kP �' f � J,�•,y� e.v' t i r� �� �"� �. �{" L rc <.�� _ C } „� .�� s �'`� 1,t. � M,�.s n " � --. ,' k .. '�"�Y. �•rKy t' .e ^�M1 '� N _n. ; j �, �K.J \\ r�- J ,�` ,r�,ypd' A. g L'S't. CJ/w\I l5 }S� _ / u « / w h;�fY � t ,�� :�r t5 � may, ��. � 4����� dry,'i� d .�`. Y <.l '� Sit .• / � ~ ✓ The mosquito is an extraordinarily efficient vector for human disease.Through the years,the tiny CA mosquito has caused life threatening epidemics throughout the world.Malaria,dengue fever, encephalitis,and West Nile virus have killed and maimed because of the unique ability of the mosquito to spread disease.There are many reasons to develop and maintain mosquito control programs.Mosquitoes are a"nuisance;"they are an economic threat to tourism,small businesses, agriculture,and real estate.As recent history has demonstrated,mosquitoes also continue to r"'t pose a deadly threat to health if left unchecked.The United States experienced 15,000 cases of West Nile virus in the most recent epidemic with significant loss of life and severe disability. a Public health has not always been appropriately involved in mosquito control.Mosquito control is a multi-discipline effort that can and should involve many agencies and organizations at the local,state,and federal level.Public health may not be the primary agency for mosquito control, but public health data,alerts,warnings,and information often drive the political will to reduce mosquito populations and habitats.When programs are started for a specific disease threat,there is often a temptation to abandon control efforts once the threat has passed.As history demonstrates, the mighty mosquito always returns and frequently with a previously unknown and unpredictable disease threat.Public health has a responsibility and an opportunity to be part of a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to continued mosquito control through partnerships and teamwork at all levels of government. 51 Sources Cited in the Document 1 Scott TW,and Weaver SC. 1989.Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus:epidemiology and evolution of mosquito transmission.Advances in Virus Research 37:277-328. 2 Ackerknecht EH. 1945.Malaria in the upper Mississippi Valley,1760-1900.Bull.History Med.Suppl. No.4: 1-142. 3 Smolinski,MS.,MA.Hamburg,and J Lederberg(Eds.).2003.Microbial Threats to Health:Emergence,Detection, and Response.Washington,DC,National Academy Press. 4 AMCA. 1999.Directory of Mosquito Control Agencies in the United States,American Mosquito Control Association. 5 Zohrabian,A,MI Meltzer,R Ratard,K Billah,NA Molinari,K Roy,RD Scott II,and LR Petersen.2004. West Nile virus economic impact,Louisiana,2002.Emerging Infectious Diseases 10:1736-1744. 6 Villari,P,A Spielman,N Komar,M McDowell,and RJ Timperi.1995.The economic burden imposed by a residual case of eastern encephalitis.Am J Trop Med Hyg 52,no. 1:8-13. 7 Utz,JT,CS Apperson,JN.MacCormack,M Salyers,EJ Dietz,and JT McPherson.2003.Economic and social impacts of La Crosse encephalitis in western North Carolina.Am J Trop Med Hyg 69,no.5:509-18. 8 Dein FJ,Carpenter JW,Clark GG,Montali RJ,Crabbs CL,Tsai TF,and Docherty DE. 1986.Mortality of captive whooping cranes caused by eastern equine encephalitis virus.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 189,no.9: 1006-10. 9 Mosquito control and exposure to aerial and surface spayed pesticides:Virginia and North Carolina,September 2003.Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner,CDC-EIS NCEH.Fifth National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States,Denver,Colorado,February 3-5,2004.Available on the Internet at: httl2://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/conf/February 2004.htm. 10 Relative risk evaluation-mosquito control and West Nile virus.Presentation by Robert Peterson,Montana State University.Fifth National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States,Denver,Colorado,February 3-5, 2004.Available on the Internet at:httl2://www.cdc.goy/ncidod/dvbid/­westnfle/confiFebruary 2004.htm. 11 US Congress.2004.Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,June 25, 1947,as amended.Available on the Internet at:httl2://www.el2a.gov/ol2l2OOOOl/regulating/fifra.]2df 12 A Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices.Available on the Internet at: httl2://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC112rimer.html. 13 The Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act(MASH Act)-A copy of the Act and its status can be found at httn•//thomas loc gov/cgi-bin/bdquerylz?d108•SNO1015•TOM•/bss/`dlO8queryhtml.A summary of the Act can be found at www.ncsl.org/statefed/health/HR4793summary.pdf. 14 Dame,DA.2002.Commentary-Public health agency support for vector control.Wing Beats 13(4):6-7. 15 Dame,DA and TR Fasulo.2002.Public-Health Pesticide Applicator Training Manual.University of Florida, Gainesville,FL.(Available from AMCA bookstore or online at httl2://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/). Association of State and Territorial Health Officials ( Public Health Confronts the Mosquito �D �D 16 Florida Mosquito Control Association-httl2://www.floridamosquito.orgi.FMCA produces manuals and on n mosquito control in the Southeastern U.S.-see:httl2://www.floridamosq.uito.org/ForSale/salenew.html for a list �p of currently available publications). 17 Durso,SL.(Ed.).1996.The Biology and Control of Mosquitoes in California.Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California,Elk Grove,CA 95624.Available for purchase on the Internet at: http://mvcac.org/pubs.htm.MVCAC produces a variety of manuals and documents on mosquito control in the Western U.S. 18 Pratt,HD and CG Moore.1993.Mosquitoes of Public Health Importance and Their Control.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Public Health Service,Atlanta,GA(available on-line at httl2://www.cdc.govLncidod/dvbid/westnile/education.htm). 19 The following EPA web pages contain information of use to mosquito control programs: U.S.EPA Office of pesticides web page-http://www.el2a.gov/1esticides/index.htm; U.S.EPA Office of pesticides fact sheets-httl2://www.el2a.gov/12esticides/factsheets/index.htm;and U.S.EPA mosquito control fact sheets-httl2://www epa gov/pesticides/factsheets/mosq,uitocontrol htm. 20 National Pesticide Information Center,Oregon State University,Corvallis,OR.httl2://www.nl2ic.orst.edu/. 21 Eldridge,BF and JD Edman(Eds.).2000.Medical Entomology-A Textbook on Public Health and Veterinary Problems Caused by Arthropods.Kluwer Academic Publishers. 22 Marquardt,WC.(Ed.).2004.Biology of Disease Vectors.2d.ed.New York,NY.Elsevier. 23 Monath,TR(Ed.).1988.The Arboviruses:Epidemiology and Ecology(5 vols.).Boca Raton,FL,CRC Press. 24 Mullen,GR and LA Durden(Eds.)2002.Medical and Veterinary Entomology.Elsevier Science. 25 Service,MW. 1993 Mosquito Ecology.Field Sampling Methods.2d Ed.London,Elsevier Applied Science. 26 Spielman,A and M D'antonio.2001.Mosquito:A Natural History of Our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe. New York,NY.Hyperion. 27 Teutsch,SM,and RE Churchill(Eds.) 1994.Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance.New York,NY. Oxford University Press. 28 Moore,CG,RG McLean,et al. 1993.Guidelines for Arbovirus Surveillance in the United States.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Public Health Service,Fort Collins,CO.Available at:http://www.cdc.govL ncidod/dvbid/arbor/arboguid.pdf. 29 CDC.2001.Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:Revised Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention,and Control.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Public Health Service,Fort Collins,CO. httn://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/wnv-guidelines-apr-2001 pdf. 30 AMCA.1990.Organization for Mosquito Control.Bulletin#4.Eatontown,NJ,American Mosquito Control Association. 31 EpiInfo is available on the Internet at:http://www.cdc.goy/epiinfo/. 53 Glossary of Terms Aedes:A genus(group of species)of mosquitoes.Several important disease vectors and some nuisance species belong to the genus Aedes. AMCA:American Mosquito Control Association. Arbovirus:Contraction of arthropod-borne virus. ASTHO:Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Adulticide:A chemical designed or used to kill adult insects,such as mosquitoes(adulticides,adulticiding). Aquaculture:The culture or rearing of aquatic organisms(e.g.,fish,crayfish,oysters,etc.),usually for commercial purposes;Aquaculturalist-A person who raises aquatic organisms. Bacillus sphaericus:A species of bacteria used as a larvicide against many mosquito species. Bacillus thuringiensis var.israelensis:A strain of bacteria that kills the larvae of many mosquito species. Biocontrol:Also,biological control;the use of living agents to control insects or other pests. B.t.i.:See Bacillus thuringiensis var.israelensis. Culex:A genus(group of species)of mosquitoes.Several Culex species are important disease vectors. Diapause:A dormant physiological state,an adaptation for over wintering in cold climates;hibernation. Eastern equine encephalitis:A mosquito-transmitted virus disease found mainly along the Atlantic and Gulf coastal areas of the United States;also,eastern equine encephalomyelitis. EEE:See eastern equine encephalitis. EpiInfo:A highly portable database program produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commonly used by epidemiologists. EpiMap:A simple,but effective mapping program that operates within EpiInfo. Ecotone:The border or interface between two distinct habitats(for example,forest and pasture). FEMA:Federal Emergency Management Agency(now part of the Department of Homeland Security). FIFRA:Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act of 1947,as amended. Fungicide:A chemical used to control fungi. Gambusia:A small freshwater fish,Gambusia affinis,commonly used in mosquito control. IPM:Integrated pest management.The use of all available methods to control mosquitoes or other pest species,within an ecological context,in such a manner that economic damage is avoided and adverse side effects are minimized.The acronym IMM(Integrated Mosquito Management)is also occasionally used to describe IPM in mosquito control. IR:Infection rate(also MIR--minimum infection rate);the portion of the vector population that is infected with a pathogen. Larvicide:A chemical designed or used to control immature insects,such as mosquitoes(larvicides,larviciding). Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito fD PD Locality:In this document,locality is a general term referring to any governmental or other geographically n defined entity,including towns,cities,special districts,counties,states or regions. MCC:Mosquito Control Collaborative;the group responsible for producing this document. Methoprene:A larvicide that is effective in controlling mosquitoes and black flies. Monitor:To observe an event or process,not necessarily with the intent of acting on the information collected. NACCHO:National Association of County and City Health Officials. NALBOH:National Association of Local Boards of Health. NCID/DVBID:National Center for Infectious Diseases/Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases.The component of CDC with responsibility for prevention and control of most mosquito,tick,and flea-transmitted diseases in the U.S. Ochlerotatus:A genus(group of species)of mosquitoes.Many nuisance species belong to the genus Ochlerotatus.These mosquitoes are very similar to Aedes species. Peridomestic:The area around the home. Rodenticide:A chemical used to control rodents. SARS:Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome.A newly emerged viral infection that can cause very high mortality in humans. SLE:See St.Louis encephalitis. SPHVCC:State Public Health Vector Control Conference.An organization composed of one representative from each state and territory,usually the person responsible for vector control at the state level. St.Louis encephalitis:(SLE)A mosquito-transmitted virus found throughout the United States,transmitted primarily by Culex mosquitoes. Surveillance:In public health and vector control,surveillance encompasses the collection,analysis,and dissemination of data,usually with the intent of using the data in the decision-making process(see box on page 26).Also,"the epidemiological study of disease as a dynamic process"(Teutsch and Churchill 1994). ULV Ultra-Low Volume.The use of very small amounts of chemical,broken up into very small droplets,to control adult mosquitoes and other pests. Vector:An organism,such as a mosquito or tick,that transmits an infectious agent from one host to another. WEE:See western equine encephalitis. Western equine encephalitis:A mosquito-transmitted virus found throughout the western United States;also, western equine encephalomyelitis. WNV.(Also WN)West Nile virus.A mosquito-transmitted virus introduced into the U.S.in 1999,now distributed throughout the U.S.,southern Canada,Mexico,and Central America. Zoonosis:(pl.zoonoses)A disease of non-human animals that can be transmitted to humans.Many vector-borne diseases are also zoonoses. 55 Resources for Additional Information There are many resources to help in establishing a mosquito control program in addition to those cited above and in the text.The following list provides a basic sampling of these resources from gov- ernment agencies,professional associations,and universities.At the time of publication,the Internet addresses (URLs) and their contents listed in the document are correct.However,readers should bear in mind that Internet addresses and their contents can change without notice.Since the web addresses (URLs) of sites can change over time,it may be necessary to go to the"links"option of a major site,to locate the most recent web connection. Journals • Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology(S.O.V.E., 1966 Compton Ave.,Corona,CA 92881) - http://www.sove.org/ • Emerging Infectious Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta GA 30333) -http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/index.htm • Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. (American Mosquito Control Association, P.O.Box 234,Eatontown,NJ 07727-0234) - http://www.mosquito.org/ • Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases (Mary Anne Liebert,Inc.,Publishers) -httl2://www.liebert- 12ub.com/publication.aspx?pub id=67 • Wing Beats (Florida Mosquito Control Association&AMCA,P.O.Box 60005,Fort Myers,FL 33906) -http://www.floridamosquito.orgi Agencies and Organizations The following list of organizations is just a sampling of the many available resources. • Americana Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) -American Mosquito Control Association, White House,681 US#l,North Brunswick,NJ 08902; (732) 214-8899,Fax: (732) 214-0110 - http//www.mosquuito.or�/ (This site has links to many state,regional,and university mosquito and vector control web pages.) • Armed Forces Pest Management Board-WRAMC,Forest Glen Annex,Building 172,6900 Georgia Avenue,Northwest,Washington,DC 20307-5001,(301)295-7476-http://www.afpmb.org. • Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) - 1275 K Street NW Suite 800, Washington,DC 20005-4006; (202) 371-9090,Fax: (202) 371-9797-http://www.astho.org/. See also http://www.statepublichealth.Qrg for links to state health agencies. • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Division of Vector-borne Infectious Diseases- 1600 Clifton Rd.,Atlanta GA 30333 -http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/ • Florida Mosquito Control Association-http://www.floridamosquito.org/ Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito f'D �D • Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California-660 J Street,Suite 480,Sacramento,CA 95814 --httl2://www.mvcac.org/ n CD • National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) - 1100 17th Street,Second Floor Washington,DC 20036; (202) 783-5550,Fax: (202) 783-1583 -http://www.nacchg.orgt • New Jersey Mosquito Control Association- Headlee Labs, 180 Jones Ave,New Brunswick,NJ 08901 - http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/insects/njmca.htm • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection-P.O.Box 402 Trenton,NJ 08625-0402 - http://www.state.nj.us/dep/mosquito/ • Society for Vector Ecology(S.O.V.E.), 1966 Compton Ave.,Corona,CA 92881 - http://www.sove.orgl • State Public Health Vector Control Conference(SPHVCC) - c/o Dr.Roger S.Nasci, CDC/NCID/DVBID,P.O.Box 2087,Fort Collins,CO 80522 • U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA),Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) - http://www.al2his.usda. ov/lpa/issues/West Nile Virus/West Nile Virus html • University of Florida Public Health Pest Control web page-http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/ • University extension and research medical/veterinary entomology programs in many states have helpful staff and publications.Contact your state land grant university for more information. Cooperative State Research,Education,and Extension Service,Local Extension Offices- http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index html Miscellaneous • CDC Evaluation Working Group -Examples of evaluation tools and resources that may be helpful during the formation and implementation of a mosquito control program can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm. • Public Health Foundation-For insight to non-technical skills that may be required of the workforce,visit http://www.train.org.Click on the Core Competencies prompt and then scroll through the background documents found on the left side of the page.It is important to read the introduction in order to properly apply the skills described later in the document. 57 Appendix A Suggested Guidelines for Phased Response to West Nile Virus Surveillance Data* ProbabilityRisk Definition Category Outbreak 0 None Off-season:adult vectors inactive;climate unsuitable. 1 Remote Spring,summer,or fall:areas anticipating West Nile virus (WNV)epizootic based on previous WNV activity in the region;no current surveillance findings indicating WNV epizootic activity in the area. 2 Low Summer,or fall:areas with limited or sporadic WNV epizootic activity in birds and/or mosquitoes.No positives prior to August. 3 Moderate Spring,summer,or fall:areas with initial confirmation of epizootic WNW in birds before August;a horse and/or a human case;or sustained WNV activity in birds and/or mosquitoes. 4 High Spring,summer,or fall:quantitative measures indicating WNV epizootic activity at a level suggesting high risk of human infection(e.g.,high dead bird densities).In early summer,sustained high mosquito infection rates,multiple positive mosquito species,horse or mammal cases indicating escalating epizootic transmission,or a human case and high levels of epizootic activity.Areas with early season positive surveillance indicators where WN epidemic activity has occurred in the past. 5 Outbreak Multiple confirmed cases in humans;conditions favoring in progress continued transmission to humans(e.g.,persistent high infection rate in mosquitoes,continued avian mortality due to WNV). Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito rD CD fD Recommended .. n rD Develop West Nile virus response plan.Secure surveillance and control resources necessary to enable emergency response.Initiate community outreach and public education programs.Conduct audience research to develop/target education&community involvement.Contact community partners. Response as in category 0,plus:conduct entomologic survey(inventory and map mosquito populations,monitor larval and adult mosquito density);initiate source reduction;use larvicides at specific sources identified by entomologic survey and targeted at likely amplifying and bridge vector species;maintain avian mortality,vector and virus surveillance;expand community outreach and public education programs focused on risk potential and personal protection,and emphasize residential source reduction;maintain surveillance(avian mortality,mosquito density/infection rate, human encephalitis/meningitis and equine illness). Response as in category 1,plus:increase larval control,source reduction,and public education emphasizing personal protection measures,particularly among the elderly.Enhance human surveillance and activities to further quantify epizootic activity(e.g.,mosquito trapping and testing).Implement adulticide applications if vector populations exceed locally established threshold levels,emphasizing areas where surveillance indicates potential for human risk to increase. Response as in category 2,plus:intensify adult mosquito control in areas where surveillance indicates human risk;initiate adult mosquito control if not already in progress;initiate visible activities in community to increase attention to WNV transmission risk(speaker,social marketing efforts, community mobilization for source reduction,etc.);work with collaborators to reduce risks to elderly (e.g.,screen repair). Response as in category 3,plus:expand public information program to include TV,radio,and newspapers(use of repellents,personal protection,continued source reduction,risk communication about adult mosquito control);increase visibility of public messages,engage key local partners(e.g., government officials,religious leaders)to speak about WNV;intensify and expand active surveillance for human cases;intensify adult mosquito control program,repeating applications in areas of high risk or human cases.Re-schedule public outdoor events(e.g.,sports events,block dances,concerts,etc.) to periods of minimum mosquito activity. Response as in category 4,plus:intensify emergency adult mosquito control program repeating applications as necessary to achieve adequate control.Enhance risk communication about adult mosquito control.Monitor efficacy of spraying on target mosquito populations.If outbreak is widespread and covers multiple jurisdictions,consider a coordinated widespread aerial adulticide application;emphasize urgency of personal protection through community leaders and media;and emphasize use of repellent at visible public events. Local and regional characteristics may alter the risk level at which specific actions must be taken. *CDC.2001. EpidemictEpizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:Revised Guidelines for Surveillance, 59 Prevention,and Control. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, Fort Collins,CO.Available at http://www.cdc.aov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/wnvauidelines2001 pdf. Appendix B Suggested Components for Bids or Contracts for a Mosquito Control Program Governmental agencies may need to purchase mosquito control services from private vendors. The following reflects components that may be included in bid and/or contract specifications for a quality program and effective results.Any agency contracting for services should contact their agency attorney for guidance. Description of Services • Surveillance,mapping,and monitoring of potential mosquito sites • Monitoring and suppression of larval and adult populations • Requirement to use integrated pest/mosquito control methods and materials sanctioned for use by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S.Department of Agriculture,and the American Mosquito Control Association. • Public outreach program including: • 24 hour phone line • 24 hour response/resolution timeline • printed materials and media advertisements • information presentations • advanced public notices of scheduled sprayings whenever feasible • provisions to exclude properties from being sprayed at owner's request whenever feasible • Reports detailing all larviciding,trapping and adulticiding activities • Reports of public outreach and citizen interaction activities • Year-end reports summarizing the season's results and activities with recommendations for the following year's program • Copies of all maps,records,logs,complaints and correspondence upon request • Description of proposed staffing levels • Description and number of major equipment items • Description of the anticipated activities,methods,and materials to be used including: • Pesticides with EPA Establishment Number and Registration Numbers • Requirement to use pesticides consistent with FIFRA (Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) • Application rate • Acreage to be covered • Times of coverage • Details of reporting • Need for neighborhood notification • Hotline,if necessary,or a 24-hour local customer access telephone number for complaints and information • Monitoring data • Timelines,including whether contract is multi-year,due dates,etc. • Methods used for surveillance • Control methods • Evaluation plan • Access to real-time surveillance,mapping,and control data,including maps • Access to contractor personnel during regular hours and after-hours emergency access • Standards for resolution of complaints,e.g.24 hour Association of State and Territorial Health Officials I Public Health Confronts the Mosquito CD Description of Contractor n • Name and address of company or corporation with notarized signature page • Name of designated contact person with contact information • Names and addresses of the principal employees or officers with description of their qualifications • Proof of licenses and certificates required for services • Proof of insurance,bonds,or other surety • Indemnifications of governmental agency from lawsuits generated by contractor negligence • Training and certification of employees • List of references Financial Arrangements • Payment,terms of payment,cost of per acre (if applicable),larviciding per basin or drain,larval site inspection services,surveillance cost per trap per night • Assurance that all goods are free of all liens,encumbrances,and security interests • Warranties on any equipment go to the contracting agency and to any future owners of the equipment • Contract subject to availability of funding Responsibilities of Governmental Agency • Terms of bid opening and date and time of submission • Activities to be performed by governmental staff • Payments will be paid for all goods and services 30 days after receipt of services • Staff contact with phone numbers and address • Provision for extension or expansion of services • Circumstances justifying cancellation of agreement • Public health pesticide applicator certification for advisory staff Standard Contract Items • Equal Employment Opportunity assurance • Workers Compensation • Comprehensive general liability insurance and automobile insurance 61 k r 4 Notes I r t Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Public Health Confronts the Mosquito City of Seattle .� y Sheila Strehle Strategic Advisor Seattle Public Utilities Seattle Municipal Tower Tel:(206)684-5846 700 5th Avenue,P.O.Box 34018 Fax:(206)684-4631 Seattle,WA 98 1 24-40 18 Cell:(206)240-8248 www.seattle.gov/util sheilo.strehle@seattle.gov PERMIT NO: WAG—992000 Coverage Date: Issuance Date: April 10, 2002 Effective Date: May 10, 2002 Expiration Date: May 10, 2007 Modified June 8, 2004 AQUATIC MOSQUITO CONTROL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE GENERAL PERMIT State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington as amended and The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (The Clean Water Act) Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq. Until this permit expires, is modified or revoked,permittees that have properly obtained coverage by this permit are authorized to discharge to waters of the state in accordance with the special and general conditions that follow. David C. P r, Manager Water Quality Program Department of Ecology Page 1 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 • TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS................................................................3 PERMIT COVERAGE .................................................................................................................5 C1. ACTIVITIES COVERED....................................................................................................5 C2. GEOGRAPHIC AREA COVERED...................................:................................................5 C3. HOW CAN COVERAGE BE OBTAINED........................................................................5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................6 S 1. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS............................................................................................6 A. Discharges................................................................................................................6 B. Temporary Water Quality Modification..................................................................7 S2. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................7 S3. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS...........................................8 A. Annual Reporting.....................................................................................................8 B. Records Retention....................................................................................................9 C. Recording of Results................................................................................................9 D. Noncompliance Notification....................................................................................9 • S4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: IPMS..................................................................10 S5. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE............................................................................................10 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.............................................................................10 P1. PUBLIC NOTICE..............................................................................................................10 P2. POSTING REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................I I GENERALCONDITIONS.........................................................................................................11 G 1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS ...........................................................................................11 G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................................................I I G3. RIGHT OF ENTRY...........................................................................................................11 G4. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COVERED ACTIVITIES ............:..........................I I G5. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE.....................................................................................12 G6. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION.........................................12 G7. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF COVERAGE ..................................13 G8. TRANSFER OF PERMIT COVERAGE...........................................................................13 G9. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.....................................................................................................13 G 10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.....13 G I L COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES.............................................13 G 12. ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS........................................................13 G13. REMOVED SUBSTANCES.............................................................................................14 • G14. USE OF ACCREDITED LABORATORIES....................................................................14 Page 2 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 G15. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................14 • G16. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT.............................................................................................................................15 G17. APPEALS..........................................................................................................................15 G18. DUTY TO REAPPLY.......................................................................................................15 G 19. TERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS...............................................................15 G20. TERMINATION OF COVERAGE UPON ISSUANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT.............................................................................................................................16 G21. ENFORCEMENT..............................................................................................................16 G22. SEVERABILITY...............................................................................................................16 G23. PAYMENT OF FEES........................................................................................................16 • Page 3 of 16 Permit No. WAG — 992000 • SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS Refer to the Special and General Conditions of this permit for additional submittal requirements. Permit Submittal Frequency First Submittal Date Section S2.A Annual Monitoring Plan Yearly February 1, 2003 S3.D Noncompliance Notification As necessary S5. IPM Plan Once February 1, 2003 S3.A Annual Monitoring Report Yearly February 1, 2003 G 15. Notice of Change in Authorization As necessary G4. Permit Application for Substantive As necessary Changes to the Discharge G18. Application for Permit Renewal 1/permit cycle November 10, 2006 G8. Notice of Permit Transfer As necessary • • Page 4 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 • • • Page 5 of 16 Permit No. WAG —992000 PERMIT COVERAGE C1. ACTIVITIES COVERED This general permit shall cover all mosquito control activities that discharge insecticides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Mosquito districts and other pesticide applicators are required to be covered by the general permit for the following pre-adult life stage pesticiding activities: 1) Into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes, or 2) Into navigable waters, or 3) In other situations as determined by Ecology. C2. GEOGRAPHIC AREA COVERED This general permit covers aquatic mosquito control activities anywhere in the entire state of Washington. The specific areas where mosquito control activities are covered are described and limited by each application for coverage. C3. HOW COVERAGE CAN BE OBTAINED • 1. For existing mosquito control districts and applicators with current programs requesting coverage: Notify Ecology by submitting a completed application for coverage no later than 90 days after the issuance date of this general permit. Unless Ecology responds in writing to the notification, coverage of a discharger under this permit will commence on the effective date of the permit. 2. For new mosquito control districts and applicators that propose to begin activities that will result in a discharge or potential discharge to waters of the state on or after the effective date of this general permit: a. Notify Ecology by submission of a completed application form requesting coverage under this permit at least 60 days prior to the planned activity that will result in the discharge to waters of the state. b. Publish twice in a local newspaper of general circulation a notice that an application for coverage has been made pursuant to Section 173-226-130(5)WAC. This notice shall specify the last day of the 30-day public comment period. C. At the end of the 30-day comment period, Ecology will accept the application and review all comments prior to making a determination on whether to grant permit coverage. d. Ecology intends to notify new applicants by mail of their status concerning coverage under this permit. If the applicant does not receive notification of the coverage decision from Page 6of16 Permit No. WAG—992000 Ecology, coverage under this permit will commence on the 31 st day following Ecology's • acceptance of complete application form. SPECIAL CONDITIONS S1. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS A. Discharges 1. All discharges and activities authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. 2. Insecticide applications under this permit shall be for the control of pre-adult mosquitoes only. 3. Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge the listed aquatic insecticides and associated adjuvants that are listed in this permit into surface waters of the state, subject to complying with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act(FIFRA), and in consideration of integrated pest management options. 4. Authorized pesticides are: ➢ Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) ➢ Bacillus sphaericus(H-5a5b) • ➢ Methoprene Granular, Liquid, Pellet, or Briquette.* ➢ Monomolecular Surface Films ➢ Paraffinic white mineral oil. Paraffinic white mineral oil shall not be used in waters of the state unless: a) The mosquito problem is declared a public health risk; or b) The other control agents would be or are known to be ineffective at a specific treatment site; and c) The water body is non-fish-bearing(consult Washington State Fish and Wildlife concerning fish and wildlife). *Use of methoprene is not restricted for use beyond the FIFRA label in more than 99 percent of the state. However,methoprene is restricted in areas designated by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (see Appendix A) except when a health threat exists in those areas as determined by state and local health departments. 5. Temephos may not be used in lakes, streams, or the littoral zone of water bodies or on state-listed specie sites listed in Appendix A, (Ecology publication No. 03-10- 023). The use of temephos shall be allowed only in highly polluted water(i.e., tire piles) or waters with high organic content(i.e., manure holding ponds and pastures with no surface water runoff), or under either of the two following conditions: a. As a result of consultation between the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology in response to the development of pesticide resistance or ineffectiveness within a population of mosquitoes, when temephos is applied to Page 7 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 areas draining to surface waters monitoring of persistence and residues are a condition of the approval. Temephos must be rotated with one or more of the approved alternatives with a different mode of action to minimize the development of resistance. b. As a result of consultation between the Department of Health and Department of Ecology in response to the development of a human health emergency as determined by the Washington State Department of Health. 6. Other pesticides may be applied in the context of a research and development effort under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Agriculture through the issuance of a Washington State Experimental Use Permit. 7. A state or local health officer, with agreement of Ecology, may order temporary suspension of permit conditions to protect public health in the event of a mosquito-borne disease outbreak. B. TeMporaly Water Qualily Modification The application of insecticides listed in this permit to control mosquitoes is allowed so long as the conditions of this permit are satisfied and the transitory water quality impact is limited to the minimum time necessary to accomplish the desired aquatic pest control objectives. This temporary water quality modification is allowed throughout the permit term,but its effect shall be temporary in a specific location,though locations where it is in effect may be • widespread throughout the state anywhere mosquitoes are subject to control and eradication. S2. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A. The permittee shall develop and implement a monitoring plan for the application of pesticides listed in S 1.A4. The objective of the monitoring plan is to determine pesticide persistence in a variety of application sites and conditions. Data from EPA-approved persistence studies may be included in the monitoring report but must be identified in the monitoring plan. B. The permittee shall select from one of the following two options to fulfill this monitoring requirement: 1. The permittee shall submit a plan for monitoring a representative sampling of pesticide application sites by February 1, 2003 and annually thereafter so long as this option is chosen. The monitoring plan shall be implemented beginning in the year 2003 mosquito control season. 2. The permittee may participate in a group monitoring plan for monitoring a representative sampling of pesticide application sites in lieu of an individual monitoring plan. The group plan shall be submitted by February 1, 2003 and annually thereafter so long as this option is chosen. The monitoring plan shall be implemented beginning in the year 2003 mosquito control season. Submitting a complete report for each application satisfies this requirement. A complete report contains: a)The name and address of the person applying the larvicides, b)The center point of latitude and longitude to at least three decimal places . where each larvicide application is made, Page 8 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 c)The type of each larvicide and its EPA registration number, d)The amount of larvicide in gallons or pounds that was applied, and e)The number of acres treated. Treated areas less than one acre can be designated as<1. C. The permittee may request suspension of persistence monitoring after the 2003 mosquito control season. Elimination of the persistence-monitoring requirement may be granted by Ecology, in writing, if the permittee has demonstrated the range of persistence time of the insecticides that it commonly uses in the situations within the mosquito control area. Additional monitoring may be performed to meet other needs. Adverse weather conditions, lack of daylight, and other relevant factors related to safety considerations may alter the timing of monitoring but not preclude the requirement that a minimum level of monitoring be performed. The burden of proof for establishing safety- related alterations to the monitoring schedule shall rest with the permittee(s). D. Sampling and Analytical Procedures Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this permit shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored parameters. Sampling and analytical methods used to meet the monitoring requirements specified in this permit shall conform to the latest revision of the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for • the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 136 or to the latest revision of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA),unless otherwise specified in this permit or approved in writing by the Department of Ecology(Ecology). Methods for parameters that have no corresponding sampling or analytical methods described in the above mentioned protocols may be included in the annual monitoring plans. S3. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS The permittee shall monitor and report in accordance with the following conditions. The falsification of information submitted to Ecology shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. A. Annual Reporting Monitoring results shall be submitted annually. Monitoring results obtained during the previous calendar year shall be reported and be received no later than February 1 of the year following the completed monitoring period. The report shall be sent to the Aquatic Pesticides Team, Water Quality Program, Department of Ecology, PO Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600. All laboratory reports providing data for organic and metal parameters shall include the following information: sampling date, sample location, date of analysis,parameter name, • Page 9 of 16 Pen-nit No. WAG—992000 chemical abstract service (CAS)number, analytical method/number, method detection limit (MDL), laboratory practical quantitation limit(PQL), reporting units, and concentration detected. Monitoring reports must be submitted annually whether or not monitoring was required. If there was no discharge during a given monitoring period, submit the report with an explanation of why no monitoring was performed. B. Records Retention The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information for a minimum of three (3) years. Such information shall include all calibration and maintenance records and all original recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the permittee or when requested by the director. C. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken, the permittee shall record the following information: (1)the date, exact place, method, and time of sampling or measurement; (2)the individual who performed the sampling or measurement; (3)the dates the analyses were performed; (4) the individual who performed the analyses; (5)the analytical techniques or methods used; • and (6)the results of all analyses. D. Noncompliance Notification In the event the permittee is unable to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this permit due to any cause, the permittee shall: I. Immediately take action to stop, contain, and clean up unauthorized discharges or otherwise stop the noncompliance and correct the problem. 2. Immediately notify Ecology of the failure to comply. Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the permittee from responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply. • Page 10 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 S4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT A. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) approved by Ecology shall be implemented by the permittee. The IPMP may include a decision tree outlining control options based on site and infestation conditions. 1. In the IPMP,pesticides that are effective in controlling the mosquito population and have the least adverse impacts to nontarget species shall be used except in response to documented development of resistance, or in cases of ineffectiveness or in a declared public health emergency. 2. The IPMP shall consider the approved list of pesticide-based controls found in Section S 1. 3. In developing the IPM plan, the permittee shall consult with local governments, state, and federal agencies as needed. B. Pesticide applications shall not commence unless surveillance of a potential application site indicates a larva/pupa count of greater than 1 per 3 dips, unless dead birds, infected horses, or adult mosquito surveys indicate the presence of vector mosquitoes when larvae counts cannot be made due to their inaccessibility. In these cases larviciding may be desirable or even necessary without the larvae dips. C. Pesticide application practices shall be followed that minimize the potential for development of pesticide resistance. D. Spills of pesticides shall be promptly reported to the appropriate local and state authorities. S5. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE The permittee shall submit a copy of its Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP)no later than February 1, 2003. The IPMP shall be implemented in all aquatic pest control activities engaged in by the permittee. The permittee shall adjust the IPMP in accordance with guidance from Ecology and resubmit the plan according to the direction of Ecology no later than January 1, 2004 or six months after written notification of a need for adjustment from Ecology,whichever occurs latest. The IPMP may be revised by the permittee if based on valid reasons that promote the principles of IPM. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES P1. PUBLIC NOTICE A. The applicator shall publish a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation(or nearest regional paper if a local paper does not exist) for expected applications of insecticides that have a water-use restriction. B. This legal notice shall be published at least ten (10) days prior to the first pesticide application of the season. This notice shall include: 1. The pesticide(s)to be used and its active ingredient(s) 2. The approximate date range of treatment 3. The approximate location(s)to be treated 4. The water use restrictions or precautions . Page 11 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 • 5. The posting procedure 6. The names and phone numbers of the applicator and the appropriate Ecology regional office C. Notification to the public regarding mosquito control activities shall continue throughout the treatment season. Notification may include methods other than notices in a newspaper. P2. POSTING REQUIREMENTS Notification shall be posted at all reasonable points of ingress and egress to the treatment areas when insecticides with water use restrictions are applied to water bodies that are used for water supply, fish and shellfish harvesting, or water contact activities. GENERAL CONDITIONS G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS The permittee shall at all times be responsible for continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of this general permit. The permittee shall be responsible for compliance with any order, directive, or penalty issued by Ecology. G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE • The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain any facilities or systems of control to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the general permit. Where design criteria have been established, the permittee shall not allow flows or waste loadings to exceed approved design criteria or approved revisions thereto. G3. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittee shall allow an authorized representative of Ecology, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law, at reasonable times: A. To enter upon the permittee's premises in which an effluent source (discharge) is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this general permit; B. To have access to and to copy at reasonable costs, any records required to be kept under terms and conditions of the permit; C. To inspect any monitoring equipment or method of monitoring required in this general permit. G4. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COVERED ACTIVITIES The permittee shall submit a new Application for Coverage to Ecology when facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications will (1)result in new or substantially increased discharges of pollutants or a change in the nature of the discharge of pollutants, or(2) violate the terms and conditions of this general permit. • Page 12 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 • G5. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE Pursuant to Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC, the director may require any discharger authorized by this general permit to apply for and obtain coverage under an individual permit or another more specific and appropriate general permit. Cases where revocation of coverage may be required include,but are not limited to the following: A. Violation of any term or condition of this general permit. B. Obtaining coverage under this general permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts. C. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge. D. Failure or refusal of the permittee to allow entry as required in RCW 90.48.090. E. A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, or significantly contributes to water quality standards violations. F. Nonpayment of permit fees or penalties assessed pursuant to RCW 90.48.465 and Chapter 173-224 WAC. G. Failure of the permittee to satisfy the public notice requirements of WAC 173-226-130(5), when applicable. Permittees who have their coverage revoked for cause according to WAC 173-226-240 may request • temporary coverage under this permit during the time an individual permit is being developed, provided the request is made within 90 days from the time of revocation and is submitted along with a complete individual permit application form. G6. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION General permits may be modified, or revoked and reissued, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC. Grounds for modification or revocation and reissuance include,but are not limited to, the following: A. When a change that occurs in the technology or practices for control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this general permit. B. When effluent limitation guidelines or standards are promulgated pursuant to the FWPCA or Chapter 90.48 RCW for the category of dischargers covered under this general permit. C. When a water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this general permit is approved. D. When information is obtained, which indicates that cumulative effects on the environment from dischargers covered under this general permit are unacceptable. • Page 13 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 • G7. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF COVERAGE A permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for revocation under condition G7 or 40 CFR 122.62 shall report such information to Ecology so that a decision can be made on whether action to revoke coverage under this general permit will be required. Ecology may then require submission of a new Application for Coverage under this or another general permit or an application for an individual permit. Submission of a new application does not relieve the permittee of the duty to comply with all the terms and conditions of the existing general permit until the new application for coverage has been approved. G8. TRANSFER OF PERMIT COVERAGE Coverage under this general permit is automatically transferred to a new discharger if: A.A written signed agreement between the old and new discharger containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility and coverage is submitted to Ecology; and B.Ecology does not notify the old and new discharger of its intent to revoke coverage under the general permit. If this notice is not given, the transfer is effective on the date specified in the written agreement between the old and new discharger. G9. TOXIC POLLUTANTS • If any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for a toxic pollutant and that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in this general permit, Ecology shall institute proceedings to modify or revoke and reissue this general permit to conform to the new toxic effluent standard or prohibition. G10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS All other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference. G11. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES Nothing in the permit shall be construed as excusing the permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G12.ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Ecology may establish specific monitoring requirements in addition to those contained in this general permit by administrative order or permit modification. • Page 14 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 G13.REMOVED SUBSTANCES • Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludge, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or pollution control of wastewaters shall not be resuspended or reintroduced to the final effluent stream for discharge to state waters. Such removed substances shall be lawfully disposed in an appropriate manner and shall comply with Chapter 173-303 WAC and Chapter 173-304 WAC. G14.USE OF ACCREDITED LABORATORIES All monitoring data, except for flow, temperature, settleable solids, total residual chlorine, conductivity,pH, and internal process control parameters, shall be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories, Chapter 173-50 WAC. Conductivity and pH shall be accredited if the laboratory must otherwise be registered or accredited. Soils and hazardous waste data are exempted from this requirement pending accreditation of laboratories for the analysis of these media by Ecology. G15.SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS All applications,reports, or information submitted to Ecology shall be signed and certified. A. All permit applications shall be signed by either a responsible corporate officer of at least the level of vice president of a corporation, a general partner of a partnership,the proprietor of a • sole proprietorship,responsible official, or ranking elected official. B. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by Ecology shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: 1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to Ecology. 2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of a regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent,position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.) C. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph B.2. above is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph B.2. above must be submitted to Ecology prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. D. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following certification: I certify under penalty of law,that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiries of the person or • Page 15 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. G16.REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT Any discharger authorized by this general permit may request to be excluded from coverage under this general permit by applying for an individual permit. The discharger shall submit to the director an application as described in WAC 173-220-040 or WAC 173-216-070,whichever is applicable, with reasons supporting the request. The director shall either issue an individual permit or deny the request with a statement explaining the reason for the denial. G17.APPEALS The terms and conditions of this general permit: A. As they apply to the appropriate class of dischargers are subject to appeal within thirty (30) days of issuance of this general permit in accordance with Chapter 43.21(B) RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC; and B. As they apply to an individual discharger are subject to appeal in accordance with Chapter 43.21(B) RCW within thirty(30) days of the effective date of coverage of that discharger. Consideration of an appeal of general permit coverage of an individual discharger is limited to the general permit's applicability or non-applicability to that discharger. Appeal of this general permit coverage of an individual discharger shall not affect any other individual dischargers. If the terms and conditions of this general permit are found to be inapplicable to any discharger(s), the matter shall be remanded to Ecology for consideration of issuance of an individual permit or permits. G18.DUTY TO REAPPLY The permittee shall reapply for coverage under this general permit at least one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the specified expiration date of this general permit. An expired general permit continues in force and effect until a new general permit is issued or until Ecology cancels it. Only those facilities that reapply for coverage are covered under the continued permit. G19.TERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS Any previously issued individual permit shall remain in effect until terminated in writing by Ecology, except that extension of an expired individual permit(pursuant to WAC 173-220-180(5)) shall terminate upon coverage under this general permit. • Page 16 of 16 Permit No. WAG—992000 G20.TERMINATION OF COVERAGE UPON ISSUANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT When an individual permit is issued to a discharger otherwise subject to this general permit, the coverage under this general permit for that permittee is terminated on the effective date of the individual permit. G21.ENFORCEMENT Any violation of the terms and conditions of this general permit, the state Water Pollution Control Act, and the federal Clean Water Act, will be subject to the enforcement sanctions, direct and indirect, as provided for in WAC 173-226-250. G22.SEVERABILITY The provisions of this general permit are severable, and if any provision of this general permit, or application of any provision of this general permit to any circumstance, is held invalid,the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this general permit shall not be affected thereby. G23.PAYMENT OF FEES The permittee shall submit payment of fees associated with this permit as assessed by Ecology. • � FACT SHEET FOR AQUATIC MOSQUITO CONTROL GENERAL NPDESP£RMIT —4o »» � PAGE 2 OF 58 • • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit Page 3 of 58 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 7 MOSQUITOLIFE CYCLE .........................................................................................................................8 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS......................................................................................................................9 MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................ 9 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................10 DESCRIPTION OF MOSQUITO CONTROL ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 10 MOSQUITO CONTROL PROGRAMS.......................................................................................................10 CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE GENERAL PERMIT.................................................................11 BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS ISRAELENSIS(BTI):...................................................................................12 BACILLUSSPHAERICUS:........................................................................................................................13 METHOPRENE........................................................................................................................................13 MONOMOLECULAR SURFACE FILMS...................................................................................................14 LARVICIDALOILS..................................................................................................................................14 • CHEMICAL LARVICIDES,ORGANOPHOSPHATES.................................................................................. 14 ENDANGERED SPECIES........................................................................................................... 15 REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS............................................ 15 TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS..........................................15 WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................17 SEDIMENTQUALITY..............................................................................................................................18 SEPACOMPLIANCE..............................................................................................................................18 RECEIVING WATER IDENTIFICATION..................................................................................................18 Eligibility and Geographical Area of Coverage.................................................................................18 PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER CONTAINING PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE CURRENT PERMIT...............................................19 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.........................................................................................................20 OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS................................................................................................20 MONITORING.........................................................................................................................................20 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING.....................................................................................................20 LABACCREDITATION ...........................................................................................................................20 SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS..........................................................................21 PERMITMODIFICATIONS......................................................................................................................21 WHEN COVERAGE IS EFFECTIVE.........................................................................................................21 RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS..........................................................21 GENERAL CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................22 RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE.......................................................................................22 • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 4 OF 58 COMMENT • APPENDIX A—PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO CO .................................................... 23 APPENDIXB -- GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................27 APPENDIX C -- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................ 37 • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 5 OF 58 • FACT SHEET FOR AQUATIC MOSQUITO CONTROL GENERAL NPDES PERMIT SUMMARY The state of Washington Department of Ecology(department)has tentatively determined to issue a general permit for the application of insecticides to control mosquitoes in surface waters of the state of Washington. The use of insecticides is subject to the provisions of integrated pest management plans (IPMs). Monitoring is required in certain situations. Any short term toxicity to aquatic organisms is allowed under the terms of the permit and the water quality modification provisions to perform essential activities that protect public health. The proposed terms, limitations and conditions contained herein are tentative and may be subject to change, subsequent to public comments and testimony provided at public hearings. All facilities accepted under the general permit will not be relieved of any responsibility or liability at any time during the life of the permit for: (1)violating or exceeding state water quality standards; or(2)violating any other local, state, or federal regulation or standard as may pertain to the individual facility. Activities not accepted under the general permit may be required to apply for an individual permit. Any application of insecticide to surface waters of the state requiring NPDES permit • coverage found not covered under either the general permit or an individual permit will be considered to be operating without a discharge permit and subject to potential enforcement action. On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the application of an herbicide in compliance with the labeling requirements of Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) did not exempt an irrigation district from needing an NPDES permit (Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District). Ecology, as had many more states,had been issuing orders that were not NPDES permits that placed protective conditions on the use of pesticides in waters of the state. This general permit will replace those short term modifications where pesticide applications are directed into surface waters of the state for the purpose of controlling mosquitoes. INTRODUCTION This fact sheet is a companion document that provides the basis for issuance of the Aquatic Mosquito Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) General Permit. The Department of Ecology(the department) is proposing to issue this permit, which will allow discharge of wastes from aquatic insecticide applications and from nonchemical methods to control mosquitoes in surface waters of the state of Washington,which are also waters of the United States,pursuant to the provisions of chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 Revised Code of Washington (RCW)and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(FWPCA) as amended. This • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 6 OF 58 rdischarges, he d department's decisions on limitin • fact sheet explains the nature of the proposed t ep g the pollutants in the wastewater, and the regulatory and technical basis for these decisions. The Federal Clean Water Act(FCWA, 1972), and later modifications (1977, 1981, and 1987), established water quality goals for the navigable (surface)waters of the United States. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits),which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The EPA has delegated responsibility to administer the NPDES permit program to the state of Washington on the basis of Chapter 90.48 RCW, which defines the Department of Ecology's authority and obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit program. The establishment of a general permit for Aquatic Mosquito Control is appropriate due to the similar environmental fate specific to each permitted herbicide, the uniform discharge conditions to which all applications would be subject, the statewide scope of aquatic mosquito control, and the significant reduction of resources necessary for permit handling. However, individual permits will still be considered in those instances where a proposed activity requires more detailed guidance, or when an individual applicator so desires and the department approves. The regulations adopted by the state include procedures for issuing general permits (Chapter 173-226 WAC),water quality criteria for surface waters (Chapters 173-201A WAC), and sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require that a permit be issued before discharge of wastes to waters of the state is allowed. The regulations also • establish the basis for effluent limitations and other requirements which are to be included in the permit. One of the requirements (WAC 173-226-110) for issuing a general permit under the NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet. Public notice of the draft permit,public hearings, comment periods,and public notice of issuance are all required before the general permit is issued(WAC 173-226-130). The fact sheet and draft permit have been reviewed by representatives of the potential permittees and other members of a permit advisory group. Errors and omissions identified in this review have been corrected before going to public notice. After the public comment period has closed, the department will summarize the substantive comments and the response to each comment. The summary and response to comments will become part of the file on the permit and parties submitting comments will receive a copy of the department's response. The original fact sheet will not be revised after the public notice is published. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be summarized in Appendix D--Response to Comments. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 7 OF 58 .:sf ' Larvaciding with diesel oil BACKGROUND INFORMATION A March 12, 2001 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District found that the applicator should have obtained coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit prior to application of aquatic pesticides to an irrigation canal in Oregon. The canal discharged water into a creek where a fish kill occurred. The decision addressed residues and other products of aquatic pesticides. Headwaters, Inc. and Oregon Natural Resources Council filed a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the Talent Irrigation District(TID) for applying aquatic herbicide into a system of • irrigation canals. Reversing a district court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that application of the pesticide in compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) did not exempt TID from having to obtain a NPDES permit, and that the irrigation ditches were "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1979 (FIFRA), as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), requires that all persons who apply pesticides classified as restricted use be certified according to the provisions of the act or that they work under the supervision of a certified applicator. Commercial and public applicators must demonstrate a practical knowledge of the principles and practices of pest control and safe use of pesticides, which will be accomplished by means of a "core" examination. In addition, applicators using or supervising the use of any restricted use pesticides purposefully applied to standing or running water(excluding applicators engaged in public health related activities) are required to pass an additional exam to demonstrate competency as described in the code of federal regulations as follows: "Aquatic applicators shall demonstrate practical knowledge of the secondary effects which can be caused by improper application rates, incorrect formulations, and faulty application of restricted pesticides used in this category. They shall demonstrate practical knowledge of various water use situations and the potential of downstream effects. Further, they must have • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 8 OF 58 practical knowledge concerning potential pesticide effects on plants, fish,birds,beneficial • insects and other organisms which may be present in aquatic environments. Applicants in this category must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principles of limited area application." (40 CFR 171.4) MOSQUITO LIFE CYCLE There are several species of mosquito that readily attack people, and some species are capable of transmitting microbial organisms that cause human diseases such as malaria and encephalitis. The mosquitoes of major concern in Washington belong to the genera Culex, Culiseta, Aedes, and Anopheles. Mosquitoes are classified as Insects of the Diptera order. They undergo a complete metamorphosis,which involves four stages of development, egg, larva,pupa and adult. The first three stages occur in water, but the adult female is an active flying insect that feeds upon the blood of humans and/or animals. The female mosquito lays the eggs directly on water or on moist substrates that may later be flooded with water. The egg later hatches into the larva,which is the stage on which most mosquito districts tend to focus control programs. During the larval stages it continues to feed and grow in size. The larvae go through four growth stages called instars. Once the larva has developed to the fourth instar it stops feeding and pupates. This is a resting period. At this point the biological control (larvicide)no longer works as a control measure because it requires ingestion by the organism. Draining or emptying the water at this point will kill the pupa, as they are unable to live out of water. • The larva transforms into the pupa where internal changes occur and the adult mosquito takes form. After a few hours to a few days in the pupal stage, the adult mosquito emerges from the water surface and seeks shelter in shady,moist areas. Adult mosquitoes must find shelter during the heat to avoid dehydration and are most active during the hours from dawn to dusk. After a brief period of rest the adult female goes in search of a blood meal and the cycle continues. The time frame for this is highly variable anywhere from one to three weeks, depending on the temperature of the water. The warmer the water the quicker the development will be. A very small amount of water in a container in the sun will produce a batch of adult mosquitoes very quickly. Mosquito biology can follow two general scenarios. The first involves those species that lay their eggs in masses or rafts on the water's surface. Some of these species, which are found throughout the U.S., often lay their eggs in natural or artificial water-holding containers found in the domestic environment, or in naturally occurring pools. In summer the entire life cycle, from egg to adult, may be completed in a week or less. The second scenario involves Aedes mosquitoes that lay their eggs on moist soil or other substrates in areas that will be flooded with water later. After about two days,these eggs are ready to hatch,but if not flooded, can withstand drying for months and longer. In inland areas of the U.S. where these mosquitoes breed,heavy rains and flooding can produce millions of mosquitoes in a short time. Similar situations occur along coastal areas with mosquitoes adapted • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 9 OF 58 • to salt marsh habitats. Some salt marsh mosquitoes are strong fliers and can sometimes travel up to 50 miles from the breeding site. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Female mosquitoes of nearly all species require blood from vertebrate animals to develop eggs, and many species bite people,pets, and livestock for this purpose. Mosquitoes are found throughout the world and many transmit pathogens which may cause disease. These diseases include mosquito-borne viral encephalitis, dengue, yellow fever, malaria, and filariasis. Most of these diseases have been prominent as endemic or epidemic diseases in the United States in the past,but today, only the insect-borne (arboviral) encephalitides occur annually and dengue occurs periodically in this country. The most important consequence of this is the transmission of microorganisms that cause diseases such as western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis encephalitis. Both of these diseases can cause serious, sometimes fatal neurological ailments in people. (Western equine encephalomyelitis virus also causes disease in horses.) Western equine encephalomyelitis infections tend to be more serious in infants while St. Louis encephalitis can be a problem for older people. These viruses are normally infections of birds or small mammals. During such infections, the level of the virus may increase in these infected animals facilitating transmission to humans by mosquitoes. The West Nile virus, which can also cause encephalitis, was found in the northeastern United States for the first time in 1999, and is a good example of this mode of transmission. Human cases of encephalitis range from mild to very severe illnesses that, in a few cases, can be fatal. Other pathogens transmitted by mosquitoes include a protozoan parasite which causes malaria, and Dirofilaria immitis, a parasitic roundworm and the causative agent of dog heartworm. Disease carrying mosquito species are found throughout the U.S., especially in urban areas and coastal or in inland areas where flooding of low lands frequently occurs. Even when no infectious diseases are transmitted by mosquitoes, they can be a health problem to people and livestock. Mosquito bites can result in secondary infections, allergic reactions,pain, irritation,redness, and itching. MANAGEMENT Mosquitoes are best managed on an area wide basis by public agencies that are either components of local health departments or are independent districts organized specifically for mosquito control. In Washington, there are approximately 12 mosquito and vector control districts. Some are small and have responsibility for mosquito abatement in a few hundred square miles,while the activities of others may encompass one entire county or more. Mosquito control is accomplished by searching out mosquito larvae in standing water and treating the water with a material that kills the larvae. Many materials currently in use are biological in origin and are highly specific for mosquitoes, with little or no effect on other organisms. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 10 OF 58 On occasion, mosquito abatement agencies may also apply chemical pesticides to kill adult • mosquitoes,but ordinarily only when adult populations become so large that they cause extreme annoyance to many people or when the threat of disease transmission to people is high. Control of irrigation water in agricultural areas to avoid excess runoff is an important mosquito control method, but in recent years, elimination of small bodies of water that can serve as wildlife habitat has ceased to be a mosquito control option because of habitat preservation concerns. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Mosquito control activities are important to the public health, and responsibility for carrying out these programs rests with state and local governments. The federal government assists states in emergencies and provides training and consultation in vector and vector-borne disease problems when requested by the states. The current interests in ecology and environmental impact of mosquito control measures, and the increasing problems that have resulted from insecticide resistance emphasize the need for"integrated" control programs. IPM is an ecologically based strategy that relies heavily on natural mortality factors and seeks out control tactics that are compatible with or disrupt these factors as little as possible. IPM includes the use of pesticides, but only after systematic monitoring of mosquito populations indicates a need. Ideally, an IPM program considers all available control actions, including no action, and evaluates the interaction among various control practices, cultural practices,weather, and habitat structure. This approach thus uses a combination of resource management techniques to control mosquito populations with decisions based on surveillance. Fish and game specialists and natural resources biologists • should be involved in planning control measures whenever delicate ecosystems could be impacted by mosquito control practices. A good integrated pest management(IPM)program-- featuring monitoring for high mosquito populations and disease,resident education and action to maximize natural controls and minimize mosquito breeding sites, and larvaciding(killing immature mosquitoes)when necessary--can control mosquitoes more effectively while reducing pesticide exposure to humans and the environment. Insecticides are dispersed only where mosquito larvae are present and not indiscriminately,which is why larvaciding is much sounder than adulticiding. The underlying philosophy of mosquito control is based on the fact that the greatest control impact on mosquito populations will occur when they are concentrated, immobile and accessible. This emphasis focuses on habitat management and controlling the immature stages before the mosquitoes emerge as adults. This policy reduces the need for widespread pesticide application in urban areas. DESCRIPTION OF MOSQUITO CONTROL ACTIVITIES MOSQUITO CONTROL PROGRAMS In response to these potential disease carrying pests, communities organized the earliest mosquito control programs in the eastern U.S. in the early 1900s. Eventually, other communities created similar programs throughout the country in areas where mosquito problems occurred and • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 11 OF 58 • where citizens demanded action by local officials. Modem mosquito control programs in the U.S. are multifaceted and include surveillance, source reduction, and a variety of larval and adult mosquito control strategies. Surveillance methods include studying habitats by air, aerial photographs, and topographic maps, and evaluating larval populations. Mosquito control officials also monitor mosquito traps, biting counts, and complaints and reports from the public. Mosquito control activities are initiated once established mosquito threshold populations are exceeded. Seasonal records are kept in concurrence with weather data to predict mosquito larval occurrence and adult flights. Some mosquito control programs conduct surveillance for diseases harbored by birds, including crows, other wild birds, sentinel chicken flocks, and for these diseases in mosquitoes. Source reduction involves eliminating the habitat or modifying the aquatic habitat to prevent mosquitoes from breeding. This measure includes sanitation measures where artificial containers, including discarded automobile tires, which can become mosquito habitats, are collected and properly disposed. Habitat modification may also involve management of impounded water or open marshes to reduce production and survival of the flood water mosquitoes. If habitat modification is not feasible,biological control using fish may be possible. Mosquito control officials often apply biological or chemical larvicides, with selective action and moderate residual activity, to the aquatic habitats. To have the maximum impact on the mosquito population, larvicides are applied during those periods when immature stages are concentrated in the breeding sites and before the adult forms emerge and disperse. • CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE GENERAL PERMIT Applicants for the general permit will be screened based on information in the application. The department will consider whether the applicant has a qualified licensed applicator on staff, familiarity with FIFRA and state requirements, and willingness to develop monitoring plans and an IPM, if not already developed. TABLE 1. PERMITTED INSECTICIDES USED FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL Typical Active ingredient Label use rate Use Products Aquabac Bacillus 0.25 to 2 Larvae control thuringiensis pints/acre or up Bactimos israelensis (Bti) to 10 lbs/acre Vectobac Teknar VectoLexW Bacillus sphaericus 0.5 to 1.5 Larvae control in DG (H-5a5b) lbs/acre water with high organic content Altosid Methoprene 2 to 20 lbs/acre Larvae control i 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 12 OF 58 • Agnique Monomolecular 0.2 to 0.5 Larvae and Pupae MMF surface film gal/acre control Golden Bear Petroleum distillate 3 to 5 gal/acre Larvae and Pupae Oil control Bonide Oil Malathion Malathion 0.5 pts/acre Emergency use only Abate Temephos 0.5 to 1.5 Emergency use oz/acre only BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS ISRAELENSIS (BTI): The product known as Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis)can be as effective as chemical insecticides in liquid and granular form. Bti is an endospore-forming bacterium that is ingested by the actively feeding larvae. When the bacteria Bti encysts, it produces a protein crystal toxic to mosquito and midge larvae. Once the bacteria have been ingested, the toxin disrupts the lining of the larvae's intestine. Bti is highly selective for the first through third instar of mosquito and some gnat larvae. It has no effect on a vast array of other aquatic organisms except midges in the • same habitat. Bti strains are sold under the names Bactimos®,Teknar® and Vectobac®. Vectobac is formulated by impregnating corn kernels with bacteria known as Bacillus thuringensus. This bacterium is target specific and must be ingested by the target species to be of any effect. Bti is the primary material used for mosquito control because of its low toxicity to non-target species. Bti is highly pathogenic against Culcidae (mosquitoes) and Simuliidae (blackflies) and has some virulence against certain other Diptera, especially Chironomidae (midges). Lepitdopterans are not generally considered susceptible,with some limited exceptions. Timing of treatment is important and Bti must be applied frequently. Bti has been extensively studied for effects on non-target organisms and environmental consequences of use with no reported adverse effects. It is not toxic to bees. According to several studies,when applied at field application rates, Bti has no reported effect on fish and amphibians. Several studies have found no effect on warm-blooded mammals. Labels indicate that direct contact with the products may cause mild to moderate eye or skin irritation. Bti products are available in liquid,pellet and granular formulations. The type of formulation influences persistence,with the pellet/briquette forms having greater persistence. Generally Bti does not persist long after application,with toxicity persisting from 24 hours to over one month when the pelletibriquette formulation is used because of its slow release formula. Because of its specificity, Bti lacks the ability to recycle readily in insect populations. Factors that influence its 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 13 OF 58 • persistence include UV, agitation, sedimentation, water quality and environmental conditions such as pH and temperature. BACILLUS SPHAERICUS: B. sphaericus is a naturally occurring, spore-forming bacterium which produces a protein endotoxin at the time of sporulation. The toxin is only active against the larval stage and must be ingested and digested before it becomes activated.B. sphaericus has the unique property of being able to control mosquito larvae in highly organic aquatic environments such as waste lagoons and stormwater catch basins. B. sphaericus is effective against Culex spp; it is less effective against other species. B. sphaericus is not acutely toxic to freshwater and saltwater invertebrates,honeybees,mayfly larvae, does not appear to be harmful to fish and other marine life, and is not toxic to birds on a subchronic basis. In tests,B. sphaericus was not pathogenic, infective nor toxic in laboratory animals by the oral, dermal, pulmonary or intra-venous routes of exposure. In humans, mild skin and eye irritation can occur with direct contact. VectoLex, the trade name for B. sphaericus,persists for 2-4 weeks after a single application at label rates.B. sphaericus may undergo limited recycling in certain organically rich environments, extending the period of larval control. METHOPRENE Methoprene mimics a natural juvenile hormone, and when present in the larval habitat it keeps immature insects from maturing into adults. Unable to metamorphose, the mosquitoes die in the pupal stage. Methoprene comes in a liquid, granular or pellet form and is applied directly to the water where mosquito larvae are found. When mosquito larvae are exposed to methoprene, their life cycle is disrupted, and they are prevented from reaching maturity or reproducing. Studies indicate that methoprene is of low toxicity and poses little risk to people when used according to label instructions. Methoprene was not shown to have any significant toxicological effects in the standard battery of toxicity studies used to assess Human health effects. The pesticide has very low acute oral and inhalation toxicity potential and is not an eye or skin irritant. Methoprene is also of low acute dermal (skin) toxicity and is not a human skin sensitizer. In laboratory tests, methoprene has been shown to be practically non-toxic to mallard ducks and only slightly toxic to fish. Although it has been observed to be very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates, results from field studies involving methoprene have shown that it has no lasting adverse effects on populations of invertebrates or other non-target aquatic organisms when used according to label instructions for mosquito control. Negative impacts on aquatic invertebrates were not permanent and the populations were able to recover. Methoprene is not persistent in the environment. It degrades rapidly in water, being susceptible to transformation by sunlight and microorganisms. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 14 OF 58 MONOMOLECU LAR SURFACE FILMS MSF is a non-petroleum surface oil that acts as a physicochemical agent by altering the mosquito's habitat. It belongs to the alcohol ethoxylate group of surfactants,which are used in detergent products. MSF disrupts the cohesive properties,which allow mosquitoes to use the water's surface as an interface for breeding. By making the surface "wetter", MSF in effect drowns mosquitoes. MSF kills larvae and pupae by making it impossible for them to keep their breathing tubes above the water's surface. It also kills adult females by entrapping and drowning them when they contact the surface to lay their eggs. Since MSF kills mosquitoes with a physical mechanism (rather than a toxic mechanism), it is not effective in habitats with persistent unidirectional winds of greater than ten miles per hour, or in areas with very choppy water Some species such as the midge, and some arthropods that require attachment to the water surface have been shown to be affected. MMF is non-toxic to most non-target wildlife. The green tree frog progressed normally from tadpole to adult through several generations after being exposed to a constant film presence for six months. MMF is not a skin irritant, is only a mild eye irritant on prolonged or repeated contact, and is considered to be non-toxic by animal tests. As with all pesticides, direct contact should be avoided. The film persistence is dependent on temperature, water flow, amount of bacteria in the water, • and the duration and strength of the wind following application. Average persistence under standard use conditions is 5 - 14 days at recommended dosage rates. LARVICIDAL OILS Oils have been used for mosquito control for more than a century. Golden Bear 1111®is a light viscosity oil that spreads quickly and evenly over the water surface,preventing larvae and pupae from obtaining oxygen through the surface film. Oils have always been used as a product of last resort for the control of mosquito pupae, since this stage does not feed but does require oxygen. The only other option would be draining the source. Closer surveillance and timing of other agents and techniques can greatly reduce the need for larvicidal oils. Golden Bear forms a thin sheet of oil on the surface water and persists for 12 to 15 hours. It suffocates many aquatic insects by interfering with the insects'breathing tubes. Apparently, Golden Bear does not affect fish directly because the oil remains on the water's surface for only a short period, then evaporates. In fish-bearing waters, it may affect fish indirectly by depleting their food source. Aquatic invertebrates, amphibians,waterfowl; and furbearers may be deleteriously affected. Consequently, to determine whether any species of concern (endangered, threatened, and/or economically valuable) inhabit the area to be treated, coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources'Natural Heritage Program is required before Golden Bear oil may be used. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 15 OF 58 CHEMICAL LARVICIDES, ORGANOPHOSPHATES Costs and complexity of mosquito control have increased markedly since the passage of the Environmental Protection Act in 1969. The increasing number of governmental regulations and permitting bodies,rising costs of alternative chemicals, and the spreading resistance of many vector species to existing pesticides have almost completely changed or eliminated the use of chemical control agents. The emergency use of malathion and temephos is retained under this permit with the permission of the Dept of Health and Ecology. The two situations where malathion and temephos may be used are in response to pesticide resistance and where a public health emergency has been declared. The primary application methods in aquatic mosquito larvae and pupa control are: 1. Hand application: Broadcast spreaders,backpack granulators and liquid sprayers are used to spread control materials either mounted on ATVs or carried by the applicator. 2.Aerial applications: Aerial applications normally use a conventional spray boom to improve coverage with the smaller volume of spray solution applied per acre. The spray produces a large droplet size at low pressure and low volume. The pilot monitors the flow rate to minimize pressure and controls drift additionally through application during lower air temperatures and low wind speed. • ENDANGERED SPECIES Currently,EPA is developing a program("The Endangered Species Protection Program")to identify all pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species and to implement mitigation measures that will eliminate the adverse impacts. The program would require use restrictions to protect endangered and threatened species at the county level. In the future, EPA plans to publish a description of the Endangered Species Program in the Federal Register and have available voluntary county-specific bulletins. REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS Federal and state regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit must be either technology-or water quality-based. Technology-based limitations are set by regulation or developed on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 125.3, and Chapter 173-220 WAC). Water quality-based limitations are based upon compliance with the Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). The more stringent of these two limits must be chosen for each of the parameters of concern. TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the FWPCA established discharge standards, prohibitions, • and limits based on pollution control technologies. These technology-based limits are "best 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 16 OF 58 practical control technology" BPT "best available technology economical) achievable"p gy ( ), gy y e able (BAT), and "best conventional pollutant control technology economically achievable" (BCT). Compliance with BPTBATBCT may be established using a "best professional judgment" (BPJ) determination. The state has similar technology-based limits that are described as "all known, available and reasonable methods of control,prevention, and treatment" (AKART)methods. AKART is referred to in state law under RCW 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.520, 90.52.040 and RCW 90.54.020. The federal technology-based limits and AKART are similar but not equivalent. AKART: (1) may be established for an industrial category or on a case-by-case basis; (2) may be more stringent than Federal regulations; and(3) includes not only treatment,but also BMPs such as prevention and control methods (i.e. waste minimization, waste/source reduction, or reduction in total contaminant releases to the environment). The department and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concur that, historically, most discharge permits have determined AKART as equivalent to BPJ determinations. The pesticide application industry has been regulated by EPA under the terms of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA). Use of pesticides is regulated by label use requirements developed by EPA. In developing label use requirements, EPA requires the pesticide manufacturer to register each pesticide and provide evidence that the pesticide will work as promised and that unacceptable environmental harm will be minimized. The standards for environmental protection are different between the CWA and FIFRA. It is the intent of this general permit to authorize mosquito control in a manner that also complies • with federal and other state requirements. All WWDPs issued by the department must incorporate requirements to implement reasonable prevention,treatment and control of pollutants. { The legislature established in the Washington Pesticide Control Act that prevention of pollution in this case is reasonable in the context of an Integrated Pest Management Plan. IPMs require the investigation of all control options,but stop short of requiring nonchemical pest controls as the preferred option. The goal of IPMs is to establish the most effective means of control whether biological, chemical,nonchemical, or a combination. Most mosquito control strategies are such a combination. Treatment of the pollutants addressed in this permit is difficult due to the diffuse nature and low concentrations that exist after the pesticides have become waste. The Talent decision established that aquatic pesticides become waste in the water after the pesticide has performed its intended action and the target organisms are controlled. Treatment of waters where pesticide residues threaten to cause unacceptable environmental harm may be needed in some situations,but not routinely. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 17 OF 58 • WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS The mosquito control activities affect surface waters of the state. These waters are protected by chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. The purpose of these standards is to establish the highest quality of state waters, through the reduction or elimination of contaminant discharges to the waters of the state, consistent with: public health;public enjoyment; the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and existing and future beneficial uses. This purpose is reached, in part,by compliance with the limitations, terms and conditions of the General Permit. The mosquito control activities which discharge, directly or indirectly,to surface waters shall be required to meet the state water quality standards for Class A and Class AA surface waters as given in chapter 173-201A WAC. The characteristic beneficial uses of Class AA and A surface waters include,but are not limited to, the following: domestic, industrial and agricultural water supply; stock watering; the spawning, rearing, migration and harvesting of fish; the spawning, rearing and harvesting of shellfish;wildlife habitat; recreation(primary contact, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment of nature); commerce and navigation. RCW 90.48.035 authorizes establishment of water quality standards for waters of the state. The state has implemented water quality standards in chapter 173-201A WAC. All waste discharge permits issued pursuant to NPDES or SWD regulations are conditioned in such a manner that all authorized discharges shall meet state water quality standards. Standards include an • "antidegradation"policy which states that beneficial uses shall be protected. The department has deemed that,when properly applied and handled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the general permit, mosquito control activities will comply with state water quality standards, will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state, and will protect human health. New information regarding previously unknown environmental and human health risks may cause reopening of the general permit. No mixing or dilution zone shall be authorized to the permit holder for any discharge to surface waters under this general permit. The short term water quality modification provisions of the permit will allow the discharges authorized by the general permit to cause a temporary diminishment of some beneficial uses while the water body is altered to protect public health and promote public enjoyment and quality of life. The short term modification will be short in that the actual impairment will be short lived, while the overall availability of authorization extends through the term of the permit. The integrated pest management plan to be developed prior to the second year of the general permit term satisfies the regulatory requirement for a long term plan that allows short term modifications to extend for five years. The activities authorized by this general permit do not have a reasonable potential to cause a violation of state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) so long as the activities are allowed under the short term water quality mod. The water quality mod provides for an exception to meeting certain provisions of the state water quality standards such as meeting all beneficial uses all the time. Activities covered under this permit are allocated a temporary zone of impact on • beneficial uses, but the impact must be transient, and must allow for full restoration of water 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 18 OF 58 f beneficial uses upon project completion. The conditions of this permit • quality and protectiono b p p � p constitute the requirements of a short term water quality modification. Washington's water quality standards now include 91 numeric health-based criteria that must be considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for the state by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57,No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). The department has determined that the applicant's discharge does not contain chemicals of concern based on existing data or knowledge. The discharge will be re-evaluated for impacts to human health at the next permit reissuance. SEDIMENT QUALITY The department has promulgated aquatic sediment standards(Chapter 173-204 WAC)to protect aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that the department may require permit holders to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation of applicable standards (WAC 173-204-400). The department has determined through a review of the discharger characteristics and effluent characteristics that this discharge has no reasonable potential to violate the sediment management standards. SEPA COMPLIANCE • Mosquito control activities have undergone numerous environmental impact evaluations. The use of pesticides is conditioned to mitigate environmental impacts of concern noted in these evaluations. This general permit will undergo SEPA. The conditions of this permit should satisfy any water quality related SEPA concerns. RECEIVING WATER IDENTIFICATION Eligibility and Geographical Area of Coverage For the purposes of the general permit, the mosquito control activities for which the general permit is valid include surface waters of the entire state. Mosquito control activities are scattered throughout the state. MCDs are located in the following counties or areas: Adams County, Benton County, Camano Island, Clark County, Cowlitz County, Curlew (Ferry County), Grant County, Southwest Washington, Rosalia(Whitman County), Columbia and Touchet-Lowden area (Walla Walla County), and Yakima County. Other areas may be treated by private operators. More MCDs may be formed and more places may be treated by contract, especially urban areas. This will occur rapidly if mosquito born diseases begin showing up in the state. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 19 OF 58 • Mosquito districts and other pesticide applicators are required to be covered by the general permit for the following pre adult life stage pesticide activities which occur in surface waters of the state: 1) Into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes, or 2) Into navigable waters, or 3) In other situations as determined by the department. Some mosquito larvacide applications are a low priority because of minimal environmental impact, particularly when compared with the desirability of mosquito control. These situations are derived in part from exclusions to the definition of"waters of the United States" in 33CFR Part 328.3. These include: 1) On land which is in agricultural use where the mosquito control is performed in inconsequential areas such as puddles,hoof prints, or intermittent wet areas, where treatment would have no environmental impact except to mosquito larvae, or 2) In man-made retention or detention ponds for wastewater or stormwater treatment. These situations are described so that the department and the mosquito control industry are not burdened by oversight and permit requirements in situations where a permit would add no • additional environmental protection of beneficial uses. The department prefers to focus on the more significant water quality threats for permitting as opposed to the less significant ones that won't adversely affect water quality or related habitat. Much of the mosquito control work consists of applying larvacides in seasonal, isolated, and shallow ponds and agricultural land where no fish are present and the larvacide has no impact on wildlife other than mosquitoes. PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER CONTAINING PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE CURRENT PERMIT The industry indicated that they might lose the use of some pesticides in the current EPA re- registration process and were concerned about the length of time necessary to do a permit modification to allow the use of a new product. In response to this concern a procedure will be developed to allow conditional use of a new product until the next permit renewal. This procedure will require the industry to submit a risk assessment for the department's approval. This risk assessment must contain 1)verification that the new product will meet the specified general conditions and prohibitions, 2) contain certain specified information about the product and its environmental fate, and 3) specify a monitoring plan to verify performance. Based upon the information in the risk assessment the department will either grant or deny conditional approval for the use of the new product. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 20 OF 58 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES • The industry should continue to examine the possibility of alternatives to reduce the need for aquatic pesticides. Such methods include: 1) Applying pesticide only when mosquito larvae are present at a level that will constitute a nuisance. 2) Using the least intrusive method of pesticide application. 3) All errors in application and spills are reported to the proper authority. 4) No spraying of adult mosquitoes over surface waters of the state. 5) Informing the public of planned spray activities. 6) Public education efforts to reduce potential mosquito breeding habitat. 7) Applying a decision matrix concept to the choice of the most appropriate formulation. 8) Staff training in the proper application of pesticides and handling of spills. Labels specify some additional BMPs An important goal of the first permit cycle is to reinforce the concept of reduction in pesticide residuals. A reduction in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state can be achieved by using proper BMPs,which include integrated pest management and alternative pest control procedures. While many aquatic pesticide applications are already using proper IPMs, some are not adequate to meet the terms and conditions of the general permit that has been developed to • protect the quality of state waters. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS MONITORING Monitoring of residual pesticides may be required to confirm assumptions of safety when applications are performed in compliance with the FIFRA label and state requirements. A permit holder may propose and gain approval for a monitoring plan in lieu of monitoring each application. The permit holder may optionally participate in a group monitoring effort. The intent is to gather information to confirm the assumptions of persistence and toxicity relative to the rate of application. This information may better define the period of temporary diminishment of beneficial uses. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING The conditions of S3. are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges(WAC 173-226-090). LAB ACCREDITATION • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 21 OF 58 • With the exception of certain parameters the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The general permit requires compliance with federal and state laws and regulations and places no disproportionate burden on small business. The monitoring is flexible and meeting pesticide label requirements is already required under FIFRA. PERMIT MODIFICATIONS The department may modify this permit to impose new or modified numerical limitations, if necessary to meet Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, Sediment Quality Standards, or Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters,based on new information obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, or department approved engineering reports. The department may also modify this permit because of new or amended state or federal regulations. WHEN COVERAGE IS EFFECTIVE Unless the department either responds in writing to any facility's Application for Coverage or obtains relevant written public comment, coverage under this general permit of such a facility • will commence on the later of the following: • The fourteenth day following receipt by the department of a completed and approved Application for Coverage; • The thirty-first(3 l') day following the end of a thirty(30) day public comment period; or • The effective date of the general permit. If the department responds in writing to any facility's Application for Coverage or obtains relevant written public comment, coverage under this general permit of such a facility will not commence until the department is satisfied with the results obtained from written correspondence with the individual facility and/or the public commenter. RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS The department has established, and will enforce, limits and conditions expressed in the general permit for the discharge of wastes containing various pesticides registered for use by the EPA and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. These agencies will enforce the use, storage and disposal requirements expressed on pesticide labels. The Permit holder must comply with both the pesticide label requirements and the general permit conditions. The general permit does not supersede or preempt federal or state label requirements or any other applicable laws and regulations. General permit Condition G 15 reminds the permit holder of this fact. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 22 OF 58 GENERAL CONDITIONS • General Conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and are included in all aquatic pesticide general permits. RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE The general permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater discharge, including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to control toxics,protect human health, aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the state of Washington. The department proposes that the general permit be issued for five (5) years. • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 23 OF 58 • APPENDIX A - PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 24 OF 58 • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 25 OF 58 • PUBLIC COMMENT AND INFORMATION A Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) was published in the State Register on February 6, 2002. A public hearing on the draft General Permit will be held on March 12 in the city of Ellensburg at Hal Holmes center. A one hour workshop to explain proposed changes and answer questions will be held immediately preceding the hearings. Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the proposed issuance of the General Permit. Comments on the general permit may be delivered at the public hearings as either written or oral testimony. Written comments may also be submitted to the Ecology Office at the address below: Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Attention: Kathleen Emmett, General Permits Manager PO Box 7600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 All comments must be submitted by 5 p.m. on March 12, 2002 to be considered in the final permit determination. A responsiveness summary will be prepared and available for public review. It will be sent to all parties who submitted comments by the deadline. • The proposed and final general permit, fact sheet, application form, and other related documents are on file and may be inspected and copied from Ecology WebPages: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/herbicides/npdes develp.html and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays at the following Department locations: Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology Central Regional Office Eastern Regional Office 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 North 4601 Monroe, Suite 202 Yakima, WA 98902 Spokane, WA 99205 (509) 454-7298 (509) 456-2874 TDD (509) 454-7673 TDD (509) 458-2055 FAX(509) 575-2809 FAX (509)456-6175 Contact: Ray Latham Contact: Nancy Weller Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office Southwest Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE PO Box 47775 Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 Olympia,WA 98504-7775 (425) 649-7133 (360) 407-6300 TDD (435) 649-4259 TDD (360) 407-6306 FAX(425)649-7098 FAX (360) 407-6305 Contact: Tricia Shoblom Contact: Janet Boyd • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 26 OF 58 • • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 27 OF 58 • APPENDIX B -- GLOSSARY 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 28 OF 58 • • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 29 OF 58 DEFINITIONS "Administrator" means the administrator of the EPA. "Antidegradation Policy" is as stated in WAC 173-201A-070. "A uthorized representative" means: 1. If the entity is a corporation, the president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager of one or more manufacturing,production, or operation facilities, if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; 2. If the entity is a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or proprietor, respectively; and 3. If the entity is a federal, state or local governmental facility, a director or the highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the government facility, or his/her designee. • The individuals described in paragraphs 1 through 3, above, may designate another authorized representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies the individual or position responsible, and the written authorization is submitted to the department. "Best management practices (BMPs)" means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state and their sediments. BMPs also include,but are not limited to, treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. "Certified applicator" means any individual who is licensed as a commercial pesticide applicator, commercial pesticide operator,public operator,private-commercial applicator, demonstration and research applicator, or certified private applicator, or any other individual who is certified by the director to use or supervise the use of any pesticide which is classified by the EPA or the director as a restricted use pesticide. "Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" means a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. Environmental regulations are in Title 40. "Composite sample" means the combined mixture of not less than four(4) "discrete samples" taken at selected intervals based on an increment of either flow or time. Volatile pollutant • discrete samples must be combined in the laboratory immediately prior to analysis. Each discrete 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 30 OF 58 sample shall be of not less than 200 ml and shall be collected and stored in accordance with procedures prescribed in the most recent edition of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. "Conveyance" means a mechanism for transporting water or wastewater from one location to another location including,but not limited to,pipes, ditches, and channels. "Daily maximum" means the greatest allowable value for any calendar day. "Daily minimum" means the smallest allowable value for any calendar day. "Dangerous waste" means the full universe of wastes regulated by Chapter 173-303 WAC, including hazardous waste. "Degrees C" means temperature measured in degrees Celsius. "Degrees F" means temperature measured in degrees Fahrenheit. "Department" means the Washington State Department of Ecology. "Detention" means the collection of water into a temporary storage device with the subsequent release of water either at a rate slower than the collection rate, or after a specified time period has • passed since the time of collection. "Director" means the director of the Washington State Department of Ecology or his/her authorized representative. "Discharger" means an owner or operator of any "facility", 'operation", or activity subject to regulation under Chapter 90.48 RCW. "Discrete sample" means an individual sample which is collected from a wastestream on a one- time basis without consideration to flow or time, except that aliquot collection time should not exceed fifteen(15)minutes in duration. "Effluent limitation" means any restriction established by the local government, the department, and EPA on quantities,rates, and concentrations of chemical,physical,biological, and/or other effluent constituents which are discharged from point sources to any site including, but not limited to,waters of the state. "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or,where appropriate, the term may also be used as a designation for a duly authorized official of said agency. "Erosion" means the wearing away of the land surface by movements of water,wind, ice, or other agents including,but not limited to, such geological processes as gravitational creep. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 31 OF 58 • "Existing operation" means an operation which commenced activities resulting in a discharge, or potential discharge, to waters of the state prior to the effective date of the general permit for which a request for coverage is made. "Facility" means the actual individual premises owned or operated by a "discharger" where process or industrial wastewater is discharged. "FWPCA" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as now or as it may be amended. "General permit" means a permit which covers multiple dischargers of a point source category within a designated geographical area, in lieu of individual permits being issued to each discharger. "Gpd" means gallons per day. "Grab sample" is synonymous with "discrete sample". "Ground water" means any natural occurring water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface or land or a surface water body. Hazardous waste" means those wastes designated by 40 CFR Part 261, and regulated by the EPA. "Individual permit" means a discharge permit for a single point source or a single facility. "Industrial wastewater" means water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural resource, or from animal operations such as feedlots,poultry house, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and also, leachate from solid waste facilities. "Mg/L" means milligrams per liter and is equivalent to parts per million(ppm). "Monthly average" means that value determined by the summation of the instantaneous measurements during any single month divided by the number of instantaneous measurements collected during that same single month. "Municipal sewerage system" means a publicly owned domestic wastewater facility or a privately owned domestic wastewater facility that is under contract to a municipality. "New operation" means an operation which commenced activities which result in a discharge, or a potential discharge, to waters of the state on or after the effective date of an applicable general permit. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 32 OF 58 NPDES means the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under section 402 of • FWPCA. "Operation" is synonymous with "facility". "Party" means an individual, firm, corporation, association,partnership, co-partnership, consortium, company,joint venture, commercial entity, industry,private corporation,port district, special purpose district, irrigation district, trust, estate, unit of local government, state government agency, federal government agency, Indian tribe, or any other legal entity whatsoever, or their legal representatives, agents, or assignee. "Permit" means an authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by the department to implement Chapter 173-200 WAC, Chapter 173-216 WAC and/or Chapter 173- 226 WAC. "Person" is synonymous with "party". "pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of the mass of hydrogen ions in grams per liter of solution.Neutral water, for example, has a pH value of 7 and a hydrogen-ion concentration of 10-7. pH is a measure of a substance's corrosivity (acidity or alkalinity). "Point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including,but not • limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel,tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture. "Pollutant" means any substance discharged, if discharged directly,would alter the chemical, physical,thermal,biological, or radiological integrity of the waters of the state, or would be likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to any legitimate beneficial use, or to any animal life, either terrestrial or aquatic. Pollutants include,but are not limited to, the following: dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge,munitions, chemical wastes,biological materials,radioactive materials,heat, wrecked or discarded equipment,rock, sand, cellar dirt,pH, temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD5, TDS, toxicity, odor and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. "Priority pollutant" means those substances listed in the federal 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, or as may be amended. "Process wastewater" means water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. "Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)" is synonymous with "municipal sewerage • system". 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 33 OF 58 • "Reasonable times" means at any time during normal business hours; hours during which production, treatment, or discharge occurs; or times when the department suspects occurrence of a violation. "Regional administrator" means the regional administrator of Region X of the EPA or his/her authorized representative. "Retention" means the collection of water into a permanent storage device, with no subsequent release of water. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the pretreatment facilities or treatment/disposal facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays or losses in production. "Shall" is mandatory. "Significant" is synonymous with "substantial". "Significant process change" means any change in a facility's processing nature which will result in new or substantially increased discharges of pollutants or a change in the nature of the • discharge of pollutants, or violate the terms and conditions of this general permit, including but not limited to, facility expansions,production increases, or process modifications. "Site" means the land or water area where any "facility", "operation", or"activity" is physically located or conducted, including any adjacent land used in connection with such facility, operation, or activity. "Site" also means the land or water area receiving any effluent discharged from any facility, operation, or activity. "Small business" has the meaning given in RCW 43.31.025(4). "Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code" means a classification pursuant to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. "State" means the state of Washington. "Substantial" means any difference in any parameter including, but not limited to, the following: monitoring result, process characteristic,permit term or condition; which the department considers to be of significant importance, value, degree, amount, or extent. "Surface waters of the state" means all waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of the state of Washington. This includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 34 OF 58 • Total suspended solids (TSS) means total suspended matter that either floats on the surface of, or is in suspension in water or wastewater, expressed in mg/L. "Toxic amounts" means any amount, i.e., concentration or volume, of a pollutant which causes, or could potentially cause, the death of, or injury to, fish, animals,vegetation or other desirable resources of the state, or otherwise causes, or could potentially cause, a reduction in the quality of the state's waters below the standards set by the department or, if no standards have been set, causes significant degradation of water quality, thereby damaging the same. "Toxics" means those substances listed in the federal priority pollutant list and any other pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as toxic in regulations promulgated by the EPA under section 307 of the FWPCA(33 U.S.C. 1317 et seq.), or the department under Chapter 173- 200 WAC, Chapter 173-201A WAC, or Chapter 173-204 WAC. "Unirrigated" means any lands having not been irrigated within 10 days prior to, or within 60 days after the application of any wastestream. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which a discharger unintentionally and temporarily is in a state of noncompliance with permit effluent limitations due to factors beyond the reasonable control of the discharger. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities,lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation thereof. • "Wastewater" means liquid-carried human wastes or a combination of liquid-carried waste from residences,business buildings, or industrial establishments. "Waters of the state" means all waters defined as "surface waters of the state" and all waters defined as "waters of the state" in RCW 90.40.020. "Water quality" means the chemical,physical,biological characteristics of water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. "Water Quality Preservation Area (WQPA)"means waters which have been designated as high quality waters based upon one or more of the following criteria: 1. Waters in designated federal and state parks,monuments,preserves,wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, marine sanctuaries, estuarine research reserves, and wild and scenic rivers; 2. Aquatic habitat having exceptional importance to one or more life stage of a candidate of listed priority species, established by the state Department of Fish&Wildlife, or a federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species; 3. Rare aquatic habitat, ecological reference sites, or other waters having unique and exceptional ecological or recreational significance. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 35 OF 58 • "Water quality standards" means the state of Washington's water quality standards for ground waters of the state (Chapter 173-200 WAC) and the state of Washington's water quality standards for surface waters of the state (Chapter 173-201A WAC). In the absence of other definitions as set forth herein,the definitions as set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.3 shall be used for circumstances concerning the discharge of wastes. I • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 36 OF 58 • • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 37 OF 58 • APPENDIX C -- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS i 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 38 OF 58 • • • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 39 OF 58 • AQUATIC MOSQUITO CONTROL GENERAL PERMIT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR GENERAL NPDES PERMIT WAG-992000 MODIFICATION AND THE BEST MANAGEMNT PRACTICES FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL This appendix contains Ecology's response to comments to the Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit WAG-992000 Modification and changes to the Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control (BMP) document received during a public review period from December 15, 2003, to March 25, 2004. Prior to the formal public review period the Departments of Health and Fish &Wildlife,many mosquito control districts, local governments, mosquito control product manufacturers and other interested parties worked with Ecology to revise the statewide permit and BMPs to make them more pertinent and usable for those conducting mosquito control efforts in the field. Meetings were held October 14 and 15 in Moses Lake, on October 21 in Lacey, and again on March 5 in Olympia, at the Washington State Department of Agriculture. As a result, Ecology • received many informal comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the proposed modifications. Formal comments received during the public comment period pertain to wetlands, the use of methoprene and other mosquito control products, thresholds for larviciding (including preemptive methods of control), adulticiding, dipping requirements, suggestions for clarification, and other miscellaneous comments. Commenters 1. Joseph M. Conlon, American Mosquito Control Association 2. Karl Malamud-Roam, Ph.D.,Contra Costa Mosquito &Vector Control District, Concord, CA 3. Steve Foss and Wendy Sue Wheeler, Washington State Department of Agriculture 4. Ann Potter and Rocky Beach, Washington State Department of Fish &Wildlife 5. Tom Haworth, Adams County Mosquito Control District, WA 6. Kevin Shoemaker, Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control Association 7. Heather Hansen, Washington Friends of Farms and Forests 8. LaDell Yada,Washington State citizen 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 40 OF 58 9. Lou Dooley, Environmental Health Director,Clark County Mosquito Control • District 10. Doug Van Gundy, Wellmark International 11. William Meredith, Delaware Mosquito Control Section, Department of Fish and Wildlife 12. Wayne Switzer,Eden Advance Pest Technologies 13. Art G. Losey, Washington State Pest Control Association 14. William Peacock, City of Spokane 15. Jim Thompson, Grant County Mosquito District#1 16. Jim Tabor,WDFW 17. Mike Young,Snohomish Health District 18. Gerald Campbell, Grant County Health District 19. Mark Newberg, Wellmark International 20. Benjamin Hamilton,Washington State Department of Health 21. David Ensunsa,Columbia Mosquito Control District 22. Dan Mathias, City of Everett Comments have been summarized and those commenting are referenced by the number given • to them above. Where comments resulted in a change to either the BMP document or the permit, that change is noted. Wetlands Comment 1. The role of natural predation in the control of mosquitoes in the document and the webpage from which it is derived is somewhat overstated. Although there is a wealth of literature recording observations and extolling the importance of the Odonata as predators of diurnally active adult mosquitoes, this has not been supported by controlled field studies. While predation provides a worthy and welcome contribution to our integrated mosquito control efforts,it simply cannot provide the level of control needed when human lives are at stake This is certainly not meant to downplay the important part proper wetlands management plays in ecology and a fully-integrated mosquito management strategy,for the American Mosquito Control Association fully supports and endorses proper wetlands management. But I would caution against promulgating this as the sole means of mosquito control in areas where these wetlands are found. I would advise further caution against underestimating the potential magnitude of mosquito production even in natural, healthy wetlands. (1, 11, 12) Response to Comment 1. Mosquito "outbreaks" most often occur in destabilized wetland and stream ecosystems that have been changed or tampered with so that the predators of the larvae such as • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 41 OF 58 • invertebrates, insects, and amphibians are excluded. Ecology does not suggest that predation is the only means of mosquito control for wetlands. While draining and/or filling wetlands are not approved methods, taking an integrated approach that targets mosquito larvae control, including bio-chemical control, is recommended in the BMPs. (Tom Hruby, Ecology Wetland Specialist, Personal Communication, 11116104) Methoprene Comment 2. This comment addresses the issue of restricting the use of methoprene in areas known to provide habitat for state threatened and endangered species during the mosquito spray season. There were divergent views on the proposed restrictions. One view suggests the restrictions are unnecessary, the other suggests precaution due to unknowns. Let it be noted that the WDFW restricted areas are the only conditions for methoprene in the Permit that are more stringent than the application conditions set by FIFRA labels. View 1. The 2001 USEPA document together with the 2003 USEPA research and the World Health Organization/FAO review state that methoprene will have minimal adverse effects on non-target species. The Fish and Wildlife letter pretty dramatically overstates the risks associated with this product. Decisions should be made on sound science. Methoprene should be allowed in areas identified by WDFW to minimize the • potential increase use of adulticides, which will likely result due to insufficient control of third and fourth instar larvae using Bacillus products only. (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15,18, 19,41) View 2. We [WDFW] appreciate Mr. VanGundy's [VanGundy represents Wellmark International, a manufacturer of methoprene products] explanation regarding the contents of the EPA RED documents. We notice that EPA does denote a level of amphibian toxicity from methoprene ("minimally toxic to amphibians"). In our October 13 letter, we state that research on methoprene and frog deformities is inconclusive. There are studies that have found developmental effects to amphibians when methoprene was applied at mosquito control treatment levels, and there are studies that have not observed this. We do not think it would be productive to engage in debate/rebuttal over all research on this matter. Because the body of research on this topic is not definitive we have chosen to use the precautionary principal when conserving state and endangered species. We did not feel that there was sufficient information to recommend that methoprene products be restricted other than in very localized areas where we have identified T &E species. Given that we are making recommendations for state threatened and endangered species, in very limited areas, and that other efficacious mosquito control products (Bacillus) are available,we continue to support our original recommendation on methoprene restriction. (4, 16) • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 42 OF 58 q Response9 to Comment 2. Aquatic Mosquito Control Permit No. WAG — 992000 Section S4. Best • Management Practices/Integrated Pest Management requires the preparation and implementation of an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP)by the permittee. Among other conditions, the section states, "in developing the IPM plan, the permittee shall consult with local governments and state and federal agencies as needed." The Permit Fact Sheet provides the following rationale for this condition: ...an IPM program considers all available control actions, including no action, and evaluates the interaction among various control practices, cultural practices, weather, and habitat structure. This approach thus uses a combination of resource management techniques to control mosquito populations with decisions based on surveillance. Fish and game specialists and natural resources biologists should be involved in planning control measures whenever delicate ecosystems could be impacted by mosquito control practices (p. 9). Ecology took the lead developing an IPM plan to assist local governments and others performing mosquito control operations who were suddenly in the business of mosquito control due to the spread of the West Nile virus. As the permit required, Ecology consulted with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in spring 2003 during this process. WDFW identified wildlife species that it considered most vulnerable to certain mosquito control larvacides, identified the primary areas occupied by these species, and requested that pesticide applications be restricted in these areas. Ecology also invited representatives from the industry to comment on the basis of the WDFW recommendations. An evaluation of the issue yields the following facts: 1. The criteria WDFW used for denoting species as vulnerable were appropriate. Only those listed as state endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that inhabited freshwater wetlands during most of the mosquito control treatment period were considered. Five species met the criteria: northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), Oregon spotted frog (Rana prehosa), western toad (Bufo boreas), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), and one butterfly, the Yuma skipper (Ochlodes yuma). 2. The total area occupied by these species in rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands is tiny, comprising of portions of 117 sections (<0.18% of Washington State). Many areas identified for northern leopard frog (36 Sections)and western pond turtle (13 Sections)are owned or managed by WDFW. 3. EPA's Methoprene Registration Eligibility Document (RED) is dated March 1991. This document has not been updated. A Fact Sheet for the RED was updated in 2001. The RED document states, "The Agency does have data, however, that show that methoprene is highly acutely toxic to estuarine invertebrates" (p. 12). The Fact Sheet for the RED document updates this assessment and describes the level of amphibian and fish toxicity from methoprene as "minimally toxic" but does not define what that means or explain if that is sufficiently protective for federally and state listed species of concern. The World Health Organization indicates methoprene is slightly toxic to fish but lists no data on amphibians. 4. Recent research on methoprene and frog deformities and developmental toxicity is inconclusive. For example, La Clair el al. (1998)found that methoprene breaks down quickly in sunlight and very low concentrations of the byproducts from degradation interfere with normal amphibian development. The La Clair study concluded "the addition of I#L/L of several of S-methoprene's degradates to the environment of developing [amphibian]embryos resulted in juveniles with deformities similar to • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 43 OF 58 • thatf ound naturally." Ankley et al. (1998)found that UV light caused amphibian limb malformations whereas methoprene did not. The study further reported that concentrations of 500 ppb of methoprene caused mortality in amphibians. Degitz et al. (2003) was unable to reproduce the results of the La Clair study, but did determine that methoprene and its metabolites did not cause any adverse effects at rates < 1.25 ppm. These data are too disparate to be conclusive. Even though risk levels appear to be low, much uncertainty still exists with both the concentrations and the role methoprene and its metabolites play with the normal development of amphibians. 5. Levels of methoprene that may be found in the environment after mosquito control applications are also variable. Concentrations have ranged from 4 ppb at seven days post treatment from an Altosid 30-day briquette (Ross et al 1994) to 0.01 ppm from sustained-release formulations (Degitz et al. 2003). Henrick, et.al. (2002)found 26 ppb s-methoprene in ponds treated with Altosid Liquid Larvicide (ALL) at day one, and 1 ppb at day seven. However, one of the metabolites, 7- methoxycitronellal acid, was found at 267 ppb at day 1 and 237 ppb at day 7. Notably, these levels do not represent multiple treatments or potential accumulation or any number of other factors, such as shade, wind, water flow, temperature, pH, turbidity, etc. that may affect concentrations of applications to the natural environment. 6. Several studies concluded that a dose-exposure connection between frog deformities and methoprene applications for mosquito control is unlikely and that correlations between locations of methoprene applications for mosquito operations and frog deformities have not been found (Henrick, et.al. 2002, Johnson et.al. 2001, Ankley et al. 1998). • 7. Larvicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (BS) are allowed for use in these areas due to their extreme low toxicity to non-target species. 8. The restricted areas identified by WDFW may pose a threat to human health when used as breeding grounds by mosquito vectors due to the narrow window of effectiveness of Bacillus products. Ecology proposes to allow the use of methoprene in more than 99% of the state as conditioned by the federal FIFRA label but will continue to restrict the areas of application for methoprene as recommended by WDFW except in the event of a human health threat from mosquito-borne disease as determined by the State and local health departments. Mono-molecular films, oils and organophosphates are also restricted in these areas, but the restriction on the use of methoprene was questioned due to its low toxicity to non-targets and high selectivity for mosquito larvae. To aid future decisions regarding the use of methoprene Ecology will complete a SEPA checklist evaluation of the use of methoprene for mosquito control operations and initiate a monitoring strategy to document concentration levels of methoprene applications in relation to possible adverse effects to non-target species. Many individuals, including people representing mosquito districts, local governments, Wellmark and WDFW j have offered to review and/or assist with the monitoring strategy. We intend on taking advantage of these offers. The objective of the evaluation and monitoring plan will be to provide data on methoprene for decisions relevant to permit renewal by November 2006. Comment 3. Page 13 of the BMP under permitted pesticides for mosquito control: The chart should be corrected to show specifically listed pests for Altosid products. Under the heading"Target Pests • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 44 OF 58 " identified species in the chart for Altosid indicates a variety of pests. There are other • on Label, the e p ty methoprene labels that reflect these pests but for Altosid, mosquitoes are the only listed species. (10) Response to Comment 3. Agreed, the chart has been edited. However, EPA's 2001 Methoprene R.E.D. Fact Sheet states that methoprene "has activity against a variety of insect species, including horn flies, mosquitoes, beetles, tobacco moths, sciarid fly,fleas (eggs and larvae),fire ants, pharaoh ants, midge flies and Indian meal moths." This information has been noted as a footnote to the chart. Comment 4. The statement in Comment 2, that"We do not think it would be productive to engage in debate/rebuttal over all research on this matter [methoprene and amphibians]," is frankly stunning. I do not believe that I have ever seen a government entity express the thought that they do not want to review the scientific facts on a controversial issue. Given that Ecology's proposed alternatives to methoprene are frequently less effective in numerous circumstances, that resistance management through pesticide rotation is a cornerstone of modern IPM, and that USEPA and numerous other independent reviewers have found "minimal toxicity" or equivalent wording, the proposed prohibition should not occur without strong scientific evidence supporting it, and this has not been provided. (2) Response to Comment 4. The comment referred to in the above statement, made by WDFW, was explained in the context: "Because the body of research on this topic is not definitive we have chosen to use the precautionary principal when conserving state and endangered species. We did not feel that there was sufficient information to recommend that methoprene products be restricted other than in very localized areas where we have identified T • &E species. " They did review scientific facts, it was the lack of evidence regarding methoprene's toxicity that lead them to recommend the precautionary principle. Comment 5. The WSDA would like to inform Ecology that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC), recommends the alternation of biorational larvicides (Bti and Bs) and insect growth regulators (methoprene) annually or at longer intervals to prevent the development of insecticide resistance in vector populations. The WSDA recommends that the restriction of the use of Bti and Bs only in certain areas identified in the BMPs be amended by allowing some use of methoprene in rotation and in combination with the approved biorational larvicides so as to prevent the development of resistance to Bti and Bs. (3) Response to Comment 5. Since the restriction on the use of methoprene applies only in very select sites the rotation process recommended would not be precluded in 99% of the state. Further, in discussions with mosquito control operators around the state, we found that resistance to Bacillus products has not been found. Comment 6. The language allowing local jurisdictions to declare a health threat so they have access to methoprene is very unclear. This BMP gives no guidance as to how local boards of health are to be proactive in protecting the communities or what thresholds should be used to determine the potential • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 45 OF 58 •for human health risks. Inconsistent mosquito control thresholds could result in water quality problems and people taking illegal control measures into their own hands. (7, 16, 17) Response to Comment 6. Permit condition S1.4. restricts the use of methoprene in areas designated by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife except when a heath threat exists in those areas as determined by the State and local health departments. No health-based thresholds are stated in the BMPs or the permit. The Department of Health requested that health-based determinations be stated in general terms because the process and criteria used by local health jurisdictions to determine health threats is dependent on local conditions such as demographics, population densities and species of mosquitoes, proximity of positive identifications of mosquito-borne disease, tolerances for pesticide applications and tolerances for disease outbreaks. However, the language on page 16 of the BMP under the section, "What Constitutes an Emergency of Health Threat?"has been clarified. Comment 7. Page 3, paragraph 3. Regarding the statement in the BMP that methoprene is an endocrine disrupter, this statement is untrue and I would propose that this language be removed from the revised BMP. While endocrine disruption is becoming an area of concern, there are still ongoing discussions surrounding testing methodologies. Currently there is a lack of validated test systems. Methoprene does not disrupt the production of any glandular hormone within insects, other invertebrates,vertebrates or mammals. In insects it merely augments naturally occurring insect juvenile hormone (JH) at times in the insect life cycle where natural production of JH is at a minimum. An example would be during the molt from the last larval instar to the pupa or adult • stage. I have included a more detailed commentary as Attachment 1. In mammalian systems, methoprene is broken down and excreted primarily through urine. (10) Response to Comment 7. Ecology agrees, the statement has been removed. Comment 8. There has been much discussion of the non-target effects of methoprene. As I outlined in my other correspondence, there exists a wide margin of safety to non-targets when methoprene is used according to label directions. There is no concern for accumulation of methoprene in the environment as it rapidly degrades,further Henrick et al. 2002, report that the degradation products of methoprene rapidly degrade as well, without accumulation. Methoprene can be used with confidence against mosquito larva but also provides for wide safety margins to non-targets. (10) Response to Comment 8. While there is no evidence that the use of methoprene for mosquito control will lead to amphibian malformations or other adverse effects to non-targets, the data are inconclusive. Scant monitoring has been done of methoprene applications for mosquito control in the natural environment. Ecology is initiating a monitoring strategy to document concentration levels of methoprene applications in the environment and will evaluate those levels in relation to possible adverse effects to non-target species. Comment 9. Page 18. There are some errors in the chart that need correction. The Altosid Liquid use rate should be changed to 3-4 ounces per acre instead of 2-20 pounds per acre. The 2-20 pound rate is incorrect for this formulation. The rate for Altosid XRG should be changed from 8-10 pounds to 5-20 •pounds to reflect the label rate. In the target pest category there are a variety of pests listed for the 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 46 OF 58 Altosid products. While this list is inclusive of several product lines, it does not reflect the fact that • the Altosid products are labeled only for mosquitoes. I would suggest that pricing be removed from the chart. Pricing is subject to change by time and location. Since the BMP is a document that will exist for some time, the pricing that is stated now in the BMP may not be indicative of a current price for future referrals to the BMP. (10) Response to Comment 9. The errors have been corrected. Prices, based on 2002 levels, will be retained only as a general guide for cost comparisons, one of the factors for consideration in an IPM plan. Comment 10. Methoprene's Impacts To Amphibians?--A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) imposed a condition for methoprene's use on one of our two National Wildlife Refuges that methoprene not be applied over wetlands where the salinity was less than 5 ppt, done in what appeared (at least to us) to be an overly-zealous application of the precautionary principle, because of the service's supposed concerns about the impacts of methoprene upon the developmental stages of amphibians (which of course are found more typically in freshwater habitats than in salt marshes,hence the Service's 5 ppt demarcation). However, this restriction only lasted for one year in relation to our then questioning the USFWS's scientific foundations about their position--after further review of the scientific evidence, it then seemingly became apparent to the USFWS that there was no credible scientific evidence to link any amphibian developmental abnormalities or deformities seen in the field with exposures to methoprene associated with operational mosquito control, and this unnecessary restriction was rescinded. As I probably don't have to tell you or others in your state • agency (if you're familiar with the scientific literature about these matters), several other much more probable causes of amphibian developmental abnormalities have now been scientifically identified (e.g.,parasitic infections, excessive UV light exposure, etc.) and been linked as the primary culprits for what has been observed for amphibian abnormalities,with any lingering connection here to the use of methoprene being an unwarranted, poorly-founded leap that serves little purpose (but wherever such claims still unfairly persist, then this bias certainly hinders the beneficial use of an important, environmentally-compatible mosquito control tool). (11) Response to Comment 10. We would be interested in any written assessment made by the USFWS on this matter. Thank you for your comments. Comment 11. Methoprene Use In Coastal Wetlands--As part of our statewide Integrated Pest Management(IPM) approach to mosquito control, we use methoprene (a juvenile growth-hormone mimic) as our frontline operational larvicide for salt marsh mosquito control,in spraying thousands of acres of Delaware's coastal wetlands with Altosid up to several times each summer (with our primarily using the A.L.L. 20% Concentrate formulation),including extensively using Altosid on Delaware's two National Wildlife Refuges. We find that Altosid gives us effective control achieved in practicable manner, and to the best of our knowledge does not have any unacceptable non-target impacts or environmental problems. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 47 OF 58 • Methoprene Use In Freshwater Wetlands --We also use methoprene for control of freshwater mosquitoes in stormwater management basins and constructed wetlands, often using some type of extended release formulation for this product in these settings, which similar to our salt marsh use also gives us effective control without any unacceptable side effects. (11) Response to Comment 11. Thank you for your comments on the use of methoprene. However, lacking any qualification on what is meant by "to the best of our knowledge"or "unacceptable side effects" we cannot make decisions on the use of methoprene based on these testimonials. Comment 12. [My] Only comment is on the BMP page eleven last paragraph, with the sentence that begins with "Methoprene can be used on older larval stages and for ...to late to use either Bacillus or methoprene ..." seems to say methoprene can be used when its too late to use methoprene??????? What gives? (14) Response to Comment 12. It was a typo. Thanks for catching it. The text has been corrected to read: Methoprene can be used on older larval stages (i.e., pupa), and for situations where it is too late to use either Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis or Bacillus sphaericus, a monomolecular film might be used. Comment 13. Statement in the draft: "Ecology proposes to continue to restrict the areas of application of methoprene." But then ecology goes on to say, "they will initiate a monitoring strategy to document concentration levels and if necessary,levels of toxicity to non-target species." The objective of monitoring will be to provide data on methoprene for permit renewal in 2006. Response: This monitoring, should it take place,SHOULD take place in the areas in question that are healthy frog environments now. Not some place that is already stressed for some other reason. And in monitoring the areas in question there will be records of methoprene application over the past years that will give some basis on where to start. And not take another twenty years in another location establishing a track record. And if monitoring is going to be done then it would seem that applications of methoprene should take place. Otherwise,what is going to be monitored? (15) Response to Comment 13. Comment noted. We will take your comments into consideration as we develop the monitoring plan. Comment 14. Calling your attention to the California draft fact sheet, written by the California State DOE,page 7, par 4, "USEPA has concluded that, used in mosquito control programs, methoprene does not pose unreasonable risks to wildlife or the environment." Now granted, each state can say and do whatever they want. And it is certain California has endangered species. But decisions being made in California are made on sound, current research. (15) Response to Comment 14. Decisions made in California are reviewed for relevancy to our program. Their control operations and monitoring results will be included in our SEPA evaluation. Comment 15. It was stated in the [WDFW] comments, "there are studies that have found • developmental effects to amphibians when methoprene was applied at mosquito control treatment 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 48 OF 58 levels and there are studies that have not observed this. Response: Those studies that showed negative effects should be produced for review in this decision making process. And the studies must be the most current up to date studies. And not studies that are old and have been disproved. At the meeting in Olympia on 5 March '04, industry presented, once again, the current facts on methoprene. With even newer studies done by OSU. And WSFW said, "we still have questions." When asked what are your questions the reply was, "we don't know." However, at least after three years WSFW and DOE are listening to the mosquito districts when they say, methoprene cannot be found or monitored for; only the effects can be monitored. (15) Response to Comment 15. See response to Comment 2. The SEPA evaluation and monitoring plan for methoprene have been proposed to clear up some of these ambiguities regarding the developmental toxicity of methoprene to non-target species. Comment 16. The most recent information is from Oregon,where ponds have been treated with methoprene and heavily monitored for the past several years. In over ten prior years of methoprene application and close inspection of populations, there has been no evidence of malformations. A recent discovery of infected snail populations,which harbor the deformity-causing trematodes,was a premonition of a deformity outbreak and further confirms that trematodes are to be strongly linked with these deformities,not methoprene. The newness of this information is encouraging and is a close geographic example of how deformities in the amphibian population are not related to methoprene. This should be taken into consideration as the BMP is revised another time. (19) Response to Comment 16. Ecology would be interested in reviewing the Oregon studies. Please forward any contact information you may have. Comment 17. If the proposed methoprene restriction is related to an absence of long-term testing and environmental impact studies,Wellmark requests to review the documentation that Washington is using for the long-term studies on other larvicide and adulticides products. (19) Response to Comment 17. Please see response to Comment 2. Comment 18. As mentioned in the meeting, many mosquito districts are influenced by decisions from other parts of the nation when it comes to restrictions on products. If the best management practices document continues to have restrictive language for methoprene, we will want a complete explanation for the decision so that other states can have a thorough understanding of Washington's position-how it is solely related to Washington State endangered species issues and not for the use of methoprene in general. (19) Response to Comment 18. Ecology's restriction of methoprene is solely related to Washington state endangered species issues and not for the use of methoprene in general. General use is not restricted beyond the FIFRA label. Preemptive use of biocides, including methoprene, is recommended in the BMP to minimize mosquito breeding sites and the need to use more toxic insecticides in the event of a disease outbreak. Further, • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 49 OF 58 • Ecology did not assess the harm posed by methoprene to endangered species sufficient to warrant restricted use when a human health threat exists. Also see response to Comment 2. Comment 19. To date, the comments that we have reviewed and those that have been previously missing are overwhelmingly in methoprene's favor, submitted by professionals who have used the products for many, many years without environmental incident. Why is there no impact, reduction or deletion of the restriction language, or are these comments to be ignored? (19) Response to Comment 19. Our responses largely address those comments that are based in fact or law. The preponderance of users of a pesticide does not constitute its lack of adverse effects because oftentimes the causes of adverse effects and correlations are difficult and costly to determine. Also see response to Comment 2. Larvicide Preferences Comment 20. After reviewing the BMP I would like to state that I believe that many improvements have been made and it is now a more concise and user friendly guide. I commend you for taking out the larvicide hierarchy wording that was present before. I believe that there is still a preference indicated,but an effort has been made to clarify that a particular larvicide will not work best(or at all) in certain situations. (6, 7,8, 9, 10, 13) SResponse to Comment 20. We agree. The language has been further clarified. Permit Condition S1.A.4 now reads: 4. Authorized pesticides are: ➢ Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) ➢ Bacillus sphaericus (H-5a5b) ➢ Methoprene Granular, Liquid, Pellet, or Briquette.* ➢ Monomolecular Surface Films ➢ Paraffinic white mineral oil. Paraffinic white mineral oil shall not be used in waters of the state unless: a. The mosquito problem is declared a public health risk, or b. The other control agents would be or are known to be ineffective at a specific treatment site,and c. The water body is non-fish-bearing (consult Washington State Fish and Wildlife concerning fish and wildlife). * Use of methoprene is not restricted for use beyond the FIFRA label in more than 99% of the State. However, methoprene is restricted in areas designated by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (see Appendix A)except when a health threat exists in those areas as determined by state and local health departments. Comment 21. I have a current label of Malathion 8 Spray produced by Wilbur-Ellis Co. with an EPA ,Reg. #2935-83-ZA. The label states: 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 50 OF 58 Larvae: Apply 8 fluid ozs. per acre to standing water intermittent) flooded • Mosquito pp y p g (intermittently areas, stagnant water, temporary rain pools). Broadcast use only over intermittently flooded areas. Application may not be made around bodies of water where fish or shellfish are grown and/or harvested commercially." I am not saying that I want to use this all the time. I am not saying that I would use it at all. I did not use it as a larvicide this year,but it is registered and as long as it is, it should be left available to use at least in case of emergency without having to go through all the bureaucracy that can occur. The more products are available the more effective, including cost effective,we will be. (5,8, 11, 12, 13) Response to Comment 21. Section S1, of the permit has been revised to allow the use of larvicides based on effectiveness and situation rather than just toxicity. According to Steve Foss, Pesticide Management section of WSDA, larvicides containing the active ingredients of malathion or temephos are not likely to be needed due to pesticide resistance or in cases of an emergency. However, larvicide products containing temephos are needed in areas with high organic content, such as wet manure fields and lagoons because the other larvicides permitted for use are often ineffective in these areas. In addition, manure fields and lagoons typically do not drain to surface waters. When surface waters are not affected monitoring will not be required. Malathion may be applied under an experimental use permit, so it remains in the tool box. Permit Condition S1,proposed modification: 5. Temephos may not be used in lakes, streams, or the littoral zone of water bodies or on state-listed specie sites listed in Appendix A of the BMPs, (Ecology publication 03-10-023). The use of temephos shall be allowed only in highly-polluted water (i.e. tire piles) or waters with high organic content (i.e. manure holding ponds and pastures with no surface water runoffl, or under either of the two following conditions: a. As a result of consultation between the Departments of Agriculture and of Ecology in response to the development of pesticide resistance or ineffectiveness within a population of mosquitoes. When temephos is applied to areas draining to surface waters monitoring of persistence and residues are a condition of the approval. Temephos must be rotated with one or more of the approved alternatives with a different mode of action to minimize the development of resistance. b. As a result of consultation between the Department of Health and Department of Ecology in response to the development of a human health emergency as determined by the Washington State Department of Health. 6. Other pesticides may be applied in the context of a research and development effort under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Agriculture through the issuance of a Washington State Experimental Use Permit. • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 51 OF 58 • Comment 22. In the Permit, Condition S4. A. 2. The phase, "in the order of preference in which they should be considered" should be changed to, "may be considered." (7, 8) Response to Comment 22. Agreed. The Permit now states: S4.A. 2. The IPMP shall consider the approved list of pesticide-based controls found in Section S1. Comment 23. Page 9 of the Permit, Condition S4. A. 1. contains the phrase, "except in response to documented" should be replaced with"to minimize the". Resistance is very difficult to document. Resistance management is part of an effective IPM plan. (7, 8) Response to Comment 23. Ecology met with WSDA over this language because resistance is difficult to document. The Permit language now states: S4.A.1. In the IPMP, pesticides that are effective in controlling the mosquito population and have the least adverse impacts to nontarget species shall be used except in response to documented development of resistance or in cases of ineffectiveness or in a declared public health emergency. Bio-controls Comment 24. Use of Appropriate Bio-controls (p. 2 of the BMP) states, "Stock water gardens that have no surface inlet or outlet with mosquito-eating fish (i.e., goldfish,mud minnow, stickleback, and perch). Tadpoles, dragonfly larvae, diving beetles,back swimmers,and front swimmers also prey on mosquito larvae. For more information, see http://www.wa.gov/wdfA,/factshts/­westnilevirus.htm" *This website has changed: http://www.wTdfw.wa.gov/factshts/`westnilevirus.htrn is the current site address. However, at this website,it only mentions birds and bats as natural predators for mosquitoes. I do not question the idea that the animals that you listed will feed upon mosquitoes (larvae or adult), but I think it is extremely misleading to imply that efficient control can be achieved with organisms like birds, bats, tadpoles, diving beetles, etc. More importantly, the website you are asking people to go does not appear to back up the limited claim for bird and bat control with any scientific evidence. (6) Response to Comment 24. Thank you for the updated link. Use of bio-controls mayor may not yield sufficient control, efficacy was not meant to be implied. Of concern is that goldfish and other predacious bio- controls may escape into natural water bodies where they could become invasive or problematic. Comment 25. In mosquito control plans put together by several other states, pesticides are listed and identified as biopesticides or traditional chemical pesticides. The benefits and limitations of each product are described. The applicator is free to choose the best fit for the situation. The EPA classifies Bti, Bacillus sphaericus, and methoprene all as biopesticides, thus putting them in the same category. Washington is the only state that separates out methoprene. When deciding which control • agent to use,it is important to consider efficacy. "Methoprene has consistently proved to be one of 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 52 OF 58 against mosquitoes and is usually isthe most effective insect growth regulators aga sq y more efficacious than biological control agents" (Glare, 1999). The presence of pollutants, salinity, organic and inorganic particles can all reduce the efficacy of Bti. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), two factors that contribute to the spread of West Nile Virus (WNV) include abundance of vectoring species of mosquitoes and wide spread irrigation. Washington has both. The proposed BMPs do not follow CDC guidelines for mosquito control. The CDC recommends the use of larvicides in targeted locations in risk category one. The proposed BMPs wait until risk category four to recommend larvicide use. By this stage, the CDC has already recommended increased larval control and intensifying adult mosquito control. (7,3, 6, 8,11, 12, 13, 19) Response to Comment 25. We agree that bio-chemicals like the bacteria Bti and the growth hormone methoprene should be included in this category. The following language has been added to this section (p. 3) of the BMP to encourage preemptive chemical bio-controls where predators alone may not be effective. Minimization Actions Use Appropriate Bio-Controls ➢ Selective bio-pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), B. sphaericus or methoprene are very effective preemptive controls when applied in the spring to specific sources identified by surveys. Amplifying and bridge vector species should be targeted (also see p. 11.). Comment 26. Page 11: The title, "Chemical Controls" is misleading. Bti, Bacillus sphaericus,and methoprene are all classified by the EPA as biopesticides. The title should reflect that this section includes biopesticides, oils and traditional pesticides. (7, 8) Response to Comment 26. Agreed, the title has been changed to, "Microbial, Biochemical and Conventional Chemical Controls." Comment 27. Preemptive treatments (larviciding known breeding sites early in the season) may reduce the need for adulticiding later. (1, 7) Response to Comment 27. Agreed, preemptive larviciding with bio-chemicals has been added as an option under the breeding site minimization actions. Adulticiding Comment 28. I believe that the section giving a BMP for adulticiding is misplaced. I am unclear as to your implication of adulticiding applications needing a NPDES permit(unless you mean when directly affecting water). Also, I feel that if you admit you don't have jurisdiction in terrestrial • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 53 OF 58 0applications of adulticides, then indicated the Best Management Practices for them seems inappropriate. This should be left up to the organization that has direct jurisdiction. In addition, Ecology's BMP states that there should not be any adulticiding done unless there is a disease present. (5, 6, 9) Response to Comment 28. A large majority of workshop attendees (October 14 & 15 in Moses Lake and October 21 in Lacey) wanted the adulticiding section left intact because it is an integral component of their integrated pest management approach to mosquito control. Treatment triggers are left to the mosquito control operator or the organizations they work for to determine. The BMP states: "Select triggers for the use of adulticide products: Some mosquito control districts recommend using light traps to monitor for mosquitoes. For example, Adams County MD recommends that counts of 8 to 12 mosquitoes caught in 12 hours or a 3 adult mosquito landing count per minute in a residential area triggers the need to adulticide (Thomas Haworth, personal communication, November 7, 2003). Some applicators recommend adulticiding residential areas and upland areas where mosquitoes are migrating only when there is evidence of mosquito-borne epizootic activity at a level suggesting high risk of human infection. The following are examples of this type of evidence:high dead bird densities; high mosquito infection rates; multiple positive mosquito species including bridge vectors;horse or mammal cases I ndicating escalating epizootic transmission, including bridge vectors, horse or mammal cases, or a human case with evidence of epizootic activity (p. 21)." •In some instances, adulticiding can reduce or eliminate the need to heavily apply larvicides, can be used effectively with less environmental impact to non-targets, and can be cost-effective. So for this best practices plan, some information on commonly used products and methods are appropriately included. However, since there have been objections to the inclusion of this section we will more clearly identify Ecology's regulatory jurisdiction in those sections. To be sure, Ecology has no intention of over-stepping its regulatory bounds. Comment 29. Page 13 of the BMP states, "Terrestrially applied insecticides are NOT regulated under federal or state water pollution control laws and are not subject to NPDES permit conditions or requirements. However, in Washington State applications of insecticides used for adult mosquito control, even if they are labeled for use over water, i.e., streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, ditches, etc, must be permitted under a Clean Water Act (NPDES)permit." *Please clarify; I am assuming that the preceding sentence is referring to when adulticides are used on, in or directly above water. Is this the intent of your sentence or are you stating the regardless of use, an adulticide must have a NPDES permit? If the latter is true this seems to be in direct conflict with the first sentence of section 7. If the former is true then this should be made clear in the BMP. (6) Response to Comment 29. The only time adulticide applications would have to be permitted is when they are applied, directly or indirectly, to waters of the state. Ecology's Water Quality Program does not permit the application of pesticides that are applied to terrestrial sites. However, the italicized language has been removed because it was confusing and most likely not needed. 40 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 54 OF 58 Comment 30. BMP minimum on does response n •p se oe of consider DOH and or CDC guidelines,which consider targeted adult mosquito control by stating, "...adulticiding based on surveillance is an extremely important part of any integrated mosquito management program. (11) Response to Comment 30. See Response to Comment 5 and 9. Also, the section that discusses adulticiding describes the various triggers that may be appropriate. Dipping Criteria Comment 31. Could you clarify the dipping criteria for larviciding storm water ponds?The 2003 permit said larvicides could be applied if greater than 0.3 larvae/pupae per dip are found. The 2004 BMPs says 1 larva per 3 dips is the larviciding threshold. The 2004 permit says that greater than 1 larva per 3 dips is the larviciding threshold. With last year's criteria 1 larvae per 3 dips meant we could larvicide. Do we now need 2 or more larvae per 4 dips to larvicide? (22) Response to Comment 31. Only 1 larva per 3 dips is needed. Comment 32. Could we state in the permit that entities that did control the year before based on their surveillance don't necessarily have to wait for mosquitoes to appear again the following season before using control measures in that water body. This question came up last year from King County,who identified their water bodies that needed control and wanted to continue that control • without having to do the surveillance all over again. I'm getting questions such as "We found mosquito larvae last year in this pond,can we apply the mosquito dunks as a preventative measure this year without doing the dipping all over? Does the permit allow this?" (20) Response to Comment 32. The permit requires mosquito dunks prior to treatment unless the site is inaccessible (see response to comment 33 below). Mosquito breeding sites may change and there is no need to use larvicides if no larvae are present. Comment 33. Page C-5 -Other references use 1 per 3 dips rather than 0.3 per dip. (3, 13) Response to 33. Agreed. Section S4.13 of the permit now states: "Pesticide applications shall not commence unless surveillance of a potential application site indicates a larva/pupa count of greater than 1 per 3 dips, or unless dead birds, infected horses, or adult mosquito surveys indicate the presence of vector mosquitoes when larvae counts cannot be made due to their inaccessibility. In these cases larviciding may be desirable or even necessary without the larvae dips." Miscellaneous Clarifications Comment 34. The following clarifications are suggested: 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 55 OF 58 Page 1 - Add-Applications of pesticides are also subject to the Washington Pesticide Control Act(15.58 RCW), the Washington Pesticide Application Act(17.21 RCW), the General Pesticide Rules (WAC 16-228), the Worker Protection Standard (WAC 16-233), a number of pesticide and/or county specific regulations. Page 3 -The heading "Eliminate Mosquito Feeding Sites" does not correspond to bullets beneath the heading. Suggest different heading such as "Personal Protective Measures" Page 4-Clarify that the use of larvicides is one of the Minimum BMP Responses to Minimize Mosquito Breeding and use of adulticides. Page 5 -Amend Risk Assessment Probability of outbreak in humans: Remote to low; areas with limited or sporadic WNV epizootic activity in birds and/or mosquitoes. Page 10. IV. Mosquito Control Treatments Use larvicides at specific locations when WNV epizootic activity is found in birds and/or mosquitoes. Page 11 -Amend heading to Microbial, Biochemical and Conventional Chemical Controls. • Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (H-5a5b) are microbial pesticides. Methoprene is a biochemical pesticide. Monomolecular surface films,paraffinic white mineral oil, and temephos are conventional chemical pesticides. Page 12-Amend web page reference to guide of larvicide products. For a guide to larvicides see the WSDA website: http://www.kellysolutions.com/WA/showproductsbypest2.asp?Pest ID=IOAMAAC 04. Page 13-Clarify insecticides listed in table 3 are for larvae control and not adulticides. (3, 13) Response to Comment 34: All the comments were accepted and changes made to the BMP document except the WSDA web site address. The WSDA web site was not included because larvicides not permitted for use under this permit may be listed there and it would be confusing to list products not permitted for use. Comment 35. Page 12 of the BMP states, "Fish and game specialists and natural resources biologists (WDFW) must be notified of planned control measures whenever delicate ecosystems could be harmed by mosquito control practices.... Could you please clarify how to determine a "delicate ,ecosystem?" Is this a legal description? Is this only WDFW land? Clarification would be helpful. (6) 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 56 OF 58 Response to Comment 35. "Delicate ecosystems"are those that can only survive under a narrow range of environmental conditions including light, salinity, temperature, water quality, and nutrients, and are extremely vulnerable to anthropogenic activities. An airplane flying over nesting grounds demonstrates this sensitivity. The phrase was not used as legal terminology, but as plain English. Comment 36. The fact that it takes 38 days to obtain a license and permit to undertake mosquito control activities would likely inhibit a community to address an emergency health issue... (11) Response to Comment 36. The vast majority of permitted entities in Washington come under the Department of Health's coverage by contracting with them. It takes about a seven-day turn around to do that, largely because of mailing time constrains. It's conceivable to have the turnaround time reduced to a day or two in a real emergency. Comment 37. Education of the public in the areas of mosquito habitat reduction and personal protection in and of itself is not protecting the public from disease as is implied in the draft document. (11) Response to Comment 37. Personal protection is the best precaution anyone can take to ensure minimal exposure to mosquito borne diseases. If a person tries to kill every mosquito in a two-mile square area they will probably not succeed and when they leave that area they are exposed to increased risk again. The best insurance • anyone has against mosquito borne disease is to eliminate the chance of exposure in their direct personal space. This is why Appendix B, Insect Repellent Use and Safety from the Center for Disease Control has been added to the document. It is an excellent informational source. Comment 38. An important component of the CDC guidelines is to include monitoring for the disease as well as monitoring for mosquito populations. (11) Response to Comment 38. The Washington State Department of Health is the lead on monitoring for the disease. Section II of the BMP directs mosquito control agents to their local health departments for questions and issues related to monitoring for the disease. Comment 39. What is going to constitute monitoring? Record keeping or actual testing? Please clarify. (5) Response to Comment 39. When the permit was issued, monitoring was intended to examine persistence of the insecticides used in Washington State. Since persistence data for the larvicides allowed for use already exists, possible adverse affects to non-target organisms, rather than persistence, will be monitored. Additionally, the arrival of the West Nile virus in Washington State, has resulted in many local governments and others new to mosquito control practices applying larvicides during the spring and summer months. These new control operations will result in a sharp increase in the amount of larvicide being applied to waters. For these reasons, the monitoring requirement will be modified to only require reporting the type, location, and • 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 57 OF 58 quantities of larvicides used. Ecology will use this information to prepare a plan to monitor for possible adverse affects in areas targeted by the reporting results. Comment 40. We treat hundreds if not thousands of small ponds through out the season, many of which are less than one acre. If we report those small ponds as <1 acre our rate per acre will all off. My district tries to record each treatment whether 10 acres or .03 acre. (5) Response to Comment 40. Reporting in tenths or hundredths of an acre is more accurate and can be done on the current reporting form. We allow permittees to also 'clump' the acreage they treat in an area so if they treat ten small ponds that are .10 acre each, they can report it as one acre. This works so long as the ponds all drain to the same receiving water. Comment 41. Comment to draft: By adding the WSDA RCWs and WACs it would seem that now mosquito control operations are under FIFRA and federal label requirements and NOT second level government rule making. There are so many levels of government that ALL requirements will be difficult for the home owner and layperson to sort out. (15) Response to Comment 41. Ecology must be responsive to Court decisions. However, we agree and have petitioned EPA several times to consider streamlining these requirements for the benefit of operators/applicators. 41Comment 42. How will the comments be handled in this process? It seems they are as much questions as comments. Because all that happens in this process is a response is given to comments with no action taken. (15) Response to Comment 42. The comments are reviewed for basis in fact or law. Where inaccuracies or deficiencies are found, they are corrected. Comment 43. This is the second modification in less than one year on the permit,how often will changes be made in the future? (15) Response to Comment 43. This is the last modification that will be made prior to permit renewal. Comment 44. 1 suggest adding"ecologically sensitive areas" to demarcated no-spray zones on maps (p. 11 of the BMP). (16) Response to Comment 44. Agreed. The language has been added to the section: "Demarcate no-spray zones on maps. This may include areas such as schools, hospitals,fish farms, wildlife refuges, ecologically sensitive areas, the homes of individuals who are on chemically sensitive registers, and crops grown under a certified organic program." 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit PAGE 58 OF 58 w nice t have this language in more • Comment 45. C1, Number 3, may cover this,but it would be o a detail somewhere. Could we put what water bodies should have permit coverage? The "waters of the state" catchall works to a certain point, but there seems to be confusion over the water bodies (i.e. storm drains with an outlet) that could reach "waters of the state." I have instructed folks that if their water body has the potential to reach waters of the state, they need permit coverage. If"waters of the state" includes water bodies that have a potential to reach waters of the state, we should try to make this very clear. I'm still obviously a little confused... (20) Response to Comment 45. The Department of Ecology's Aquatic Mosquito Control permit covers mosquito control activities that discharge insecticides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. All who conduct mosquito control activities in water for communities, districts and private landowners are required to obtain coverage. "Waters of the state" includes water bodies that have a potential to reach waters of the state. References cited: Ankley,G.T.,J.E. Tietge, D.L. DeFoe, K.M. Jensen,G.W. Holcombe,E.J. Durham, and S.A. Diamond. 1998. Effects of ultraviolet light and methoprene on survival and development of Rana Pipiens. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17: 2530-2542. Degitz,S.J.,E.J. Durham,J.E. Tietge, P.A. Kosian,G.W. Holcombe, and G.T. Ankley. 2003. Developmental toxicity of methoprene and several degradation products in Xenopus laevis. Aquatic • Toxicology 64: 97-105. Henrick,C.A.,J.K. Ko,J. Burleson, G. Lindahl. D. VanGundy and J. Edge. 2002. Investigation of the relationship between s-methoprene and deformities in anurans.J. of Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 18(3):214-221. Johnson, C. M., L.B.Johnson,J. Murphy and V. Beasly, Evaluation of the potential effects of methoprene and Bti on anuran malformations in Wright County, MN. National Resources Research Institute, University of Mn. NRRI technical report no. NRRI/TR-2001/01 La Clair,J.J.,J.A. Bantle and J. Dumont. 1998. Photoproducts and metabolites of a common insect growth regulator produce developmental deformities in Xenopus. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 1453-1461. Ross, D.H, D. Judy, B. Jacobson, R. Howell. 1994 Methoprene concentrations in freshwater microcosms treated with sustained-release Altosid formulations. J. of Am. Mosq. Assc. 10(2): 202-210. i 4/17/2002 Fact Sheet For Aquatic Mosquito Control General NPDES Permit