Winter / Spring 2006

Electronic Pesticide Bureau Newsletter.

Click here for subscription information

Children's Protection Act Updates IPM-Plan Compliance Update Resmethrin Banned on school property 2005 Mosquito Season in Review Prohibited Plant List Released NEW Rights of Way Regulations Severe 2005 Defoliation from Winter Moth WPS Manuals Revised Pesticide Regulations (S.13) UPDATE Last (Fiscal Year 06') Product Registration Meeting 2006 Pesticide Exam Schedule Staff Directory

\ Images Courtesy of USDA Agricultural Research Service

Children's & Families Protection ACT updates

IPM-Plan Compliance UPDATE

One of requirements of the Children's & Families Protection (CPA) is that every school, daycare & school age childcare program in Massachusetts must develop and submit indoor & outdoor Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plans. Last January the Office of the Attorney General and MDAR mailed letters (over 3,500) to schools and childcare programs determined to be in non-compliance with this requirement. Click here to view copy of the correspondence.

A year later, there has been a tremendous improvement in IPM-Plan compliance with public and private schools. As of February 1, 2006 over 90% of public and private schools have IPM-Plans on file with the Department.

Childcare programs [daycares & schools age childcare programs], however, still lag far behind schools in IPM-Plan compliance. Less than 50% of childcare programs have IPM-Plans on file. For more detail on IPM-Plan compliance please click here'.

While IPM-Plan submission is ultimately the schools responsibility, applicators are reminded that they still must verify the following prior to applying pesticides on the property of a school or childcare program:

• The school or childcare program has IPM-Plans on file. Click 'here' to check a schools or childcare programs IPM-plan status.
  
  
• Prior to any outdoor pesticide application, make sure that the pesticide(s) intended for use are listed within the outdoor IPM-Plan.
  
  
• Prior to any outdoor pesticide application make sure the school/childcare program sent the required Standard Written Notification at least two working days prior to the application. Click here for additional information/requirements on the Standard Written Notification.
  
  • Note on Emergency Waiver applications: 'Post notification' must follow any approved single use Emergency Waiver application. Click here for additional information and requirements for Emergency Waivers.

All applicators who service schools or childcare programs should visit the following website to become familiar with or reminded of the requirements requirements of the CPA: www.massnrc.org/ipm/

Back to top

Resmethrin No Longer Allowed on
Massachusetts School Property:

Changes in Cancer Classification Remove the Use of Resmethrin Insecticide from Outdoor School Property.

Due to the reclassification of resmethrin insecticide as LIKELY TO BE CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS, pesticide applicators will no longer be permitted to apply resmethrin insecticide on the outdoor grounds of school property. Under Ch. 85 of the Acts of 2000 (section 6 G.), An Act Protecting Children and Families from Harmful Pesticides, pesticides classified as probable or likely human carcinogens are not allowed to be applied to the outdoors of school property (see Section 11. MGL Ch. 132B).

As part of developing the Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED), EPA has established a new classification for resmethrin as LIKELY TO BE CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS. This description of carcinogenic potential is based upon a weight of evidence whereby there is strong experimental evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (rats and mice), combined with data indicating relevant human exposures. No human data is presently available which supports describing resmethrin as carcinogenic to humans; however, the weight of experimental evidence shows animal carcinogenicity by a mode or modes of action that are relevant or assumed to be relevant to humans.

Prior to the process of developing the RED, resmethrin had not undergone a complete evaluation and determination under US EPA's program for evidence of human carcinogenic potential. As a result it was previously given a classification of Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenic potential.

Although uses for resmethrin include food handling establishments and livestock areas, the primary uses on school property were related to outdoor applications for mosquito abatement by organized mosquito control districts during evening hours or very early morning hours--when schools were not in session.

The EPA is developing this Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED), for the insecticide resmethrin to ensure that all current health and safety standards are being met. This RED is being developed through a process that involves a detailed review of registered use patterns, maximum allowable residues in foods (tolerances), human and environmental exposure potential, and all data developed to assess its environmental fate and human and environmental toxicity.

EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for resmethrin and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. According to EPA’s website, the RED is scheduled for completion in May of 2006. For more information on the RED please see the Federal Register Notice dated November 23, 2005 Volume 70, Number 225); Page 70829-70832.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2005/November/Day-23/p22998.htm

Back to top

Severe 2005 Winter Moth Defoliation

One of the more memorable caterpillar outbreaks occurred in the late spring and summer of 2005. Tens of millions of winter moth and other caterpillars were responsible for the extensive (in some cases severe) defoliation of trees. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) recently released the following Pest Alert on the winter moth:

Department of Conservation and Recreation
Bureau of Forestry Health
P.O Box 484
Amherst, MA. 01004
Tel: (413) 256-1601

Operophtera brumata

The winter moth was introduced to North America from Europe, and was first recorded in Nova Scotia in the early 1930s. Infestations are now known to occur in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and the pest is now established in coastal Massachusetts from Orleans on Cape Cod to Gloucester on Cape Ann. There are also unconfirmed reports of spotty infestation along Route 495 south of the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Winter moths in Massachusetts

For many years, defoliation on the south shore was attributed to cankerworms, a native insect that periodically defoliates the area. Typically, cankerworm outbreaks last two to three years before natural factors cause their collapse. When this failed to happen, it was suspected that another species was responsible. Specimens submitted to experts were confirmed to be winter moths. Winter moths feed on many deciduous trees found in Massachusetts, including oak, apple, elm, maple, ash, crab apple, cherry, and blueberry.

Identification

Adults emerge in late November and December. Adult females are gray, wingless, and flightless, and can be found crawling on tree trunks and other objects. Adult males are light brown, small in size, and are attracted to females and light. After mating, females lay their eggs in host tree bark crevices or in other sheltered locations, and all adults die. The eggs hatch in the spring when temperatures average 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

After hatching, the young larvae crawl up tree trunks and produce silken thread that can carry them in the wind. This dispersal method, called “ballooning,” is common among defoliators. Larvae are light green loopers (inchworms) that measure about one inch in length when fully grown. Young larvae feed within buds and on expanding foliage, while older larvae can consume entire leaves; generally, their feeding is completed by mid- June when larvae pupate in the soil.

Control

No natural controls are known to be present in Massachusetts, but researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst are actively collecting and rearing a parasite (Cyzenis albicans) that was very effective at controlling winter moth outbreaks in eastern Canada and the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, effective biological control is many years away. For recently defoliated trees, an application of a registered pesticide may be warranted.

For more information on currently registered pesticides, please contact your local extension service office or visit the cooperative extension web site at: www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets.

Many heavily defoliated trees will produce a second set of leaves. To help these trees, water them during growing season droughts. The Department of Conservation and Recreation publication “Helping Trees Recover from Stress” gives guidelines for proper tree care. To receive a free copy, please contact the Department of Forest Health Program at the address listed above.

Female and Male Winter Moth (US Forest Service photo)

Back to top

2005 Mosquito Season Review
By John Smith, Director of the Norfolk County Mosquito Control Project

The 2005 mosquito season was a text book example of how weather patterns can play an important role in determining mosquito populations.

The season started off with below normal temperatures and above average rainfall in May. This affected the mosquito populations in several ways. First the cooler than normal conditions in May slowed the development and activity of the spring reflood mosquitoes. These are the mosquitoes which develop in freshwater wetlands such as red maple and Atlantic white cedar swamps. Mosquito species with names like Ochlerottatus canadensis, Ochlerotatus excrucians and Ochlerotatus abserratus began the cycle by laying eggs above the waterline in these drying down wetlands early in the summer of 2004.

The above normal water levels in the spring of 2005 offered these eggs plenty of water to hatch and develop in. The late leaf emergence of many of the wetland deciduous trees also played a roll. During most springs the leaf out of these trees helps dry down the wetlands due to their transpiration influence. This leaf out was slightly delayed in 2005 contributing to the higher water levels. Large numbers of all three of these species had hatched by late May and were just waiting for warmer weather to begin their annual migrations to all the backyard barbecues. The second way the higher than normal water levels, lingering into early June, affected the mosquito populations was by creating conditions favorable for an early emergence of summer reflood mosquitoes. Aedes vexans, Ochlerotatus trivittatus and Aedes cinereus began emerging shortly after the spring brood mosquitoes were on the wing. All these factors combined to create an unusually large mixed spring/summer population of extremely aggressive human biting mosquitoes. This situation was further aggravated by a fairly rapid warm up in early June. Our office received many calls from residents in towns bordering these larger wetlands including towns like Norwood, Canton, Westwood, Milton and Dedham just to name a few.

Fortunately by late June the weather began to cooperate and things started drying up. This may not have been good news for those folks concerned about their lawns but it sure gave us a breather. But as is typical of New England weather things did not stay quiet for long. Heavy rains in the extreme eastern portions of Norfolk County and northern Plymouth County caused another large emergence of summer refloods. You might remember the news reports of street flooding in the Weymouth area in mid August. The resulting mosquito populations lasted into early September when cooler temperatures finally reduced their numbers.

The biggest mosquito news of the 2005 mosquito season was the reappearance of both West Nile virus (WNv) and the virus responsible for Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE). The first to appear was EEE in several communities of Plymouth County. Mosquitoes collected in Abington, Carver, Duxbury, Halifax, Hanover, Kingston, Lakeville, Pembroke and Rockland turned up positive for EEE. The EEE isolations were mostly in a bird biting species named Culiseta melanura.. There were also additional Culiseta melura mosquito pools collected from a scattering of other towns in eastern Massachusetts that turned up positive for EEE. One pool of Coquillettidia perturbans (a strong human biting species) was identified as positive for EEE in Kingston which prompting health concerns from local residents. By the end of the season four human cases of EEE had been identified one each in Duxbury, Halifax, Kingston and Pembroke. Unfortunately two of these cases proved to be fatal. Of interest was the fact that in New Hampshire, where human cases of EEE are rare, the state reported seven human cases in 2005 setting a new record for the state. There was also EEE equine activity elsewhere in Massachusetts including horse cases in Concord, Haverhill, Merrimac and Wrentham. In addition, there was an Emu case reported from Athol along the New Hampshire boarder. Even the State of Maine was not immune as it reported the states first ever EEE horse case.

WNv reappeared in 2005 after having gone low level in 2004. There were 83 birds submitted to the State Department of Public Health which tested positive for WNv. The majority of these Corvids (Crows and Bluejays) were from the greater Boston area and to the south in southern Bristol County (the Fall River area). Six human cases of WNv were reported in Massachusetts in the communities of Boston, Cambridge, Fall River, Newton (2) and Watertown.

So all in all those folks involved in mosquito surveillance and control in Massachusetts were relieved to see the first killing frosts of the fall which ended any further threat from either of these bird viruses. We will spend the winter replenishing our resources as we prepare for the 2006 season. How much snow will we get and how will this affect next springs mosquito populations? Time will tell.

Back to top

Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List

Purple Loosestrife Photo from the Washington State Nox. Weed Control Board

As of January 1^st, 2006, the Department of Agricultural Resources will begin a two-step ban on the importation and sale of more than 140 plants identified as either noxious and/or invasive in the Commonwealth.  The list of plants has been in development for three years in collaboration with a number of agricultural organizations including Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) and the Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group (MIPAG).

During the extensive public comment and review period, timeliness were established for implementing the ban.   As a result, some of these plants will still be available for purchase after they have been excluded from importation, but within the next three years, any remaining plants will be phased out (The complete list with additional information on applicable dates is available 'HERE').

MIPAG is a collaboration of government, industry and environmental organizations concerned with invasive plants. The MIPAG list is a product of scientific analysis, and represents the scientific consensus of groups and individuals with a broad range of perspectives on the subject of invasive plants.

As a result of this collaboration, the list of 140 plants to be prohibited from “sale, trade, distribution, and related activities,” contains exceptions for 14 species. These 14 species are commonly sold as ornamental plants.   In order to minimize the financial impacts on Massachusetts agricultural businesses, DAR is proposing the gradual phase-out allowing an extension until January 1, 2007 for herbaceous species, and an extension until January 1, 2009 for woody species.

In addition, DAR proposes to allow the importation, sale, trade, and related activities of listed plants after obtaining a permit when there is a significant public benefit in doing so; and, where the risks posed by these species can be adequately controlled, e.g. for research and/or education purposes.

The ban does not impact any existing plantings for any of the listed species, but is limited to the importation, sale, trade, distribution and related activities, of these plants.

Back to top

Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Manuals Revised
Laurie Rocco

Newly Revised Worker Protection Standard Manuals available upon request.  Please contact the Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau at 617-626-1781 to receive copies.

Back to top

Draft pesticide regulations 333 CMR 13.00 Standards for Application and Hearing Officer’s Report Now Under Consideration by the Massachusetts Pesticide Board

The Massachusetts Pesticide Board is now in the process of considering proposed changes to pesticide regulations 333 CMR 13.00 Standards for Application.

Language for the draft regulatory changes took shape 1998 thru 1999 when the Department began drafting the proposed regulations. Then in May of 2000, additional language inserted at section 13.11, to cite the requirements of Ch. 85 of the Acts of 2000, An Act Protecting Children and Families from Harmful Pesticides.

Public hearings were scheduled and conducted on November 15th & 16th 2000 in Boston and Springfield respectively. It’s worth noting for reference, that these notifications and hearings were taking place at approximately the same time as those for the now promulgated new section 333 CMR 11.00 Rights of Way Management regulations. On November 30, 2000, the Department closed the public comment period. Over the next year, work was primarily focused on completing the ROW Public Hearing Officer’s Report and getting the Report and proposed changes in front of the Pesticide Board. The Department completed the draft Hearing Officer’s Report in January of 2002.

At this point the Department is presenting the draft regulatory changes and the corresponding Hearing Officer’s Report to the Massachusetts Pesticide Board. While it has been a long-time between the November 15th & 16th 2000, public hearings, and the presentation of these proposed regulations, it should be noted that there is no official rule limiting the time allowed for this process. In other words, there is no official limitation on the amount of time that can expire between the Pesticide Board consideration and submission of the final Board approved regulations to the Secretary of State.

Should the Board decide to move forward with these draft regulations, the Board might address desired changes through a series of discussions and votes that would have the Department make the specific Board requested changes. After this process, the Board would seek final approval of the revised draft regulations and a recommendation that the regulations be submitted to the Secretary of State for promulgation. At that point, the regulations would be published in the Massachusetts Register via the Secretary of State’s Office and the Department would seek to notify the regulated community.

Of the goals for the proposed regulation revisions, the Department sought to streamline and consolidate the pesticide regulations in Massachusetts. During the mid-1990’s, as per former Governor William Welds – Executive Order No. 384 – all State agencies were required to streamline and consolidate their regulations as well assess the Small Business Impact of any regulatory changes. In addition, the Department sought to clarify and strengthen the notifications provided to contracting entities and the general public. The proposed regulations further improve protections to human and environmental health and modernize the structural pest control regulations.

Back to top

The last meeting for registering pesticide products for fiscal year 2006 is April 19, 2006. Any product to be considered for registration must be received by the Department at least one month prior to the meeting. Please contact the Product Registration Specialist (Susan Reed) for additional information susan.reed@state.ma.us or telephone (617) 626-1778

Back to top

2006 MASSACHUSETTS PESTICIDE CERTIFICATION/LICENSE EXAM SCHEDULE

Mail examination application(s) to
Department of Agricultural Resources
Pesticide Bureau
251 Causeway Street
Suite 500, Boston, MA 02114-2151

SPRINGe Armory Square, Springfield, MA 01101-9SP

MA 01101-9000

Exam Times: Private and Commercial Certification exams start promptly at 9:00 AM Commercial Applicator (Core) and Dealer exams start promptly at 12:30 PM

Snow Times:    Call 617-626-1841 for a pre-recorded message with exam dates, location, and cancellation information.  In the event of bad weather, call after 6:30 AM on the morning of the scheduled exam and listen to the message.  If the exam has been canceled, the message will inform you and indicate that you should report on the snow date.

Back to top

Pesticide Bureau News

This Newsletter is published by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources.

251 Causeway Street (Suite 500)
Boston, MA. 02114
Phone: 617- 626-1700

Website: http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/

Back to top