Wing Beats Volume 20 Number 4 - Wing Beats - Florida Mosquito ...

Wing Beats 

of the Florida Mosquito Control Association 

Winter 2009 

An Official Publication of the 

THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION 

Volume 20, Number 4

the end of the beginning. 

stop mosquitoes before they fly, bite and spread disease. 

VectoLex ® and VectoBac ® biorational larvicides target mosquitoes at their 

source – the water where they breed – before they become flying, biting, 

multiplying, disease-transmitting pests. 

VectoBac ® 

VectoLex ® 

Creating Value Through Technology And People TM | www.valentbiosciences.com | 800-323-9597 

Read and follow the label instructions before using. 

Valent BioSciences, VectoBac and VectoLex are registered trademarks and Creating Value Through Technology And People is a trademark of Valent BioSciences Corporation. 

©2006 Valent BioSciences Corporation. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

Winter 2009 

Volume 20 

Number 4 

Editor-in-Chief 

Stephen L Sickerman 

voice: 850-267-2112 

swcmcd@mchsi.com 

Managing Editor 

Jack Petersen 

voice: 850-872-4370 ext 36 

drjack3@hotmail.com 

Director of Advertising 

Dennis Moore 

voice: 727-376-4568 

dmoore@pascomosquito.org 


of the Florida Mosquito Control Association 

Circulation Editor 

Kellie Etherson 

voice: 352-334-2287 

ethersonk@cityofgainesville.org 

Associate Editors 

Dave Dame, Gainesville, FL 

CDR Eric Hoffman, Jacksonville, FL 

Thomas R Wilmot, Sanford, MI 

Regional Editors 

Glenn Collett, Salt Lake City, UT 

Timothy D Deschamps, Northborough, MA 

William C Reinert, Northfield, NJ 

Thomas R Wilmot, Sanford, MI 

Editorial Review Board 

Doug Carlson, Indian River, FL 

C Roxanne Connelly, Vero Beach, FL 

Mustapha Debboun, Fort Sam Houston, TX 

Wayne Kramer, Baton Rouge, LA 

L Philip Lounibos, Vero Beach, FL 

Dennis Moore, Odessa, FL 

Steve Mulligan, Selma, CA 

John J Smith, Norwood, MA 

Florida Mosquito Control Association 

FMCA President: Shelly Redovan, Lehigh Acres, FL 

redovan@lcmcd.org 

Kellie Etherson, FMCA Executive Director 

Gainesville Mosquito Control 

405 NW 39th Avenue 

Gainesville, FL 32609 

voice: 352-281-3020 / fax: 352-334-2286 

ethersonk@cityofgainesville.org 

American Mosquito Control Association 

AMCA President: Doug Carlson, Vero Beach, FL 

doug.carlson@irmosquito2.org 

Sarah B Gazi, AMCA Executive Director 

15000 Commerce Parkway, Suite C 

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 

voice: 856-439-9222 / fax: 856-439-0525 

amca@mosquito.org 

History of the Dog Fly Control Program in the Florida Panhandle. . . . . . . . . . . 4 

by James E Cilek 

How long will an insecticide wall deposit remain effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

by EM Avom Alara, RS Bikay, PB Nkot and Graham Matthews 

How To Capture and Rear Wild Caught Mosquitoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

by Jamie Coughlin and Jane A S Bonds 

Study of a Mosquito Prevention Device for Catch Basins 

in Warren County, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

by Teresa N Duckworth and Christine P Musa 

From Where I Sit: Notes from the AMCA Technical Advisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

by Joe Conlon 

About the Cover: When reared in the laboratory under conditions 

that maximize the development of fat bodies, the 4th instar larvae 

and pupae of Culex nigripalpus are quite colorful. Immatures with 

a blue/purple color typically are destined to become males, whereas 

those with a green color usually grow up to be females. However, a 

mutant type “orange” was isolated by George O’Meara at the Florida 

Medical Entomology Laboratory, and this color form is not sex-specific. 

The image of the three Culex nigripalpus pupae was scanned from a 

Kodachrome slide. Photo by D Gordon Evans. 

Florida Mosquito Control Association • PO Box 358630 • Gainesville, FL 32635-8630 

Wing Beats: An official publication of the American Mosquito Control Association, published quarterly by the Florida 

Mosquito Control Association. This magazine is intended to keep all interested parties informed on matters as they relate 

to mosquito control. All rights reserved. Reproduction, in whole or part, for educational purposes is permitted, without 

permission, with proper citation. The FMCA and the AMCA have not tested any of the products advertised or referred to 

in this publication, nor have they verified any of the statements made in any of the advertisements or articles. The FMCA 

and the AMCA do not warrant, expressly or implied, the fitness of any product advertised or the suitability of any advice 

or statements contained herein. Opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily the opinions or policies of the 

FMCA or the AMCA. 

Subscriptions: Wing Beats is sent free of charge to anyone within the continental United States. Subscriptions are available 

for the cost of first class postage to any foreign address at the following rates: Europe, UK and Australia US$20; Canada, 

US$6; South America US$10. Make checks and purchase orders payable to the Florida Mosquito Control Association. 

Correspondence: Address all correspondence regarding Wing Beats to the Editor-in-Chief, Stephen Sickerman, South 

Walton County Mosquito Control District, PO Box 1130, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459-1130. Readers are invited to submit 

articles related to mosquito and biting fly biology and control, or letters to the Managing Editor, Jack Petersen. There is 

no charge if your article or letter is printed. Authors, photographers and artists are invited to submit high quality original 

artwork in electronic format for possible use in the magazine or on the cover; $100 will be paid for each cover photo. 

Businesses are invited to place advertisements through the Director of Advertising, Dennis Moore. 

www.floridamosquito.org www.mosquito.org printed by Boyd Brothers, Inc, 425 East 15th Street, PO Box 18, Panama City, FL 32402-0018

4 

History of the Dog Fly Control Program 

in the Florida Panhandle by James E Cilek 

The “dog fly,” or stable fly, Stomoxys 

calcitrans, has been a scourge of 

man and livestock in northwestern 

Florida since earliest recorded 

history (King and Lenert, 1936); see 

Figure 1. The term “dog fly” is a 

colloquial name given to this pest 

because it was common for dogs 

kept outdoors to be severely bitten 

by these persistent blood-feeders. 

Oftentimes bites from the flies 

feeding on the ear tips caused 

considerable necrotic lesions. 

Dog flies were considered abundant 

in the Panhandle long before 

the first white settlers arrived 

(Rogers, 1970). Before the days of 

fencing laws, range cattle would 

often “rush to the bays and Gulf to 

submerge themselves and avoid 

the thousands of flies that tormented 

them” (Florida Division of 

Health, 1971). Although these flies 

usually attack cattle, and sometimes 

horses, they can be serious 

biting pests of humans when they 

occur in absence of their usual 

animal hosts. In fact, anecdotal 

reports during the 1930s revealed 

that at certain times of the year 

window screens were nearly black 

with these flies, thereby preventing 

anyone from going outside to enjoy 

the beaches. 

In Florida, the dog fly can be 

most abundant along Panhandle 

beaches from St Marks River in 

Wakulla County west to the Perdido 

River in Escambia County; see 

Figure 2. This phenomenon usually 

coincides with the passage of cold 

fronts associated with northerly 

winds, usually occurring after Labor 

Day. In the 1930s, King and Lenert 

Figure 1: Adult dog fly, from Univ 

of Nebraska, Dept of Entomology. Figure 2: Map of the Florida panhandle, courtesy of www.nationalatlas.gov. 

(1936) stated that dog flies often 

appeared on beaches “in such 

numbers as to cover practically 

everything, even the bare sand.” 

These same authors first published 

an investigation of “outbreaks” of 

dog flies in northwestern Florida 

near Lake Powell, in coastal southwest 

Bay County. They reported 

dog fly larvae and pupae were 

found in accumulated piles of Sargassum 

seaweed along Philips Inlet. 

Although one would conclude 

from their paper that seaweed 

Winter 2009 Wing Beats 

deposits were the source of the 

flies, the authors acknowledged 

they were unable to replicate those 

observations in other coastal areas 

of the Panhandle. Later, Simmons 

and Dove (1941) suggested that 

north winds blew flies from inland 

sites to the coast where larval development 

would take place in bay 

grasses, specifically shoal grass 

(Halodule wrightii) and turtle grass 

(Thalassia testudium), piled up 

along the bay shores. 

During World War II, dog flies were 

so numerous in the western Florida 

Panhandle that they seriously ham- 

pered military training. This situation 

prompted the federal government 

in 1942 to initiate a cooperative 

agreement between the US Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) Bureau of 

Entomology and Plant Quarantine 

and the US Public Health Service 

(USPHS) for the control of dog flies. 

Funds were supplied largely by the 

US Army Air Forces (USAAF) to be 

used “specifically for the protection 

of military activities along the coast 

of northwestern Florida” (USDA, 

1943). The program extended over 

an eight county area from the St

Figure 3: Shoreline accumulations of bay grass were treated with creosote oil. 

Marks River to Pensacola. In an 

annual report entitled “Dog Fly 

Control in War Areas of Northwestern 

Florida” (USDA, 1943) the 

justification of this program was 

outlined: 

“During an outbreak of dog flies, 

it is impossible to conduct normal 

outside activities. The painful bites 

of hundreds of flies on the body 

occupy the mind and activities of 

the men in efforts to dislodge the 

flies. … Commanding and range 

officers have stated that range 

practice during outbreaks is seriously 

handicapped or prevented. 

Occasionally dog flies collect in 

the cabins of planes and if some 

remain after the takeoff they often 

bite the pilot or gunner and thus 

interfere with firing and general 

safety.” 

Dr Samuel W Simmons of the Division 

of Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals of USDA’s Bureau of Entomology 

and Plant Quarantine supplied 

technical advice and information 

to carry out the project, as 

well as evaluating the relative adult 

fly populations before and after 

treatments. The program relied on 

treating bay grass deposits with 

25% creosote oil emulsion and bay 

water as a larvicide based on work 

published earlier by Simmons and 

Dove (1941) and Dove and Simmons 

(1942). This mixture was applied at 

high pressure in order to saturate 

accumulated bay grasses using 

spray machines mounted on small 

barges that were towed along the 

shoreline; see Figure 3. Up to 5,000 

gallons of material per mile was 

applied to grass deposits at a cost 

of about $125,000 to $150,000 per 

year (Rogers, 1970). In 1945, DDT re- 

placed creosote with substantial 

savings in material cost, transportation, 

labor, and equipment. 

Rather than acting as a larvicide, 

DDT applications were adulticidal, 

causing 90-95% mortality of emerging 

flies (Blakeslee, 1945). 

It is interesting to note that at the 

time the USDA/USPHS/USAAF cooperative 

dog fly control program 

was operating it was one of the 

most extensive and important public 

works project of its time, being 

second only to the salt-marsh 

mosquito problem (Rogers, 1970). 

At the end of World War II the cooperative 


was terminated. Unfortunately, 

there was the mistaken impression 

by many that there was an easy 

and cheap solution to the dog 

fly problem. Those that held this 

belief were later proved wrong. 

Between 1946 and 1952, with the 

federal dog fly control program 

disbanded, local citizenry was left 

to fend for themselves against 

this pest. In 1953, State of Florida 

Figure 4: West Florida Arthropod Research Laboratory scientific staff, Dr 

Andrew Rogers and Mr Phil Hester, look through bay grass deposits for dog 

fly larvae, from front cover of January 1971 issue of Florida Health Notes. 

Wing Beats Winter 2009 5

6 

D I S T R I B U T O R E V A L U A T I O N F O R M 

please check the appropriate box, comments welcome in the space provided. Thank you! 

D I S T R I B U T O R : A D A P C O , I N C . 

D E P E N D A B I L I T Y 

poor 

good 

industry best 

S E R V I C E 

poor 

good 

industry best 

Q U A L I T Y 

poor 

good 

industry best 

E D U C AT I O N 

poor 

good 

industry best 

Complete product portfolio; leading industry distributor; 

accurate and trustworthy product data; on-time delivery 

Best sales rep support; only partner with service team that 

performs on-site maintenance, calibration and droplet 

testing; newly-enhanced online ordering website 

Only the highest-quality products backed by trusted 

manufacturers 

CEU training; instruction and support to achieve the most 

effective application 

Winter 2009 Wing Beats

D I S T R I B U T O R E V A L U A T I O N F O R M 

please check the appropriate box, comments welcome in the space provided. Thank you! 

D I S T R I B U T O R : A D A P C O , I N C . 

E Q U I P M E N T 

poor 

good 

industry best 

I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y 

poor 

good 

industry best 

M O N I T O R I N G A N D A P P L I C AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y 

poor 

good 

industry best 

Expanding the groundbreaking Guardian line of ULV sprayers; 

easy-to-use data collection systems; efficient, multi-cartridge 

RAMP reader 

Launching GeoPro, a comprehensive web-based GIS/decision 

support system that tracks and manages vector control 

operations 

Leading the industry in variable flow control; increasing 

effectiveness with less product; maximizing budgets; reducing 

impact on the environment 


8 

FourStar Microbial 

Briquets—the silver bullet 

you’ve been waiting for. 

FourStar BriquetS utilize the proven active 

ingredients Bacillus sphaericus (Bsph) and Bacillus 

thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), combined with patent 

pending sustained release technology. There are three 

briquet sizes available with control durations of 45, 90 

and 180 days. They are powerful ammunition for those 

sites you’d like to treat and forget about like catch 

basins and swimming pools. 

To learn more about fourstar Briquets, contact adapco toll free 

at (800) 367-0659 or visit us at www.fourstarmicrobials.com. 


“silver BulleT” refers 

To any sTraighTforward 

soluTion perceived To have 

exTreme effecTiveness. The 

phrase Typically appears 

wiTh an expecTaTion ThaT 

some new Technology or 

pracTice will easily cure a 

major prevailing proBlem. 

~wikipedia

matching funds for control of pub- 

lic health arthropods became 

available. Individual counties in 

west Florida began to establish independent 

mosquito or arthropod 

control taxing districts. The first 

district in this area encompassed 

coastal Bay County, now called 

Beach Mosquito Control District. 

Part of their mission was to provide 

control of dog flies on the beaches. 

As a result of the earlier success 

by the federal program, the District 

continued applying DDT to area 

bay grasses to prevent emergence 

of adult dog flies (Rogers 1970). 

During the 1940s the State of Florida 

hired a then young John A Mulrennan, 

Sr as its first professional 

entomologist to tackle the mosquito 

and other biting fly problems 

facing the State. Knowing that research 

was the key to unlocking 

Florida’s public health arthropod 

pest problem, Dr Mulrennan was 

instrumental in lobbying and securing 

funding from the State Legislature 

for a research laboratory 

for this purpose. The result was the 

establishment of the Entomological 

Research Center in Vero Beach, 

now known as the Florida Medical 

Entomology Laboratory. 

Although the federal war-time dog 

fly program reported that control 

efforts along the bays of the Panhandle 

were effective, local control 

programs were not as successful. 

It was soon quite apparent that a 

unified state effort was needed to 

systematically address the Panhandle’s 

dog fly problem. Tourism was 

starting to boom in northwestern 

Florida and “the Emerald Coast” 

emerged as an important economic 

engine for the State with its 

lure of pristine sandy beaches and 

abundant sunshine. From about 

Labor Day through mid-November, 

when the north winds started to 

blow, large swarms of bloodthirsty 

dog flies often appeared suddenly 

on the Gulf beaches, driving off 

tourists and severely impacting 

Figure 5: In 1969 workers sprayed bay grass with a methoxychlor emulsion. 

local tourist economies. As a result, 

many Panhandle beach motels 

were forced to end operations 

after the Labor Day weekend. 

The dog fly problem remained 

unabated until 1963, when Dr 

Mulrennan convinced the Florida 

State Legislature to provide funds 

to the State Board of Health for the 

formation of a second research 

laboratory to be located west of 

the St Marks River. Its mission would 

be “… to test insecticide resistance 

in dog flies, yellow flies and other 

arthropods, and to carry out other 

experimental work with chemicals, 

insecticides, and other substances 

and procedures, for testing effective 

methods for the control of 

such flies and other arthropods…” 

The laboratory, established in Panama 

City, was named the West 

Florida Arthropod Research Laboratory 

(WFARL). Dr Andrew J Rogers 

was appointed as its first Director, 

with B W Clements, Jr specifically 

assigned as Research Leader to 

conduct investigations into the biology 

and control of dog flies. 

Research at WFARL continued in 

earnest with staff conducting research 

at temporary headquarters 

located at the US Navy Mine Defense 

Laboratory in Panama City 

Beach. In 1966, WFARL received 

the donation of a PT-17 Stearman 

biplane from the Brevard Mosquito 

Control District. This aircraft allowed 

the mosquito and dog fly 

research sections of WFARL to begin 

conducting aerial spray tests 

for the control of these pests. 

It was also during this period that 

WFARL researchers confirmed that 

larval dog flies were using bay 

grass deposits as developmental 

sites along the numerous inlets 

and bayous of the Panhandle; see 

Figure 4. Florida mosquito control 

programs, at the local and county 

levels, continued treating bay grass 

accumulations with DDT. In 1969, 

methoxychlor was substituted for 

DDT because it was considered 

a less environmentally persistent 

insecticide (FDOH, 1971); Figure 5. 

Lack of sufficient funds, inadequate 

coverage, and improper 


10 

Figure 6: Setting up cages with adult dog flies and droplet monitoring dye 

cards to evaluate the efficacy of aerial naled applications along the beach. 

insecticide application continued 

to plague control efforts often 

resulting in considerable outbreaks 

of flies each season. In fact, following 

Hurricane Camille in 1969, dog 

fly landing rates of 100 flies per 

minute were not uncommon along 

portions of the Gulf Coast from St 

Marks River to as far as Mississippi 

(FDOH, 1971). Such conditions exacted 

a tremendous economic 

loss for the area and underscored 

the reality that dog flies did not 

respect county or district boundaries. 

After monitoring local dog fly 

control activities for about 15 years, 

WFARL scientists and Florida Division 

of Health (FDOH) administrators 

were convinced that uniform control 

was needed to bring about a 

wider level of success. Moreover, 

coastal business interests in the 

Figure 7: This Beech C-45 aircraft was based in Panama City, FL. 


area believed that a more efficient 


would prevent early departure of 

guests and extend the tourist 

season (FDOH, 1971). Obviously, 

keeping large numbers of dog 

flies off the beaches was good for 

business. This sentiment resonated 

clearly to Tallahassee lawmakers! 

Now in permanent laboratory buildings 

at Panama City, completed 

in 1966, WFARL scientists realized 

that aerial application of insecticides 

would be the ideal method 

for controlling dog flies along the 

beach. But entirely new application 

methods would have to be developed 

to exploit fly behavior 

when these pests concentrated on 

the beaches. After a considerable 

amount of focused research effort, 

Mr Clements demonstrated, in 

field tests, that an aerially applied 

1:3 mixture of Dibrom 14 (naled) 

and soybean oil provided 95-100% 

kill of caged stable flies; see Figure 

6. “We spent 7 years of 7 days a 

week on the beach to bring the 

aerial/ground control program to 

fruition. It was like trying to put a 

basketball in the hoop at midcourt” 

(Clements, pers comm). 

Aerial tests with the naled-soybean 

oil formulation against natural populations 

of dog flies along the 

beach showed good spray droplet 

coverage and control when 5 

swaths were applied to the beaches, 

beginning 3000 feet upwind 

of the target area. 

Regional dog fly control was now 

possible, but utilizing WFARL’s PT-17 

Stearman biplane to do that job 

proved to be cumbersome due to 

constant problems with clogged 

nozzles. In the late 1970s, a Beech 

C-45 aircraft was obtained from 

Ft Myers Mosquito Control District, 

in an attempt to circumvent the 

nozzle problem; see Figure 7. The 

C-45 performed well, but its payload 

was not large enough to 

cover the panhandle beaches in 

a single spray mission. WFARL


12 

Figure 8: 1988 photo of the DFCP DC-3 at the Panama City Airport, courtesy of Javier F Bobadilla. 

then obtained a vintage World 

War II DC-3 from Federal Surplus 

Property in Houston, Texas. This aircraft 

could handle a considerably 

larger payload and cover most 

of the panhandle beaches in 

one mission; see Figure 8. 

Recall that Simmons and Dove 

(1941) previously reported dog fly 

larval development in accumulated 

bay grasses in the coastal 

part of the Panhandle. They also 

found extensive fly development 

in peanut litter from the farming 

areas of southern Alabama, Georgia 

and north Florida. When their 

report was published no one considered 

the possibility of fly migration 

to the beaches from these 

areas. The practice of leaving 

stacked peanut litter in fields ended 

sometime later but a report 

in 1971 by Clements stated that 

laboratory-reared dog flies, marked 

with fluorescent dyes, released 70 

miles inland could arrive on Florida 


Figure 9: Spilled feed on ground near feed troughs at a dairy farm in north 

Florida; such areas were found to be prolific habitats for the development of 

dog flies, especially when the feed remained wet and mixed with cattle feces.

gulf beaches a few days later 

(Anon, 1971; FDOH 1973). In 1977, 

a joint USDA/WFARL larval survey 

in the Panhandle revealed a large 

number of larval dog fly developmental 

sites on dairy, beef, and 

horse operations, and that bay 

grass deposits were considered an 

insignificant source of production. 

This new information revealed that 

the primary source of larval fly production 

occurred in decomposing 

animal feed, such as rolled hay 

residues, silage, and spilled feed 

(Williams et al, 1980); see Figure 9. 

In 1972, the Florida State Legislature 

appropriated funds and created 

the Dog Fly Control Program (DFCP) 

under the Florida Board of Health, 

Office of Entomology Services, 

Florida Department of Health and 

Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Mr 

Clements continued to run the research 

program until 1976, when 

he was appointed Director of 

WFARL. At that time, Dr James 

Dukes was hired to continue dog 

fly research at WFARL, while Dr 

John Brown was appointed as the 

DFCP operational director. 

It was becoming clearer to WFARL 

researchers that the dog fly problem 

was more regional in origin 

and involved several adjacent 

states. Unfortunately, they did not 

have jurisdiction to conduct out-ofstate 

projects that would have 

shed light on better management 

strategies for this pest. During 

1980-1986 a formal cooperative 

research agreement was developed 

between USDA/Center for 

Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary 

Entomology, Gainesville, FL 

and WFARL. The major aim of this 

project was to investigate dog fly 

biology and develop control techniques 

that could be assembled 

into an Integrated Pest Management 

program for area-wide management 

(Hogsette et al, 1987). 

A considerable amount of research 

and new information was 

generated during that period. The 

cooperative program identified 

the primary source of adult flies on 

Panhandle beaches as coming 

from cattle producing areas of 

northwest Florida, even as far as 

southern Alabama and Georgia. 

Investigators also found that 

prevailing northerly winds could 

carry dog flies up to 135 miles 

from inland larval developmental 

sites onto the beaches during the 

late summer and fall (Hogsette 

and Ruff, 1985). Wind circulation 

patterns between open water and 

the land appeared to facilitate 

the congregation of flies on the 

beaches. The USDA/WFARL study 

concluded that current aerial application 

of naled, being carried 

out in the coastal zone of the 

Panhandle at the time, should continue 

to be targeted against adult 

dog fly populations after they 

arrive on the beaches. In fact, 


MINI-PRO Model 2990 

Outstanding features in a compact size 

frame that is simple to operate and transport. 

The perfect ULV applicator for small area 

applications or use on light duty vehicles. 

MAXI-PRO 1 45 Model 2748 

Our large size, high output unit for major cities and 

open area spraying. Choice of 18 or 21 HP Briggs 

& Stratton or the new 20 HP Honda GX engines. 

Maxi-Pro’s combination of a massive 400 CFM 

blower and extra capacity fuel tank will handle any 

large scale operation. 

14 

TYPHOON I Model 2984 

Ideal for small communities and towns, choice of 

three pumping systems, single high output nozzle, 

9 HP Briggs & Stratton engine, loaded with 

features and economically priced. 

MAXI-PRO 2D/2G Model 2745 

Unlike any other applicator on the market 

today, the Maxi-Pro 2D/2G model features two 

high output MultiMist nozzles that are 

directionally control via the remote control, 

180° horizontal and 100° vertically. 

“Innovators of Spraying and Fogging Technology Since 1947” 

TYPHOON II Model 2985 

Medium sized ULV applicator featuring 

Dyna-Fog’s patented twin MultiMist nozzles, 

choice of pumping systems and our premium 

11 HP Honda GX engine. 

DYNA-JET ® Model L-30 

The most advanced electric ULV aerosol 

applicator in the world. Featuring a digitally 

controlled high-speed rotary atomizer that 

produces the industry’s most consistently-sized 

spray droplets. Remote controlled tilting spray head 

that allows for multi positioning of the spray and 

stealthy, whisper quiet operation. 

CURTIS DYNA-FOG 


® • www.dynafog.com • PHONE: 317.896.2561 • FAX: 317.896.3788 

17335 US HWY 31 NORTH • P.O. BOX 297 WESTFIELD, INDIANA 46074 USA

a b 

Figure 10: Adhesive treated beach balls (a) and plastic corrugated panels (b) used as localized non-toxic control 

strategies against adult dog flies in the Florida panhandle. 

Hogsette et al (1987) stated although 

aerial application of naled 

was a temporary control measure, 

it was the most effective method 

until more satisfactory methods 

could be developed. 

In 1990, Joe Ruff succeeded Dr 

John Brown as the DFCP’s Director, 

with an expanded role including: 

aerial mosquito adulticide applications 

following flood disasters, 

disease outbreaks, or during very 

high mosquito population levels, 

and providing technical expertise 

to area mosquito control programs. 

In September of that year, DFCP 

provided aerial adulticiding assistance 

for Indian River and St Lucie 

Counties in the midst of several St 

Louis encephalitis outbreaks. 

In 1991, DFPC was nearly eliminated 

as the result of severe State 

budgetary reductions. Many citizens 

from local mosquito control 

districts, and other stakeholders, 

rallied to convey to Governor Lawton 

Chiles and Florida legislators 

their support for DFCP. This time 

the grassroots support campaign 

won out and the Legislature continued 

funding for the program, 

albeit at greatly reduced levels. 

In 1992, DFCP was administratively 

transferred from HRS to the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS) and 

renamed the Operational Support 

Program. The program remained 

under the auspices of the Bureau 

of Entomology and Pest Control. 

During that time DFCP continued 

to use a vintage 1941 DC-3, and 

the aircraft was retrofitted to apply 

technical naled, thereby eliminating 

problems using soybean oil. 

Figure 11: 2005 photo of the DC-3 taken during a calibration exercise, courtesy of Jane A S Bonds. 

In 1993, Dr John Smith, current director 

of the Florida A & M University, 

John A Mulrennan, Sr Public Health 

Entomology Research & Education 

Center (PHEREC) - formerly known 

as WFARL, established a new research 

section to conduct studies 

on the biology and control of dog 

flies, biting midges (“no-see-ums”), 

yellow flies, and ticks. He hired this 

author to lead the section. Extramural 

funding was minimal to nonexistent 

for dog fly biology and 

control, so much of the research 

focused on developing localized 

control strategies, including decoy 

sticky traps (Cilek, 2002, 2003); see 

Figure 10. An extension guide was 

also developed on the biology and 

control of this pest that can be 

accessed at: http://pherec.org. 

In 1999, the DFCP’s airplane was 

permanently grounded due to 


16 

structural damage, and replaced 

with another DC-3 acquired from 

the Collier Mosquito Control District; 

see Figure 11. Joe Ruff retired in 

2000 and the program’s third Director, 

Stephen Sickerman, took the 

helm. To the delight of tourists, and 

local business people, dog fly populations 

had been minimal in recent 

years, and fewer spray missions 

were necessary. As a result, 

local citizenry, always in favor of 

DFCP, became more and more 

complacent. In 2007, Florida newspapers 

reported that Florida lawmakers 

anticipated a multi-billion 

dollar deficit for the upcoming 

2008-2009 fiscal budget. As usual, 

state administrators looked for programs 

that could be reduced or 

eliminated. 

In 2008, several FDACS officials 

met at PHEREC with Panhandle 

area mosquito control directors 

and PHEREC scientists to discuss 

the future of DFCP, in light of the 

state’s looming deficit. In that 

meeting, FDACS management 

stated they were looking at closing 

the DFCP unless substantial grassroots 

support came forward from 

the communities being served by 

the program. Unfortunately, few 

responded, while the local business 

community remained largely 

mute to the Department’s challenge. 

Moreover, the inability of 

FDACS to obtain a replacement 

for its 6 decade-old DC-3, which 

experienced recurrent mechanical 

problems that kept it on the 

ground, didn’t help matters. 

On June 30, 2008, DFCP was terminated 

by FDACS. Consquently 

each mosquito control district and 

municipality along the Panhandle 

now must determine its own course 

of action with regard to dog fly 

control. What the future holds for 

those in the business and tourist 

communities, as well as beachgoers, 

when these hungry flies 

arrive remains to be seen. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The author thanks Steve Dwinell, 

Jerry Hogsette, Joe Ruff, Stephen 

Sickerman, John P Smith, Hyun-woo 

Park, and particularly B W Clements, 

for their reviews and helpful comments 

on previous manuscript 

drafts. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anon. 1971. Division of Health annual 

report. Florida Dept Health 

and Rehabilitative Serv, Tallahassee 

(unpubl) pp 103-4. 

Blakeslee, E B. 1945. DDT surface 

sprays for control of stablefly breeding 

in shore deposits of marine 

grass. J Econ Entomol 38: 548-552. 

Cilek, J E. 2003. Attraction of colored 

plasticized corrugated boards 

to adult stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans 

(Diptera: Muscidae). Fla 

Entomol 86: 420-423. 

Cilek, J E. 2002. Attractiveness of 

beach ball decoys to adult Stomoxys 

calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae). 

J Med Entomol 39: 127-129. 

Dove W E and S W Simmons. 1942. 

Control of stablefly or “dog fly” 

breeding in shore deposits of bay 

grasses. J Econ Entomol 35: 582- 

589. 

FDOH (Florida Division of Health). 

1971. Controlling the dog fly. Fla 

Health Notes 63: 4-15. 

FDOH (Florida Division of Health). 

1973. Dog flies. Fla Health Notes 

65: 121-126. 

Fye, R L, J Brown, J Ruff, and L 

Buschman. 1980. A survey of northwest 

Florida for potential stable 

fly breeding. Fla Entomol 63: 246- 

251. 

Hogsette, J A and J P Ruff. 1985. 

Stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae) migration 

in Northwest Florida. En- 


viron Entomol 14: 206-211. 

Hogsette, J A, J P Ruff, and C J Jones. 

1987. Stable fly biology and control 

in Northwest Florida. J Agric Entomol 

4: 1-11. 

King, W V and L G Lenert. 1936. 

Outbreaks of Stomoxys calcitrans L 

(“dog flies”) along Florida’s northwest 

coast. Fla Entomol 19: 33-39. 

Rogers, A J. 1970. A Report of Research 

on Control of the Dog Fly, 

Stomoxys calcitrans, in West Florida. 

West Florida Arthropod Res Lab, 

Florida State Board of Health (unpubl) 

13 pp. 

Simmons, S W and W E Dove. 1941. 

Breeding places of the stable fly 

or “dog fly” Stomoxys calcitrans (L) 

in northwestern Florida. J Econ Entomol 

34: 457-462. 

United States Dept of Agriculture. 

1943. Annual report Dog fly control 

in war areas of Northwestern 

Florida. USDA/Bureau Entomol and 

Plant Quarantine, US Govt Printing 

Office, Washington, DC. 40 pp. 

Williams, D F, A J Rogers, P Hester, 

J Ruff, and R Levy. 1980. Preferred 

breeding media on the stable fly, 

Stomoxys calcitrans, in northwestern 

Florida. Mosq News 40: 276-279. 

James E Cilek 

Professor of Entomology 

John A Mulrennan, Sr 

Public Health Entomology 

Research & Education Center 

Florida A & M University 

4000 Frankford Avenue 

Panama City, FL 32405 

850-872-4184 x27 

james.cilek@famu.edu

TECHNOLOGY FOR PROFESSIONALS 

PORTASTAR MOBILSTAR 

Distributor USA 

and Canada: 

www.jasmic.net 

Call Toll Free: 

(888) 4–JASMIC 

(888) 4–527642 

ULV Cold Fogging Aerosol Applicators 

Fontan – the optimal machines for Vector and Pest Control. Application of Larvicides. 

Locust Control.Sewage Treatment. 

Fontan Mobilstar with spraying modes ULV or ULV-Plus (Ultra Low Volume) 

and LV (Low Volume) spraying modes. 

Made in Germany 

fontan ® + swingfog ® 

QUALITY WINS 

Swingtec GmbH, Postfach 1322, 88307 Isny, Germany, Tel. +49 7562 708-0, Fax +49 7562 708-111, Email: info@swingtec.de, www.swingtec.de 


WeatherHawk 

Inversion 

A Temperature Inversion Detection 

System for Mosquito Abatement 

The WeatherHawk Inversion system continuously 

measures temperature, relative humidity, and wind to 

detect suitable conditions for mosquito abatement. 

Benefits of the System: 

• Labor and chemical savings reduce costs 

• Real-time data eliminates guesswork 

• 24/7 monitoring of environmental conditions 

• Inversion detection for air-quality alerts 

• Portability for microclimate monitoring 

• SMS alert message capability to one or 

more cell phones 

• Optional solar power and wireless commu- 

nication allow remote monitoring 

For more info, contact us at: 

866-670-5982 (US) 

435-750-1802 (Int’l) 

www.weatherhawk.com/ids 

Ask about our truck-mounted 

weather stations. 

® 

WeatherHawk 

inversion 

www.weatherhawk.com

How long will an insecticide wall deposit remain effective? 

by Eric Martial Avom Alara, Raphael Stanislas Bikay, 

Pierre Baleguel Nkot and Graham Matthews 

Malaria is still a major cause of 

death, especially among children 

under 5 years of age, so the main 

emphasis of control programs has 

been to protect young children 

from malaria mosquito bites with 

long lasting insecticide treated 

bed nets (LLITN). This intervention 

has been shown to reduce malaria 

transmission and the current 

trend is to increase bed net distribution 

and ownership of bed nets. 

Another proven intervention for the 

control of malaria vectors is indoor 

residual spraying (IRS). Alongside 

bed nets, the use of indoor residual 

sprays has also been increasing. 

A major factor in the success of 

an IRS program is the length of 

residual control provided by the 

insecticide. This can be affected 

by a number of factors, in particular, 

the type of insecticide 

formulation employed and the 

material from which the wall of 

treated houses is made. 

An earlier article [Wing Beats 18: 

5-14] described a study in which 

different vector control options, including 

IRS and LLITN’s were examined 

in six villages in Cameroon. 

This study and a subsequent trial 

have indicated that a combination 

of ITN and IRS is more effective 

in reducing mosquito numbers 

better than either treatment alone 

(Matthews et al, 2009). 

As mosquitoes are active throughout 

the year in the tropical rain 

forest area, a study was initiated 

to assess the duration of the effectiveness 

of spray deposits on 

walls with indoor residual spraying 

using a bioassay technique. Most 

of the houses at the test location 

Figure 1: One of the houses in the Cameroon village used for bioassays. 

are constructed of mud over a 

wooden frame; see Figure 1. Better 

houses houses have a cement 

finish and some are constructed 

from planks. 

SETTING UP THE TRIAL 

Three houses were selected in a 

village that had received no mosquito 

control treatments in the previous 

twelve months. Two of the 

houses had mud walls and the 

third one had cement walls. In 

the absence of wooden plank 

houses in this village, therefore for 

the purpose of the trial, two plank 

walls were constructed inside the 

two mud houses. One of these 

houses was sprayed and the other 

left untreated. Some walls inside 

a cement house were sprayed 

while others were left unsprayed 

as an control. 

Treated walls were sprayed with 

lambda-cyhalothrin (ICON® 10CS) 

applied at 25 mg/m 2 in 30 ml/m 2 

using a compression sprayer fitted 

with an 8002 nozzle fitted with a 

control flow valve (CFV) operating 

at 1.5 bar pressure. 

Bioassays were conducted by attaching 

cones from a WHO test kit 

shortly after the spray application 

and subsequently the bioassays 

were repeated at approximately 

monthly intervals for a further six 

months. Cones were easily attached 

to the plank and cement surfaces 

using sticky tape; see Figure 

2. The mud walls were very uneven, 

however, making fixing difficult; see 

Figure 3. Therefore the cone was 

fixed using a nail and the gaps 


20 

Figure 2: Attaching cone to plank wall. 

between the edge of the cone 

and the wall were filled with cotton 

wool; see Figures 4 & 5. The cone 

positions were marked on the wall, 

so that subsequent tests were always 

placed on a different section 

of the wall. 

Anopheles gambiae, which were 

laboratory-reared at the Organization 

de Coordination pour la lutte 

contre les Endémies en Afrique 

Centrale (OCEAC), were transported 

in a cage to the village and 

using a pooter (aspirator), fifteen 

female were collected in a tube 

and counted, prior to being gently 

blown into the cone; see Figures 

6 & 7. The top of the cone was 

immediately covered with cotton 

Figure 4: Attaching cone to mud wall. 

wool; see Figure 8. After an exposure 

period of thirty minutes, the 

mosquitoes were again collected 

in a tube and placed in a small 

tub covered with mesh and supplied 

with a sugar solution; see 

Figure 9. Knockdown was assessed 

after 3, 30 and 60 minutes and 

mortality after 24 hours. The assays 

were replicated three times. 

RESULTS 

Initially, knockdown on all surfaces 

was rapid with 100% mortality. 

However, as the deposits 

aged, knockdown was less rapid 

and mortality declined on the mud 

walls 5 months after the spray application. 

Knockdown and mortal- 


Figure 3: Close-up of mud surface. 

ity remained highest on the plank 

surfaces. The initial bioassay was 

after the walls had been treated 

and the last assay was 6 months 

later; see Figure 10. 

DISCUSSION 

In the 1950s, DDT was recommended 

for IRS, as it was expected to 

persist for up to 12 months. However, 

as DDT is now banned for agricultural 

pest control and its use 

inside houses is very controversial, 

alternative insecticides are needed. 

In Tanzania, ICON® 10CS applied 

at 25 mg/m 2 was persistent 

on mud surfaces for up to 6-9 

months with a 10 minute exposure 

(Curtis et al, 1998). Similarly, ICON® 

Figure 5: Plugging cone with cotton wool.

22 

Figure 7: Collecting mosquitoes with pooter (aspirator). 

10CS provided 12 months control 

after application in mud-walled 

dwellings in field studies in Uganda 

(Kolaczinski et al, 2007). The cause 

of the reduced efficacy after five 

months on mud walls observed 

in the Cameroon study on mud 

after five months is not clear, but 

may have been due in part to the 

roughness of the wall surface and 

or the type of mud. In locations 

where there is a short rainy season, 

six month’s persistence is adequate 

to cover for the period of 

the year when mosquitoes are 

active, but along the Sanaga valley 

in Cameroon, the trial showed 

that walls need to be re-treated 

after six months, i.e. twice per year, 

to provide effective mosquito 

Figure 8: Close-up of cone on plank wall. 

control throughout the year. 

REFERENCES 

Curtis, C F, Maxwell, C A, Finch, R J 

and Njunwa, K J. 1998. A comparison 

of use of a pyrethroid either 

for house spraying or for bednet 

treatment against malaria vectors. 

Tropical Medicine and International 

Health. 3: 619-631. 

Kolaczinski, K, Kirunda, J, Mpima, J. 

2007. Evaluation of the residual 

efficacy of ICON® 10CS in field 

use for indoor residual spraying. 

Malaria Consortium Study Report. 

Matthews G A, Dobson, H M, Nkot, 

P B, Wiles, T L and Birchmore, M. 


Figure 8: Transferring mosquitoes into cone. 

2009. Preliminary Examination of 

Integrated Vector Management 

in a Tropical Rain Forest Area of 

Cameroon. Transactions of the 

Royal Society of Tropical Medicine 

and Hygiene. 103: 1098–1104. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We would like to gratefully acknowledge 

Syngenta for their financial 

support, and OCEAC for supplying 

mosquitoes for this study. 

Figure 9: Returning mosquitoes to holding container.

Figure 10: Results of bioassays using laboratory-reared Anopheles gambiae. 

Facts and Figures about Lexington, Kentucky 

Brought to you by Dr Fred Knapp 

AMCA Annual Meeting • March 28 – April 1, 2010 • Lexington, KY 

• Lexington is the second-largest city in Kentucky and the 65th largest in the US 

• Kentucky was the first state on the western frontier to join the Union, in 1792 

• The first American performance of a Beethoven symphony was in Lexington in 1817 

• The JIF plant in Lexington is the world’s largest peanut butter producing facility 

• Kentucky has more resort parks than any other state in the nation 

Eric Martial Avom Alara 

Raphael Stanislas Bikay 

Pierre Baleguel Nkot 

Yaoundé Initiative Foundation 

Centre National d'etudes 

et d'experimentation du 

Machinisme Agricole 

Nkolbisson PO Box 3878 Messa 

Yaounde, CAMEROON 

www.yaoundefoundation.org 

corresponding author 

Graham Matthews 

Emeritus Professor 

International Pesticide 

Application Research Centre 

Imperial College London 

Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY 

UNITED KINGDOM 

00 44 (0) 207-594-2234 

g.matthews@imperial.ac.uk 

• Lexington is home to the headquarters of Lexmark International, the Kentucky 

Horse Park, Keeneland race course, Red Mile race course, Transylvania University, 

and the University of Kentucky 

• Lexington has a professional orchestra, two ballet companies, professional theatre, 

several museums including a basketball museum, several choral organizations and 

a highly respected opera program at the University of Kentucky 


What can We change 

today for a better 

tomorroW?

Ask the right question, a world of 

possibilities opens up. That’s what we’re 

doing at Clarke. 

Bring the horizon forward. 

Looking at trends and future public interests 

triggers forward-thinking…thinking that 

helps answer the needs of public health and 

our shared environmental responsibilities. 

Ask what’s responsible. 

At our core, Clarke is committed to bringing 

new products and technology to the 

industry. Ask “what’s responsible” or 

“what’s possible”…and new, unimagined 

outcomes can happen. 

Look at things upside down. 

We can always improve. So we are challenging 

ourselves in every area – from manufacturing to 

service – to push past our limits, forget what 

we know and rethink our processes that can 

translate into real value for customers. 

Reach out. 

For some, a daily battle with vector-borne 

disease is unfortunately a way of life. 

That’s why Clarke has established the 

Clarke Cares Foundation to help people in 

need. Our first area of focus supports The 

Carter Center and its fight against malaria 

and lymphatic filariasis in Nigeria. 

Share. Advance. 

Shared ideas and progress go hand in 

hand. Clarke is dedicated to answering 

“what can we change today for a better 

tomorrow?” Together, we know there is a 

new standard to be set. 

Visit our new website: 

www.clarke.com 1-800-323-5727

26 

- 

How To Capture and Rear Wild Caught Mosquitoes 

by Jamie Coughlin and Jane A S Bonds 

INTRODUCTION 

While neighborhood spray trucks 

still patrol regularly, the world of 

mosquito control has changed 

from the early days of a “kill them 

all” approach to targeting just certain 

species using chemicals as 

judiciously as possible. There are 

two types of experiments conducted 

by districts to improve spray 

efficacy. One is screening for resistance; 

the other is the evaluation 

of the equipment or insecticide 

used to control their mosquito 

populations. 

Resistance screening is testing 

wild-caught mosquitoes with a diagnostic 

dose based on the response 

of a known susceptible 

colony. Adults can be tested using 

the bottle bioassay protocol and 

larvae can be tested using water 

cups. Districts may also use mosquitoes 

to evaluate new compounds 

or equipment to ascertain 

the minimum dose needed to 

achieve control. Mosquito colonies 

at the Public Health Entomology 

Research and Education Center 

(PHEREC) have been studied for 

many years and have been characterized 

for their susceptibility to 

commonly used pesticides. These 

colony mosquitoes are available 

for use in tests by others. For chemical 

resistance testing, results from 

the target population are compared 

against data from the susceptible 

colony. Bioassays can 

return valuable data. It can be difficult 

to catch enough wild adults 

that are not blood-fed to run a test, 

so raising the next or F 1 generation 

can help assure enough numbers 

for tests, as well as controlling age 

and blood feeding status. This 

Figure 1: A pickle jar trap. 


Photo by PHEREC 

article will discuss the basics of 

capturing and maintaining a field 

population or rearing a second or 

F1 generation of wild mosquitoes 

for either adult or larval testing. 

CAPTURE OF ORIGINAL 

ADULT STOCK 

The key to trapping success is good 

surveillance. To trap large numbers 

of mosquitoes for either test 

or breeding stock, the best field 

locations must be identified. Possible 

capture sites in problem 

locations should be monitored by 

surveillance first, to determine what 

species are present and in what 

quantity. There are two approaches 

that can be used to accomplish 

the task: either setting live traps for 

adults or collecting larvae. Once 

a location is chosen then several 

traps should be set to assure that 

enough insects survive to start a 

short term colony. Each individual 

species should be researched as 

to their preferred feeding time, 

source of nourishment, mating and 

egg laying habits before trapping. 

Studying what area each species 

prefers is important for determining 

the required cage size and 

what care and equipment will be 

needed to maintain them. Some 

species like Culex nigripalpus might 

prefer larger flying areas but need 

to be kept in smaller cages 

because of their reluctance to 

breed and feed in captivity. Without 

adequate numbers, it is unlikely 

there will be enough surviving 

mosquitoes to use in tests or to 

raise another generation. 

TYPES OF TRAPS 

Cindy Mulla, of Beach Mosquito 

Control District (BMCD), Panama 

City Beach, FL states that they use 

a variety of traps for capturing 

adults for resistance or arbovirus 

testing. Adult traps generally operate 

on the principle of using an 

attractant of light and/or CO 2 to 

attract mosquitoes and a vacuumtype 

fan to suck the adults into a 

container or net. Mosquito Magnet 

X, also known as “pickle jar” traps, 

are popular. The container is a 

large plastic jar similar to the type 

of jar that pickles are sold in. Plastic 

containers may form excessive 

condensation on the inside and 

damage or kill mosquitoes. Nets 

allow for more air flow and less 

condensation and may provide 

a higher survivability rate when 

trapping adults, if they are picked 

up at an early hour. If left out too 

long in the sun and open air the 

mosquitoes may start to desiccate. 

Updraft traps use the same 

principles as pickle jar traps. They 

are set near a source and use CO 2

Figure 2: A mosquito updraft trap. 

Figure 4: A sentinel chicken coop with exit trap on top. 

Photo by BMCD 

to attract mosquitoes which are 

sucked into the holding area by a 

fan. Gravid traps contain stagnant 

water which lures gravid females to 

lay their eggs on the water, but are 

then sucked up by a fan into a net. 

BMCD uses sentinel chicken coops 

to lure mosquitoes into the trap. 

This method is known as exit or 

coop trapping. Canopy traps can 

be suspended about 25 feet into 

the tree canopy to capture mosquitoes 

that feed on birds and small 

animals that reside there. Resting 

boxes may also be used to collect 

mosquitoes with an aspirator. 

The type of trap used will depend 

on what mosquito species is the 

target and what the preferred habitat 

is for that species. Mosquitoes 

like Culex quinquefasciatus or 

Culex nigripalpus, which oviposit 

egg rafts, can be caught using 

either a gravid trap for collecting 

eggs or an adult trap set up near 

habitats with known large populations. 

Mosquitoes like Aedes taeniorhynchus, 

which oviposit on 

damp soil, would be very difficult 

to collect in the egg stage and 

would be best trapped with an 

adult trap set up in a prime habitat 

location or collected as larvae. 

TYPE OF COLLECTIONS 

Blood-fed mosquitoes have the 

benefit of being ready to lay eggs 

without having to be fed a blood 

meal. Wild mosquitoes are often 

reluctant feeders in captivit y. 

Probably the best opportunity for 

collecting gravid blood fed mosquitoes 

for testing or rearing is to 

set traps by disease-free sentinel 

chicken cages. A lard can trap, 

which is a large bucket set up with 

an entrance-only opening, or a 

Photo by BMCD 

Figure 3: A gravid trap. 

Wing Beats Winter 2009 27 

Photo by BMCD 

vacuum-type collection container 

with a live chicken in it for bait, can 

provide blood-fed mosquitoes. The 

sentinel chicken coop location is 

preferred for humane reasons. For 

worker safety it is a good idea to 

test a sample to be sure they are 

free from disease. If mated, but 

non-blood-fed, adults are wanted 

for testing, or to start a short term 

colony to raise test insects, the 

technician has to be careful not to 

catch them before they have had 

a chance to mate. Non-blood-fed 

mosquitoes are more likely to be 

free from diseases but are hard to 

blood feed in captivity and it may 

be difficult to get enough progeny 

for testing or brood stock. Some 

species may take many generations 

to provide enough insects for 

tests while others may produce 

well immediately. These traits can 

vary from area to area even in the 

same species. 

NUMBERS ARE IMPORTANT 

Large numbers of mosquitoes are 

important to start even a short term 

colony. A minimum of 500 adults 

should be used to start either a 

permanent colony or one that will 

provide more than one generation 

of test insects. While lower numbers 

can be used it will increase the time 

needed to colonize them signifi-

28 

www.MyGeoPro.com 

Trusted advisor in the office... 

GeoPro Data Center is a dynamic decision support 

system designed specifically for mosquito control operations. 


GeoPro unlocks the power of the Web 

A single solution platform for managing all 

your mosquito control data 

Your data is secure and accessible 24/7 

from any PC around the world 

Your data is 100% protected through the 

leading web hosted services provider 

GeoPro delivers decision support with fully 

integrated and interactive mapping 

Visually displayed data empowers decision 

makers in your operations 

GeoPro Data Center is innovative, 

empowering and affordable 

Visit www.MyGeoPro.com today to learn 

more and experience a free trial membership 

ADAPCO is the name you trust for all your mosquito control needs.

www.MyGeoPro.com 

...Powered by ingenuity in the field 

GeoPro Mobile Scout takes the power, flexibility and 

intuitiveness of GeoPro Data Center to the field. 

Replace your clipboard with GeoPro Mobile 

Scout’s pre-populated forms 

Improve the speed and accuracy of your field 

data collections 

Field data collected with Scout is automatically 

synchronized for immediate use 

Eliminate manual data entry to save time and 

improve accuracy 

Capturing the location of your activities and 

treatments is a snap with Scout 

Scout operates on Windows Mobile 6 devices 

GeoPro Mobile Scout is rugged, 

reliable and ready to use 

Visit www.MyGeoPro.com 

today to learn more 

Contact ADAPCO at 800-367-0659 or visit us online at www.MyADAPCO.com. 


30 

Figure 5: A canopy trap is suspended from a tree. Figure 6: A PHEREC scientist identifies adult mosquitoes. 

cantly. If only larval tests for either 

resistance screening or efficacy 

are done, then only 75-125 larvae 

per dose (2-4 treatments and 1 

control) are needed for a quick 

surveillance using the Larval Test Kit 

protocol at http://pherec.org/mas/ 

larvaltestkits.htm. If statistical analysis 

is required 200-300 test insects 

are required for significant results. 

CAPTURE OF LARVAL STOCK 

AND IDENTIFICATION 

Larvae can be collected manually 

by dipping selected locations or 

by using gravid traps to collect 

rafts. After identification they can 

be reared to test size or the adult 

stage and used for a short term 

colony. Colonies can be started 

from larvae or non-blood-fed 

adults; it just takes more time, 

resources and patience. 

It is vital that the mosquitoes are 

Figure 7: A resting box. 


properly identified. This may be 

done with adults or with eggs or 

larvae. Use CO 2 or a chilling table 

to knock down adults and identify 

them. Knock down time should 

be as brief as possible or they 

may not live. 

CARE OF ADULTS 

Adult (P1) mosquitoes should be 

placed in cages with a 10% sugar 

solution soaked cotton as their 

source of carbohydrates and 

whole chicken blood as their protein 

source. The appropriate egg 

collection device should be 

placed in the cage for non-surface 

egg layers to ensure continuous 

egg deposition. Surface egg layers 

should have a bowl of oak 

leaf infused water placed in the 

cage on the day rafts are needed. 

Rafts generally take 24 hours 

to hatch at 80 degrees. 

Figure 8: A dipper of mixed larvae 

and pupae. 


Photo by BMCD 

Photo by BMCD 


There are various types of cages 

available. Small holding cages 

can encourage blood feeding in 

some species and are 10 x 10 x 13 

inches, while large cages (18 inches 

square) are better for species 

that prefer more flying space. 

Commercial cages of aluminum 

with a solid side on the back and 

bottom and screening on the other 

sides with a smaller square opening 

for the sleeve are available 

from http://www.bioquip.com and 

other biological supply companies. 

Handmade cages usually 

consist of a frame only to keep the 

weight down and screening all 

around except for the sleeve area. 

Lightweight wood or plastic panels 

can be used to create solid sides 

while keeping the weight of the 


Figure 9: Mosquitoes on chilling 

table for identification and sorting.

cage low. Adult mosquitoes should 

be kept at 80º F and 70% humidity 

and away from any insecticides, 

paint or exhaust. They may be kept 

outside but keeping them safe 

from rain, sun, winds, accidental 

spray drift or chemical fumes and 

still keeping the correct temperature 

and humidity range can be 

problematical. 

BLOOD FEEDING 

The best source of blood is live 

anesthetized chickens. Due to 

both humane and economic reasons 

however, artificial methods 

of blood feeding are preferred. 

Artificial blood feeding uses real 

chicken blood, either collected 

from a slaughter house or purchased 

from a biological supply 

company, and delivered through 

an artificial membrane. The most 

common membrane that has 

been found to yield the best results 

is a lambskin condom. The 

condom is filled with blood and a 

closed test tube or similar spacer 

is put inside to save on blood 

usage. It is then warmed to body 

temperature and hung from a 

stand in the cage or a net screen 

holder suspended from the top of 

the cage. Some mosquitoes, like 

Cx. quinquefasciatus, will also feed 

off a wad of cotton soaked with 

warm blood. 

Although it has been common to 

feed mosquitoes on an exposed 

arm in the past, it is not recommended 

to do so with wild caught 

adults because of the prevalence 

of mosquito-borne diseases in 

some areas. 

COLLECTING EGGS 

Open water species do well on 

an infusion made from oak leaves 

soaked in a closed container for 

several weeks. Water can also be 

taken from the capture site, but it 

must be screened carefully to en- 

Figure 10: A CO 2 knock down box to temporarily anesthetize mosquitoes for 

easier handling. 

Figure 11: A handmade cage of wood and lightweight panels, with one 

screen side to provide air, one side a clear panel to observe mosquitoes, and 

a cotton sleeve for access. 

Wing Beats Winter 2009 31 

Photo by PHEREC Photo by PHEREC

32 

Figure 12: A colony cage with sugar cotton and smaller emergence cage used 

to hold adults for easier capture for tests. 

sure it is clear of other organisms. 

Tree hole species can be furnished 

a jar, with a folded heavy stock 

paper towel curled around the 

inside, with the water level up 

about ¼” for the towel to soak it up 

and provide a damp surface for 

oviposition. The jar can be wrapped 

with black paper to make it more 

inviting. The egg covered papers 

can be stored in a closed container 

for several months. 

Species requiring a substrate will 

oviposit on an egg pad fashioned 

from cheese cloth or sphagnum 

moss moistened with salt water. 

Cheese cloth is available at fabric 

and craft stores; moss can also be 

found in craft stores. Sand from 

the original source can be used 

but separating the eggs of different 

species can be difficult later. 

The eggs can be stored for several 

weeks in a sealed container. 

For more detailed information on 

colony equipment and procedures 

please visit http://www.pherec.org/ 

mas/mosquito _ colony.htm. 

CARE OF EGGS AND LARVAE 

Raise each raft or small groups of 

eggs separately in small bowls or 

ice trays and key out larvae or 

emerged adults. Once keyed out, 

all larvae of the same species 

can be combined for rearing to 

testing size or adulthood. 

After rafts or eggs are collected 

and hatched they should be 

raised in a large plastic bowl in 

the appropriate water type, either 

10% salt for marsh mosquitoes or 

non-chlorinated tap water for fresh- 

water mosquitoes. They should be 

fed a mixture of yeast and powdered 

liver. Aeration is usually 

needed if there are more than 5-10 

rafts or a similar amount of eggs. 

Third instar larvae are preferred for 

testing. If adults are required, the 

larvae should be allowed to pupate 

and then be “poured up” 

into a smaller bowl and placed in 

a small “emergence” cage. The 

adults will start to emerge in 20 

to 28 hours, with most coming off 

in 4-7 days. Pull the bowl after 5-7 

days. Most test protocols require 

either 3-5 day-old or 7-10 day-old 

adult females. 

SUMMARY 



This article was created to provide 

a protocol for individuals interested 

in conducting experiments with an 

F 1 generation. The F1 generation 

provides a homogeneous population 

of test subjects which will 

improve the reliability of experimental 

data. Testing of local mosquitoes 

against new chemicals, as 

well as delivery equipment, can 

minimize chemical usage and 

spotlight problems in chemical 

delivery. This can prevent outlays 

of extra chemical for both economic 

and environmental savings. 

In addition, resistance testing is a 

valuable screening tool that districts 

can use for monitoring target 

populations of mosquitoes in 

trouble areas. 

For additional information or specific 

advice, please contact Jamie 

Coughlin, Jane Barber or Mike 

Greer at http://www.pherec.org/ 

welcome.htm. More information 

pertaining to experimental protocols 

is available at: 

• http://pherec.org/mas/ 

larvaltestkits.htm 

• http://pherec.org/mas/Dose 

ResponseMortalityTables.htm 

• http://pherec.org/ 

bottleassay/procedure.html 

Jamie Coughlin 

Senior Laboratory Technician 

summerhorse.geo@yahoo.com 

Jane A S Bonds 

Associate Professor 

jasbarber@knology.net 

Public Health Entomology 

Research & Education Center 

College of Engineering 

Sciences, Technology 

and Agriculture 

Florida A&M University 

4000 Frankford Avenue 

Panama City, FL 32405 

850-872-4370

Join the Fyfanon ULV 

resistance movement. 

If you use a pyrethroid to control adult mosquitoes... 

Then you should protect your chemistry by rotating with Fyfanon ULV. 

The effective and proven control of Fyfanon ULV can keep pyrethroid insecticides 

working hard by delaying resistance development. This season, join the Fyfanon ULV 

resistance movement and keep all of your product choices effective longer! 

FYFANON ULV IS AVAILABLE IN 260-GALLON MINI-BULK CONTAINERS, 55-GALLON DRUMS AND 5-GALLON PAILS. 

1.919.474.6600 www.cheminova.us.com 

©2009 CHEMINOVA INC. Always read and follow label directions. FYFANON is a registered trademark of Cheminova, Inc. 

For use only by Federal, state, tribal or local government officials responsible for public health or vector control or by persons certified in the appropriate category or otherwise authorized 

by the state or tribal lead pesticide regulatory agency to perform adult mosquito control applications, or by persons under their direct supervision. Not for application to people. 


34 

The Best of Both Worlds. 

Superior Products Exceptional Service 


At Univar, we want to do more than provide you with products and equipment. 

We want to be your public health industry partner. That’s why we carry the best brand names in 

Featuring 

MasterLine ® 

Kontrol 4-4 

Exceeds standards for 

Ready-to-Use Adulticides. 

the industry, backed by the best service in the industry. Give us a call today and 

let us show you how we can help you Succeed Without Worry. SM 

Call your Univar representative at 1-800-609-9414 

© 2008 Univar USA Inc. All rights reserved. The Univar name, hexagon, MasterLine and PestWeb are registered trademarks of Univar USA Inc. 

All images, marks and names of other companies are used with permission of the owner. 

or log on to UnivarPPS.com.

Study of a Mosquito Prevention Device for Catch Basins 

in Warren County, New Jersey 

by Teresa N Duckworth and Christine P Musa 

With the adoption of the New Jersey 

Storm Water Management Rules, 

we are always looking to improve 

our Integrated Pest Management 

program to control mosquitoes in 

the storm water system. As part of 

the water management program, 

an annual letter is sent to municipal 

Public Works Departments encouraging 

them to either modify 

or maintain catch basins (storm 

water drains) to reduce standing 

water and mosquito habitats. 

To learn more about catch basins 

with a sump design (in which part 

of the basin is below the level of 

the outflow pipe, designed to collect 

grit and debris, but also holds 

water), an inquiry was made to the 

Center for Watershed Protection, a 

non-profit group from Maryland. 

In September 2001, the contact 

sent information regarding Kaneso, 

Figure 2: Catch basin location on 

Parker Street in Town of Belvidere. 

Figure 1: Schematic of the Kaneso 

Mosquito Prevention Device installed 

in a catch basin with drainage pipe. 

a Japanese company that manufactures 

a “Mosquito Prevention 

Device for Rainwater Channels.” 

The company’s website claimed 

the device prevents mosquito development 

by stopping them from 

accessing and leaving drainage 

channels. It also touted the insert 

as being “environmentally friendly” 

and “safe to pass over” and that 

it “prevents strong odors.” 

The insert sits under the grate of a 

catch basin and has a gate which 

stays closed, unless it is raining 

heavily. The insert is supposed to 

prevent mosquitoes from entering 

or leaving the basin because of 

this “gate” action. Figure 1, as provided 

by Kaneso, illustrates the 

device as installed in a catch 

basin with drainage pipe. 

After considerable communication, 

Kaneso agreed to manufacture 

a sample insert at no cost to 

us. Shipping, handling, freight, customs 

fees and other charges were 

paid by the Warren County Mosquito 

Extermination Commission. The 

insert was received in March 2003. 

Figure 3: Pipe draining from the catch basin across the street to the Pequest 

River, with close-up of original end of drain pipe. 


36 


Figure 4: Pipe extension and the flap fabricated by Ralph Longyhore, the 

Commission’s Heavy Equipment Operator. 

When installed properly in Japan, 

the insert guides water from the 

side of the gate into the catch basin. 

Catch basins in the United 

States however, are larger, requiring 

two inserts to fill the space. 

To accommodate these unique 

dimensions, inserts were specifically 

crafted, allowing water to 

enter from the side, but not into a 

single opening, and there was a 

flat piece in between the 2 gates. 

A study site was chosen based on 

several factors. Since we did not 

know whether the device might 

cause water to back up on the 

Figure 5: View inside catch basin showing outflow pipe 

and standing water below the pipe invert. 

road or corrupt the integrity of the 

steel catch basin grate we chose 

a location with minimal traffic and 

no heavy trucks; see Figure 2. The 

area had little debris that might 

interfere with the function of the 

insert. Also, previous surveillance 

had identified this basin as a productive 

mosquito habitat and there 

had also been prior West Nile virus 

activity nearby in the town, so disease 

prevention was an added 

factor. This particular basin on 

Parker Street in Belvidere had no 

connections to other basins and 

we had easy access to the outflow 

pipe; see Figure 3. 

To insure the mosquitoes could not 

enter the basin from the end of the 

outflow pipe, it was covered. This 

flap was designed and installed 

by the Commission’s heavy equipment 

operator, Ralph Longyhore; 

see Figure 4. Once the pipe was 

covered, the insert was installed 

on the outflow pipe of the Parker 

Street catch basin; see Figure 5. 

Even though the inside of the 

basin was measured accurately, 

the exterior frame did not line up 

precisely with the concrete catch 

basin form underground and the 

understructure of the grate was 

too thick to fit flush against the insert. 

A frame was custom built by 

the Warren County Road Department 

to fit the insert into the basin, 

suspending it lower into the basin; 

see Figure 6. Three and a half 

years after initial research was 

done on the product, the insert was 

installed in the Parker Street basin 

in Belvidere in March 2005; see 

Figures 7 and 8. 

Preliminary inspections were made 

of all catch basins in the study 

area early in May, prior to the time 

mosquitoes were anticipated to be 

present. The test basin with the insert 

installed and two control basins 

without the insert were sampled 

for mosquito larvae and water 

depth was documented at least 

once per week between May 15 

Figure 6: The basin frame had to be made to drop the 

insert down below the level of the grate understructure. 


38 

Figure 7: Double insert installed in basin. Figure 8: Catch basin with insert and grate in place. 

and September 13, 2005; see Figure 

9. Five dips, utilizing a 6-ounce 

container on a specialized dipper, 

were taken from each basin. The 

samples were brought back to the 

office from each basin and the 

water was allowed to settle in white 

trays; any mosquitoes present were 

removed and reared for identification. 

At times, after the water 

settled, hundreds of first instar larvae 

were noted. 

All three of the study basins had 

been sampled in previous years 

and found to produce high mosquito 

populations. Altosid ® 30 day 

pellets had routinely been used to 

treat catch basins in Warren County 

in prior years. To prevent interference 

with the results, none of 

the basins in the general area were 

treated during the study. 

Prior to the study period, larval mosquitoes 

were found only once in 

the test basin, when a preliminary 

inspection on May 3, 2005 resulted 

in a collection of 1-2 larvae per dip, 

all second instar Aedes japonicus. 

It is believed that these mosquitoes 

overwintered as eggs attached to 

the concrete walls of the basin. 

During the study period, this basin 

was mosquito free on 16 of the 18 

inspections. On June 14 Culex pipiens 

and Cx restuans were found 

in small numbers, less than 1 per 

dip. Two weeks later, Cx pipiens 

was collected from this site, 1-3 

larvae per dip. The average water 

depth in this basin was 4.44 inches. 

In comparison, control basin #1 

was dry during one inspection. 

However, when water was present, 

mosquitoes were found in 16 of the 

17 inspections; refer to Figure 10. 

Species identified from this basin 

included Cx pipiens, Cx restuans, 

Cx species, Ae japonicus, and 

Anopheles punctipennis. The average 

water depth was 1.53 inches. 

Control catch basin #2 had mosquito 

larvae present on all but one 

Figure 9: Catch basin inspection conducted 

by Teresa Duckworth. 


sample date. Species identified 

from this basin were Cx pipiens, 

Cx restuans, Cx territans, Ae japonicus 

and Ae vexans. This basin had 

an average water depth of 3.31 

inches. 

The number of larvae collected in 

all three basins varied from none or 


40 

Their research team. 

As the global leader in Vector control, we’re always 

fi nding new ways to help you protect public health. 

Our research and development teams are always busy 

looking for that next great solution, not copying what 

others have already done. We’re perfectionists, just like 

you, so we aren’t easily satisfi ed. So you know when 

you’re buying from Bayer, you’re not just getting trusted 

T:7.5” 

S:7.5” 


Our research team. 

results, you’re investing in the future of mosquito 

control and in a company devoted to protecting public 

health. That’s not something many of our competitors 

can say. Anybody can sell you run-of-the-mill products 

but when you’re Backed by Bayer, you’re getting all of 

the science and support that come with it. To learn more, 

call 1-800-331-2867 or visit BackedbyBayer.com. 

Bayer Environmental Science, a business division of Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. www.BackedbyBayer.com. 

Bayer, the Bayer cross, and Backed by Bayer are trademarks of Bayer. Always read and follow label directions carefully. ©2008 Bayer CropScience LP. 

S:9.5” 

T:9.5” 

B:9.5”

Catch Basin with Insert 

Parker Street 

other debris to be pushed off to 

the side from above the grate and 

off the top of the insert into the 

basin. Long term maintenance 

would depend on location of the 

installations and the cooperation 

of Departments of Public Works 

involved. As previosly mentioned, 

this was a relatively clean area 

with little debris present. For the 

study period the “gate” functioned 

as intended and allowed water to 

pass through with no concern for 

flooding. Leaf litter and debris 

could be a limiting factor in its 

functionality. On several occasions 

the “gate” was partly open, up to a 

maximum width of ½ inch, due to 

debris getting stuck. 

As a follow-up to the study in 2007 

and in 2008, with the insert in place, 

the basin was observed following a 

winter without the cap on the end 

of the 54 foot long outflow pipe. For 

the period between May 16 and 

August 30, 2007, mosquito data was 

collected from the 

Parker Street basin only. 

Out of 16 inspections during that 

time, larvae were found only twice 

and in low numbers, similar to 

early season collections when the 

pipe flap was in place. The basin 

was also inspected regularly between 

May 21 and August 30, 

2008. It was found to have larvae 

three times – on July 11: 3-5/dip 

(Cx pipiens 63%, Cx restuans 35% 

and Cx territans 4%); on August 

14:

42 

New Product Announcement 

FROMMER UPDRAFT GRAVID TRAP 

This new trap (Model 1719) has a collection chamber below the aspirator and 

rainshield so that the specimens do not go through the fan. Trap is supplied with 

two collection chambers and black media pan. See web for additional details. 

PO Box 12852, Gainesville, FL 32604 

(352) 378-3209 voice (352) 372-1838 fax 

JWHock@JohnWHock.com www.JohnWHockCo.com 

MID-ATLANTIC MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION ∙ 65 Billy B Hair Drive ∙ Savannah, GA 31408 

The 35th Annual MAMCA Meeting will be held January 19-21, 2010 at the Hilton Savannah DeSoto Hotel in Savannah, Georgia. 

West Central Mosquito and Vector Control Association ∙ 1555 N 17th Ave ∙ Greeley, Co 80631 

The 36th Annual WCMVCA Meeting will be held February 24-25, 2010 at the Fort Collins Hilton in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

WCMVCA 

Hotel reservations can be made at: http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/SAVDHHF-Hilton- 

Savannah-DeSoto-Georgia/index.do. 

The meeting location is in the heart of the wonderfully restored historic district of Savannah, consistently 

ranked as a top 10 travel destination. Enjoy salt water taffy while strolling through the 

galleries in City Market, tour historic buildings and creepy cemeteries, or take a bus, carriage, or 

walking ghost tour! For more information, please visit: www.mamca.org. 

The conference program will include the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 

American Mosquito Control Association, and various university and operational-level speakers. 

M I C H I G A N M O S Q U I T O C O N T R O L A S S O C I AT I O N ∙ PO Box 366 ∙ Bay Cit y, MI 48707 

The 24th Annual MMCA Conference will be held February 3-4, 2010 at the Park Place Hotel in Traverse City, Michigan 

Reservations for the Park Place Hotel can be made at www.park-place-hotel.com. 

For further information, please visit the Michigan Mosquito Control Association website at 

www.mimosq.org or contact Randy Knepper, the Planning Committee Chairman, 

by phone 989-755-5751 or via email at randy@scmac.org. 

Public Health Entomology Research & Education Center ∙ 4000 Frankford Ave ∙ Panama City, FL 32405 

The 14th Annual PHEREC Southeast Regional Public Health Pest and Vector Management Conference will be held 

February 23-25, 2010 at the Boardwalk Beach Resort in Panama City Beach, Florida. 

This conference continues the tradition of offering a wide variety of topics tailored for environmental, 

public health, pest and mosquito control professionals. Hotel reservations must be made by calling 

the Boardwalk Beach Resort Convention Center at (800) 224-4853. 

For more information, please visit: http://pherec.org. 

Hotel reservations can be made at http://www.hilton.com/en/hi/groups/personalized/FNLCOHF- 

AWC-20100223/index.jhtml. 

For more information, please visit: http://www.westcentralmosquitoandvector.org. 


Have y’all heard enough about 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) yet? 

No? Can’t get too much of a good 

thing, huh? 

Well, in that case I’ll give you an 

update as to what is transpiring as 

of this writing. Be advised that the 

situation is quite fluid and might 

change considerably by the time 

this issue of Wing Beats reaches 

your desk. 

As you’re all too aware, the 6 th 

Circuit Court of Appeals granted 

a two year stay on its vacatur of 

the U S Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) final rule exempting 

the application of duly registered 

mosquitocides in conformance to 

their labels from permitting requirements 

set forth in the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES). On the day after 

the stay ends (10 April 2011), should 

no overruling of the decision take 

place, this exemption from CWA 

stipulations will be null and void 

and applications will need to conform 

to NPDES permitting requirements. 

The stay has allowed the EPA to 

vigorously pursue development of 

draft NPDES permits for those states 

not possessing authority to draft 

their own, e.g., New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Idaho and New 

Mexico; Alaska will be granted 

authority in 2010. To this end, the 

Agency has conducted a number 

of workshops involving state water 

and pesticide regulators, who have 

provided substantial input into the 

drafting of a permit template. I 

get the distinct feeling that EPA is 

beginning to realize the incredibly 

complex problems involved in an 

undertaking of such breathtaking 

From Where I Sit: Notes from the AMCA 

Technical Advisor by Joe Conlon 

scope. A realistic accounting of 

the myriad interests of the various 

stakeholders is forcing a realization 

that no one is going to be altogether 

happy with the outcome. 

Any permitting scheme amenable 

to our profession is likely to elicit 

howls of protest by environmental 

groups – and vice versa. Yet, that 

is the predicament facing the 

Agency charged with enforcement 

of CWA. 

The AMCA has several members 

involved in these workgroups, but 

the deliberations therein prior to 

publication of an actual draft permit 

are being held close to the vest 

by the EPA – so the exact nature of 

the discussions is not, at this time, 

in the public domain. Rest assured, 

though, that our interests are being 

very carefully and thoroughly espoused 

in these proceedings. 

Once a draft is completed, it will 

be posted on the government 

docket for public comment. The 

draft will be revised, if warranted, 

based upon these comments prior 

to finalization. The current schedule 

calls for a draft permit being published 

in April 2010. This will be 

followed by 8 months allocated for 

comment and permit revision. In 

December 2010 the permits will 

be finalized and the mandate will 

be issued in April 2011. This may 

sound like a great deal of time, 

but the stakeholder’s interests are 

extremely disparate and a workable 

solution will be extremely difficult 

to develop and implement. 

In order to assist the EPA in this 

endeavor, AMCA has drafted a 

policy document meant to clarify 

Best Management Practices (BMP) 

involved in integrated mosquito 

management (IMM). According to 

EPA, they are contemplating using 

these BMPs as a potential means 

for mosquito control agencies to 

meet water quality standards. As 

I drafted and revised the AMCA 

BMP document, I, too, became 

increasingly concerned about the 

staggering amount of nuance required 

to craft a policy that meets 

the needs of mosquito control 

agencies of varied resource availability, 

while keeping in mind its 

potential defensibility in court and 

our credibility as a profession. With 

this in mind, be advised that even 

our smallest mosquito control entities 

will have to adhere to a set 

of minimal standards in order to 

comply with the CWA. What they 

will be in light of EPA’s pending 

review is anyone’s guess, but will 

undoubtedly include some form 

of surveillance, adherence to label 

specifications in terms of application 

parameters and calibration, 

monitoring of efficacy in some 

form, and record-keeping. Also 

note that this information will be 

accessible by the public, so be 

prepared for potential court challenges 

and public relations problems. 

This will put a premium on 

your exercise of sound, scientificallybased 

mosquito control practice 

that can pass court muster and 

satisfy public opinion. 

To be sure, the circumstances 

necessitating formation of a mosquito 

control program, however 

basic, are unique for each jurisdiction 

in terms of available resources, 

topography, hydrology, and the 


44 

bionomics of the mosquito species 

to be controlled. For this reason, 

considerable judgment will need 

to be exercised in allocation of 

limited resources to extract the maximum 

benefit for both the citizenry 

and the environment. It must be 

emphasized that program funding 

and other extrinsic factors will dictate 

the extent to which individual 

programs can implement the BMPs 

described in the BMP document, 

so each program will determine 

how they can meet each requirement. 

Absent the final NPDES permitting 

document, that’s about 

all I can say as to what we might 

expect. I’ll keep you informed via 

newsletters and/or blast e-mails so 

you can factor in the latest information 

into your planning cycle. 

The EPA will most assuredly try to 

accommodate our needs and resource 

limitations, but their options 

may be limited. 

In addition to the initiative outlined 

above, there are other activities 

afoot. Petitions asking the Supreme 

Court to review the 6 th Circuit decision 

have been filed by various 

industry and user groups. The petitions 

aver that: 

The Sixth Circuit erroneously 

concluded, in conflict with the decisions 

of the Supreme Court and 

other circuits, that the CWA unambiguously 

forecloses EPA’s Rule. 

2. The Sixth Circuit improperly substituted 

its judgment for that of 

the expert agency charged with 

administering the CWA. In point of 

fact, Congress had never voiced 

any disagreement with EPA’s 35year 

practice of not requiring 

pesticide applicators to obtain 

NPDES permits, even when it clarified 

the scope of the NPDES program 

with respect to other types 

of discharges. 

3. The Sixth Circuit decision represents 

the most dramatic expansion 

of the NPDES program since 

enactment of the CWA. 

4. The Sixth Circuit decision threatens 

essential activities that protect 

public health. 

AMCA has filed an amicus curiae 

(friend of the court) brief in support 

of these petitions. Unfortunately, 

review by the Supreme Cour t 

seems somewhat unlikely unless 

the justices can be convinced of 

the enormous ramifications of this 

decision if allowed to stand. That’s 

why the AMCA asked that its membership 

contact their governors 

and legislators and request they 

make the case for review. Should 

the petitions be granted (in the 

February 2010 timeframe), there’s 

a reasonably good chance of a 

favorable outcome. 

Keep your fingers crossed, but prepare 

for the worst. 

Should the Supreme Court reject 

the petitions, mosquito control applications 

will be subject to the 

NPDES permitting system as of 10 

April 2011. The prototype NPDES 

permit envisaged by EPA (at this 

time) will probably consist of the 

following six components: 

NOTICES OF INTENT (NOI) 

The NOI is a declaration that the 

permittee intends to apply pesticides 

in such a manner and to 

such an extent that it requires 

permit consideration. 

A. In most cases, the responsible 

organization (MAD, MCD, state or 

municipality), not the applicator, 

files the NOI. However, an applicator 

would need to file an NOI if 

he or she will treat more than a 

specified amount of water-acreage 

for persons or organizations 

that did not have to file an NOI 

individually. 

B. The amount of water-acreage 

treated in aggregate (as yet unde- 


termined) will determine the need 

for NOI. 

C. NOI covers applications for the 

duration of the permit – up to 5 

years. 

D. Emergency applications can 

be conducted prior to filing an NOI. 

E. Applicator needs to update the 

NOI if performing operations not 

identified in the original NOI. 

F. The NOI contents will consist of: 

i) Contact information – address, 

phone, email; ii) Description of entity 

– district, homeowner association, 

applicator; iii) Type of pesticide 

application; and iv) Receiving 

streams – this could be difficult to 

determine. 

TECHNOLOGY-BASED 

EFFLUENT LIMITS (TBEL) 

Utilization of BMPs will be considered 

to be the use of Best Available 

Technology (BAT) and satisfy CWA 

requirements to minimize pesticide 

discharges into waters of the 

United States. 

A. Identify and assess mosquito 

problem through surveillance. 

B. Consider if source reduction or 

habitat modification would reduce 

sources. 

C. Follow appropriate pesticide 

use procedures – calibration, maintenance, 

etc. 

D. Educate the public. 

WATER-QUALITY BASED 

EFFLUENT LIMITS (WQBEL) 

WQBEL uses final water quality as 

a standard. 

A. The permit will contain the verbiage, 

“Your discharge must be 

controlled as necessary to meet 

applicable water quality standards.”

46 

B. Permittees will be required to 

meet applicable numeric and narrative 

ambient water quality criteria 

– many as yet undetermined. 

C. EPA considers that full compliance 

with FIFRA and permit conditions 

will de facto meet water 

quality standards. 

MONITORING 

A. Visual monitoring – check for 

adverse effects. Timing and frequency 

of this has yet to be determined. 

B. Additional monitoring may be 

specified by EPA if adverse effects 

have been recorded in the past. 

REPORTING 

A. An annual report will be submitted 

electronically no later than 

15 February of the following year. 

B. The permit will specify the report’s 

contents, e.g. pesticides 

used, amount used, locations 

treated, etc. 

RECORD-KEEPING 

A. Record-keeping requirements: 

1) Records kept by permittee 

and EPA: i) Copy of NOI; ii) Copy of 

EPA letter acknowledging receipt 

of NOI; iii) Copy of permit; and iv) 

Copies of any adverse incident 

reports. 

2) Records kept only by permittee: 

i) Pesticide application 

logs; and ii) IMM documentation. 

B. The public will have access to 

documents through requests to 

EPA. 

As you can imagine, AMCA has 

some serious concerns about implementation 

of these permits, 

should that come to pass and is 

in active dialogue with EPA. To wit: 

u What application thresholds 

(e.g. water-acres treated per unit 

time) will actually trigger an NOI 

filing? 

v What will constitute the ultimate 

contents in terms of scope, 

depth and specificity for IMM Plans 

that become part of the permits? 

w How will EPA cope with the “no 

toxics in toxic amounts” CWA language 

appearing in many states’ 

narrative Water Quality Standards 

(WQS), considering that aquatic 

pesticides are specifically applied 

to be toxic to the aquatic target? 

x Will EPA prevail when challenged 

in its current assumption 

that an applicator’s adherence to 

permit BMPs/BAT will result in WQS 

being met. Is there scientific basis 

or validity for such an assumption 

that will survive legal challenge? 

Will EPA prevail when challenged 

that extensive reliance on 

visual monitoring looking mainly 

for gross-level adverse impacts will 

suffice in documenting WQS compliance 

instead of more costly ambient 

water quality monitoring? 

How susceptible will regulatory 

agencies or pesticide users be 

under the CWA to eco-activist 

citizen lawsuits regarding permit 

contents or compliance? 

What will be the permits and 

the resources needed for compliance 

cost? EPA has stated that 

there will be funds made available 

to offset some enforcement costs 

to state agencies. Funds to offset 

compliance costs are not being 

discussed for regulated agencies 

such as MCD/MAD or private contractors. 

The cost of obtaining the 

actual permits remains under consideration. 

The intent is to keep 

permit costs minimal and possibly 

pegged to an organization’s funding 

level. 


As you can see, there is a great 

deal of work in progress regarding 

this critical issue and specific outcomes 

remain in flux. 

To its credit, EPA has sought to 

make the permitting process, 

should it become mandated, as 

reasonable as possible for all 

parties concerned. It ’s a most 

daunting task, considering the 

wide range of interests involved, 

but the Agency is well aware of our 

funding constraints and is actively 

taking them into consideration 

in all facets of the process. 

It’s unlikely that the final product 

will satisfy everyone and, in fact, 

may potentially drive litigation to 

the point where a judicial or legislative 

fix is required. 

Whatever the final outcome, AMCA 

has expended enormous effort to 

provide the regulatory agencies, 

the courts and legislators comprehensive 

information regarding the 

unique nature of our control methodologies 

in order that they may 

make informed decisions in protecting 

our citizenry and environment. 

We will continue to make 

our case with the goal that our capability 

to preserve public health 

through environmentally-sensitive 

mosquito control remains unimpaired. 

Joseph M Conlon 

AMCA Technical Advisor 

1500 Millbrook Court 

Fleming Island, FL 32003 

904-215-3008 

amcata@bellsouth.net

Map, Track, and 

208-324-8006 | Call for a demo today! 

www.elecdata.com 

Adulticide • Larvicide • Surveillance • Service Request 

Sentinel GIS is your complete solution for recording and managing data critical to 

controlling mosquitoes. Everything you need is included and easy to use. Applications 

are based on industry standard ESRI software plus they are fully customizable. 

Easily transfer maps, 

inspection details, and data 

between the Field PC and 

desktop computer. 

Choose the mobile 

device that fits 

your budget and 

computing needs. 

COLLECT: 

Navigate, map, and 

collect data with a 

Mobile Computer and 

ArcPad application. 

PREPARE: REPORT: 

Generate regulatory 

reports. 

Sign up for a 30 minute Webinar 

of Sentinel GIS to find out how 

to streamline your mosquito 

control program. 

http://store.elecdata.com/webinar/ 

In partnership with: 

Juniper Systems, Inc., Archer Field PC 

ESRI, GIS Software 

Trimble, GPS Receivers


PO Box 358630 

Gainesville, FL 32635 

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 

What is the price 

for peace of mind? 

Having a Contingency Emergency Aerial Contract 

in place for any type of emergency mosquito control 

application is priceless. Being prepared brings 

confidence that you have taken a proactive 

approach in protecting public health. 

No other contract team has done more aerial 

applications than Clarke and Dynamic Aviation. 

With a contingency contract in place you’ll have the 

support of an expert team and a quality plan that 

PRESORT STD 

US POSTAGE PAID 

PERMIT #230 

PANAMA CITY FL 

includes preliminary area mapping, a pre-approved 

FAA plan, public notification procedures, appropriate 

licenses and certificate of insurance (with additionally 

insured clause) completed and on file. 

The best part….there is no cost for a contingency plan. 

To learn more about securing peace of mind for 

your program give us a call at 1-800-323-5727 or 

email your request to clarke@clarke.com. 

www.clarke.com 

www.dynamicaviation.com

Wing Beats Volume 20 Number 4 - Wing Beats - Florida Mosquito ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?