FR Doc E7-20201

[Federal Register: October 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 58321-58333]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15oc07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[1018-AT72]

Draft Mosquito and Mosquito-Borne Disease Management Policy
Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to establish policy that refuge managers will
follow concerning mosquito and mosquito-borne disease management on
units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act), as amended by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Improvement Act), provides the Refuge System mission. That mission is
to ``administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.'' In addition, each refuge ``shall be managed to fulfill the
mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that
refuge was established.'' We cannot fulfill this mission unless we
provide consistent direction to refuge managers and manage the Refuge
System as a national system. Therefore, we are developing policies to
provide refuge managers clear direction and procedures for making
determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses of the
Refuge System and individual refuges. This draft policy describes the
process we will follow to determine if and how to manage mosquito
populations on lands administered within the Refuge System. We propose
to incorporate this policy as part 601, chapter 7 of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual.
This draft policy states that ``we will allow populations of native
mosquito species to function unimpeded unless they cause a human and/or
wildlife health threat.'' While we recognize mosquitoes are a natural
component of most wetland ecosystems, we also recognize they may
represent a threat to human and/or wildlife health. We may allow
management of mosquito populations on Refuge System lands when those
populations pose a threat to the health and safety of the public or a
wildlife population. This draft policy outlines the procedures refuge
managers will follow in planning and implementing mosquito and
mosquito-borne disease management within the Refuge System.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this draft policy by mail to
Michael Higgins, Biologist, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington,
Virginia 22203; by fax to 703-358-2248; or by e-mail to
refugesystempolicycomments@fws.gov.

[[Page 58322]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Higgins, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 177 Admiral Cochrane
Drive, Annapolis, MD 21401, telephone: 410-573-4520, fax: 410-269-0832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Improvement Act amends and builds on the
Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) and provides an organic act
for the Refuge System. It states that the Refuge System mission ``is to
administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.'' It directs us to manage each refuge
to fulfill the Refuge System mission as well as the specific purpose(s)
for which the refuge was established. The Improvement Act provides
compatibility standards for refuge uses and directs the Secretary of
the Interior to ``ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are maintained.''
We based this draft policy for mosquito and mosquito-borne disease
management within the Refuge System on these directives. Effective
mosquito control results in the removal of a high percentage of one or
more target species, although usually temporarily. In addition, one or
more nontarget species may be adversely affected by mosquito control
practices. The altered ecological communities that may result can
impact biological integrity and diversity through disruptions in food
webs and other ecological functions. Therefore, we must carefully
evaluate any actions we propose to take.
This draft policy states that ``we will allow populations of native
mosquito species to function unimpeded unless they cause a human and/or
wildlife health threat.'' While we recognize mosquitoes are a natural
component of most wetland ecosystems, we also recognize they may
represent a threat to human and/or wildlife health. We may allow
management of mosquito populations on Refuge System lands when those
populations pose a threat to the health and safety of the public or a
wildlife population. This draft policy outlines the procedures refuge
managers will follow in planning and implementing mosquito and
mosquito-borne disease management within the Refuge System.
The draft policy relies on using scientific principles to identify
and respond to public and wildlife health threats from refuge-based
mosquitoes. Health threat categories will be identified based on local
conditions and the local history of mosquito-associated health threats.
We will use local monitoring data of mosquitoes and disease to
determine the current threat level and the corresponding appropriate
refuge response. During this process, we will work closely with
Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities that have
expertise in vector-borne diseases and State fish and wildlife agencies
in developing mosquito management plans prior to an outbreak of
mosquito-borne disease and in determining when human or wildlife health
threats or high risk human health situations exist.
Refuges with current mosquito control or mosquito monitoring
programs must prepare a mosquito management plan. In addition, refuges
where a State or local public health agency identifies a potential
health threat must prepare a mosquito management plan. A potential
health threat does not imply a need to manage mosquitoes on a refuge,
but it does trigger the planning process for monitoring and potential
management. Because not all refuges are located in areas where mosquito
management is an issue, the draft policy does not require every refuge
to prepare a mosquito management plan. As a result, there may be cases
where an outbreak of mosquito-borne disease occurs at or near a refuge
that has not developed such a plan. We included a section that
describes the procedures we would follow in such high health risk
situations.
The draft policy includes procedures to follow to reduce threats
from refuge-based mosquitoes. These procedures follow an integrated
pest management approach and include nonpesticide actions that may be
taken to reduce mosquito production.
The purpose of this policy is to provide refuge managers with a
process to follow in planning and implementing mosquito and mosquito-
borne disease management. Each refuge manager must consider the refuge
establishing purposes as well as local conditions when following these
procedures.

Comment Solicitation

We seek public comments on this draft mosquito and mosquito-borne
disease policy and will consider comments and any additional
information received during the 45-day comment period. You may submit
comments on this draft policy by mail to Michael Higgins, Biologist,
National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax to
703-358-2154; or by e-mail to refugesystempolicycomments@fws.gov.
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include
``Attn: 1018-AT72'' and your full name and return mailing address in
your Internet message. If you use only your e-mail address, we will
consider your comment to be anonymous and will not consider it in the
final rule. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that
we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at (703)
358-2036. You may hand deliver comments to the address listed above.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of
commenters, available for public review during regular business hours.
Individual commenters may request that we withhold their home address
from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In
some circumstances, we would withhold from the record a commenter's
identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name
and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will
make all comments from organizations or businesses and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this
document is not a significant regulatory action and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final
determination under E.O. 12866.
(1) This document would not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the government. A brief assessment to
clarify the costs and benefits associated with this proposed policy
follows.

Proposed Change

Existing Departmental and refuge policies do not address mosquito
management in detail and do not provide standard procedure for
determining what measures to take on refuges regarding management of

[[Page 58323]]

mosquito and mosquito-borne disease. The draft policy provides a
standard process to follow and criteria to consider when making such
decisions. The draft policy would provide for consistency in protecting
wildlife and habitats and in making provisions for protecting public
health from mosquito-borne health threats.
This draft policy would affect refuges that have prevalent mosquito
populations. The variation from status quo at a refuge will depend on
how different current procedures at that refuge are from the procedures
that would be followed under a standardized process. In addition, local
conditions vary from year to year, and the responding management
actions must also vary. Based upon past implementation of mosquito
control, we expect affected refuges to include those located in
California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Texas, Michigan, South Carolina,
Florida, Louisiana, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Utah, and Montana. Approximately 60
refuges would be affected by this draft policy. Currently,
approximately 40 refuges implement various mosquito control activities.

Costs Incurred

Any costs related to this rulemaking would be borne by each
individual refuge and would generally involve costs associated with
planning and developing mosquito management plans. No additional costs
are expected to be incurred by State or local agencies beyond their
usual monitoring costs. The distribution of information would be mostly
limited to refuge personnel discussing with visitors the risks and
precautions at visitor centers. We expect informing the public about
mosquito populations and any possible health risks to incur minimal
costs, if any. Refuge personnel would continue to take measures to
manage mosquito populations during their normal activities. These
standard measures would include such actions as removing artificial
breeding sites. State and local officials would predominantly conduct
monitoring and surveillance, which are voluntary activities. About 40
refuges currently issue special use permits for monitoring and
surveillance activities. Refuges issue special use permits for
activities conducted on the refuge. A permit contains guidelines and/or
restrictions that apply to a specific activity. For those refuges that
may allow new monitoring or surveillance, each permit would require
approximately 8 hours by refuge personnel. Thus, approximately 160
hours would be allocated by refuge personnel to complete the permits
(20 refuges x 8 hours). These permit requirements would occur annually,
depending on the mosquito population levels. Each contingency plan
would be specific to each refuge and would be a one-time cost.
Currently, about four to five refuges have already constructed mosquito
management plans. We estimate that each plan would require
approximately 40 hours by refuge personnel. Accordingly, about 2,200
hours would be allocated to complete the contingency plans by the
affected refuges (55 refuges x 40 hours).

Benefits Accrued

(1) This draft policy provides policy and procedures for refuge
personnel to follow in making provisions to protect public health from
mosquito-related health threats. This draft policy follows the
requirements of the Administration Act, as amended, by requiring that
activities associated with mosquito management be compatible with
refuge purposes. It provides a procedure to follow Systemwide. This
will ensure consistency in the process, although the outcome will vary
based on refuge purposes and local conditions. We do not expect
visitation to refuges to change as a result of this draft policy.
(2) This draft policy will not create inconsistencies with other
agencies' actions. This draft policy pertains solely to the management
of the Refuge System. In the event that the Secretary determines it is
necessary to temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any activity in a
refuge to protect the health and safety of the public or any fish or
wildlife population, we will work with the appropriate agency to ensure
consistency.
(3) This draft policy will not materially affect entitlements,
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
their recipients. This draft policy does not affect entitlement
programs.
(4) This draft policy will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
This draft policy provides a procedure for refuge managers to follow in
mosquito management throughout the Refuge System.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a
``substantial number of small entities.'' SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We certify that this rule would not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial/final
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The following
discussion explains our certification.
SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, it is necessary to consider the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, the relative
impact on the revenues of small entities is used in determining whether
or not entities incur a ``significant economic impact.'' Small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201).
Because this draft policy is not expected to affect activities in
the surrounding area or to incur costs to the public, it would not have
a significant effect on small businesses engaged in activities around
the impacted refuges. Small governmental jurisdictions and independent
nonprofit organizations are not expected to be affected. Therefore, we
certify that this document would not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). No further
regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Accordingly, a small
entity compliance guide is not required.
The proposed policy is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no

[[Page 58324]]

significant employment or small business effects. This draft policy:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, and/or local
government agencies, or geographic regions. This draft policy should
have no effect on the costs or prices.
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This draft policy does not make major changes to current
policy. It simply provides a more consistent process for all refuge
managers to follow in managing mosquito populations on refuges.
Therefore, this document will have no measurable economic effect on the
wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and
travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this draft policy applies to management of federally owned
refuges, and it does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The draft policy does not have a significant or unique effect on
State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with E.O. 12630, the draft policy does not have
significant takings implications. This draft policy will affect only
how refuge managers plan actions to manage mosquitoes and mosquito-
borne diseases on refuges.

Federalism Assessment (E.O. 13132)

This draft policy does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.
In preparing this draft policy, we received input from State and local
governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the draft policy does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the order. The draft policy will clarify established procedures for
managing refuge lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Under
E.O. 13211 agencies must prepare statements of energy effects when
undertaking certain actions. Because this draft policy only provides
procedures for managing mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease on
refuges, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action
and no statement of energy effects is required.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175)

In accordance with E.O. 13175, we evaluated possible effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and determined that there are no
effects. We coordinate management actions on refuges with tribal
governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction. This draft
policy is consistent with and not less restrictive than tribal
reservation rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This draft policy does not contain any information collection
requirements other than those already approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) (OMB Control Number 1018-0102). See 50 CFR 25.23 for
information concerning that approval. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

The Service has determined that this draft policy will not affect
listed species or designated critical habitat. Therefore, consultation
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required. The
basis for this conclusion is that the draft policy establishes the
process for determining when a mosquito and mosquito-borne disease
management plan must be completed. The ultimate decision to allow or
otherwise implement a particular action is the causative agent with
respect to affecting listed species or their critical habitat. We will
conduct section 7 consultations when developing comprehensive
conservation plans and step-down management plans, including mosquito
and mosquito-borne disease management plans, for refuges.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

We ensure compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) when developing
refuge comprehensive conservation plans and step-down management plans,
including mosquito and mosquito-borne disease management plans. In
accordance with 516 DM 2, appendix 1.10, we have determined that this
policy is categorically excluded from the NEPA process because it is
limited to policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines of an
administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature or
the environmental effects of which are too broad, speculative, or
conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis. Site-specific
proposals, as indicated above, will be subject to the NEPA process.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Draft Mosquito and Mosquito-Borne Disease Management Policy (601 FW 7)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge System

7.1 What is the purpose of this chapter?
This chapter provides policy for refuge managers to help them
determine how and when to manage mosquito populations on lands
administered within the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge
System).
7.2 What is the mosquito and mosquito-borne disease management policy?
A. It is Refuge System policy to allow populations of native
mosquito species to exist unimpeded unless they pose a specific
wildlife and/or human health threat. We recognize that mosquitoes are a
natural component of most wetland ecosystems, and that they also may
represent a threat to human and wildlife health.
B. When necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or
a wildlife population, we allow management of mosquito populations on
Refuge System lands using effective means that pose the lowest risk to
wildlife and habitats.
C. Before we use any method to manage mosquito populations within
the Refuge System, we must determine that it is compatible with the
purpose(s) of an individual refuge and the Refuge System mission and
complies with all applicable Federal laws. We can make an exception to
this policy in the event that the Secretary determines it is necessary
to temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to
protect the health and safety of the

[[Page 58325]]

public or any fish or wildlife population.
D. Except during high risk disease situations where we need to take
action quickly, we must give full consideration to the integrity of
nontarget populations and communities when considering compatible
habitat management and pesticide uses for mosquito control. Mosquito
control procedures must also be consistent with integrated pest
management (IPM) strategies and with existing pest management policies
of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) (517 DM 1 and 30 AM 12). Even during high risk
disease situations we require mosquito population monitoring data that
indicate intervention is necessary, as well as appropriate pesticide
review, although these will be expedited so that any necessary
intervention measures will not be delayed (see section 7.17)
E. We allow pesticide treatments for mosquito population control on
Refuge System lands only when local, current mosquito population
monitoring data have been collected and indicate that refuge-based
mosquito populations are contributing to a human or wildlife health
threat.
7.3 What is the scope of this policy?
This policy applies to all units of the Refuge System where we have
jurisdiction over such actions, whether the Service or an authorized
outside agency performs mosquito management.
7.4 What is the authority for this chapter?
The authority for this chapter is the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Administration Act) (16 U.S.C.
668dd-668ee). The Administration Act:
A. Provides authority for adopting rules and establishing policies
for managing the Refuge System and governing refuge uses.
B. Prohibits uses that are not compatible with the purpose(s) of an
individual refuge and the Refuge System mission.
C. Requires that we administer the Refuge System as ``* * * a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans.'' The Administration
Act defines wildlife as ``any wild member of the animal kingdom.''
D. Directs the Secretary to ``* * * ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are
maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.'' The Secretary can also allow or initiate activities on a
refuge to protect the health and safety of the public or any fish or
wildlife population, not withstanding any other requirements of the
Act.
7.5 What other statutes and policies may be relevant to mosquito
control and what additional documentation does the Service require to
monitor and control mosquitoes within the Refuge System?
A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
(1) Categorical Exclusions. Under most circumstances, we may
categorically exclude monitoring and surveillance activities under
existing DOI NEPA procedures for data collection and inventory. (For
more information, see 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.6; 516 DM 8.5B(1); and 516
DM 2, Appendix 2 (categorical exclusions).) In addition, some habitat
management actions as described in section 7.9B may be categorically
excluded. If a proposed refuge mosquito management activity qualifies
as a categorical exclusion, refuges should document it in an
environmental action statement (EAS). We generally may not
categorically exclude intervention measures such as pesticide
applications for mosquito-borne health threats.
(2) Environmental Assessments. Refuges that have completed the NEPA
process for mosquito management should ensure that they addressed the
environmental consequences of potential intervention measures. Refuges
that have not completed the NEPA process for mosquito management should
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) if they expect they might need
to implement intervention measures, such as applying pesticides. You
may reasonably expect that intervention measures are likely if the
State or local public health agency has documented a potential health
threat from refuge-based mosquitoes (see section 7.13 for information
about determining health threats).
(a) In a non-emergency situation, when a State/local public health
agency documents a potential threat, you must complete an EA with the
appropriate finding before conducting substantial intervention
activities.
(b) You must consider local conditions in an EA. When assessing the
potential environmental effects of pesticide applications, consider
such factors as the:
(i) Spatial and temporal extent of the treatment,
(ii) Toxicity and specificity of the proposed pesticide(s) to fish
and wildlife populations,
(iii) Persistence of the proposed pesticide(s), and the
(iv) Alternatives to the proposed action (e.g., different
pesticides, using larvicides versus adulticides, compatible habitat
management).
(c) To minimize potential impacts, identify and document restricted
areas and activities in an EA. If a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) cannot be made, prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS).
(3) NEPA in Emergency Situations. In a situation where there is a
high risk for mosquito-borne disease, you may need to take immediate
intervention measures without completing a NEPA review. If you cannot
categorically exclude the necessary measures, contact the Regional NEPA
coordinator for guidance. After the high risk disease situation has
ended, you must complete proper NEPA documentation that addresses
future mosquito management activities on the refuge.
B. Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Comply with
section 7 for listed and candidate species (refer to the Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). Complete section 7 compliance
in conjunction with the refuge-specific mosquito management plan
(Exhibit 1).
You must submit consultation documents at least 135 days prior to
beginning proposed mosquito management activities. The DOI pesticide
use policy (517 DM 1) and the Service pest management policy (30 AM 12)
do not allow for adverse impacts to listed species from pesticides. If
the Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily suspend, allow,
or initiate any activity in a refuge to protect the health and safety
of the public or any fish or wildlife population before completing
Endangered Species Act section 7 compliance, contact the local ES
office for recommendations.
C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.). On Refuge System lands, we may only use pesticides that
are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency. We must apply
them according to the pesticide label directions.
D. Compatibility Determination (50 CFR 26.41 and 603 FW 2). We must
complete a compatibility determination before we allow an outside
agency to perform surveillance and intervention activities unless the
Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily suspend, allow, or
initiate any activity

[[Page 58326]]

in a refuge to protect the health and safety of the public or any fish
or wildlife population. See 603 FW 2 for more information on
compatibility.
E. Pest Management and Pesticide Use Policies (516 DM 1 and 30 AM
12). Follow all DOI and Service pest management and pesticide use
policies. Before applying any pesticide to Refuge System lands, the
appropriate Regional or National IPM coordinator must review and
approve the pesticide use proposal (PUP). The National IPM coordinator
must approve the use of all adulticides. We may expedite PUP approvals
during high risk disease situations where we need to take action
quickly to protect human or wildlife health. If an outside agency
applies pesticides, as is often the case, we require a special use
permit (SUP), memorandum of understanding, or other agreement. The
agreement must include the justification for pesticide applications,
identify the specific areas to be treated, and list any restrictions or
conditions that they must follow before, during, or after treatment.
Preparation of SUPs, PUPs, and other compliance documentation will be
expedited during high risk disease situations so that any necessary
intervention measures will not be delayed (see section 7.17)
7.6 What are the principles underlying this policy?
A. Wildlife Conservation.
(1) The Administration Act clearly identifies wildlife conservation
as a priority of the Refuge System. House Report 105-106, which
accompanies the amendments to the Administration Act, states that ``* *
* the fundamental mission of our Refuge System is wildlife
conservation: Wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.'' The
term ``wildlife'' includes all vertebrate and invertebrate species.
(2) In addition to undertaking the task of wildlife conservation,
Refuge System managers must also consider impacts to federally listed
threatened and endangered species and candidate species. This is
particularly important to refuges established specifically for listed
species conservation and recovery. To help determine these impacts,
refuge managers can coordinate with local Ecological Services field
office staff (both endangered species and environmental contaminants
staff), other members of the species recovery team, and the respective
State fish and wildlife agencies.
(3) Both the Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies have
authorities and responsibilities for managing fish and wildlife on
national wildlife refuges as described in 43 CFR part 24. Consistent
with the Administration Act, as amended, the Director interacts,
coordinates, cooperates, and collaborates with the State fish and
wildlife agencies in a timely and effective manner on the acquisition
and management of national wildlife refuges. The Director ensures that
Refuge System regulations and management plans are, to the extent
practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations, and management
plans. We charge refuge managers, as the designated representatives of
the Director at the local level, with carrying out these directives. We
will provide State fish and wildlife agencies timely and meaningful
opportunities to participate in the development and implementation of
programs conducted under this policy. The most common method for State
fish and wildlife agency involvement is through their participation on
the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) planning teams. We provide an
opportunity for the State fish and wildlife agencies to participate in
the development and implementation of program changes made outside of
the CCP process, including development of mosquito management plans.
For health threats involving wildlife, we will consult with the State
fish and wildlife agency. Further, we will continue to provide State
fish and wildlife agencies opportunities to discuss and, if necessary,
elevate decisions within the hierarchy of the Service.
B. Protection of Public Health. Although the fundamental goal of
the Refuge System is wildlife conservation, we are committed to
protecting the public from refuge-based mosquitoes that present a
threat to human health. We manage such health threats using methods
that we determine are compatible with the purpose(s) of the refuge and
the mission of the Refuge System. We may make exceptions to this policy
in the event that, under the emergency provision of the Administration
Act, the Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily suspend,
allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to protect the health and
safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population. We recognize
that equines may also become infected by certain mosquito-borne
diseases. Given that infection by mosquito-borne pathogens in equines
and humans represent similar risks to public health, appropriate
measures we take to protect human health from these diseases would also
offer similar protection to equines.
C. Mosquito Management and the Protection of Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and Environmental Health. We manage mosquitoes in such a way
as to meet our statutory obligations to protect the biological
integrity of refuges while meeting our policy obligations and our
social obligation to protect the health and well-being of the human
communities surrounding refuges. Mosquito management strategies and the
altered ecological communities that may result can potentially impact
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge
lands that we must maintain under the Administration Act and 601 FW 3.
(1) Using chemical or other control agents can affect environmental
health and possibly impact genetic configuration within species if they
develop pesticide resistance.
(2) Removing target and nontarget organisms from ecological
communities lowers biological diversity (even though it is usually
temporarily) and may impact biological integrity by altering food webs
and species composition.
7.7 What terms do you need to know to understand this chapter?
A. Action Threshold. Mosquito population levels that trigger
integrated pest management (IPM) actions to manipulate mosquito
populations.
B. Adulticide. Killing adult mosquitoes or a pesticide that kills
adult mosquitoes.
C. Biological Diversity. The variety of life and its processes,
including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences
among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur. (See
601 FW 3 for more information on biological diversity.)
D. Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and
functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with
historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that
shape genomes, organisms, and communities. (See 601 FW 3 for more
information on biological integrity.)
E. Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of
soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic
conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the
environment. (See 601 FW 3.)
F. Enzootic. A relatively consistent prevalence of disease in
animals. The term is comparable to endemic, but refers to animals.
G. Health Threat. An adverse impact to the health of human or
wildlife populations from mosquitoes identified and documented by
Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities.

[[Page 58327]]

H. Integrated Pest Management (IPM). A sustainable approach to
managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and
chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and
environmental risks.
I. Larvicide. Killing mosquito larvae, or a pesticide that kills
mosquito larvae.
J. Mosquito-Borne Disease. An illness produced by a pathogen that
mosquitoes transmit to humans and other vertebrates. The major
mosquito-borne pathogens presently known to occur in the United States
that are capable of producing human illness are the viruses causing
eastern equine encephalitis, western equine encephalitis, St. Louis
encephalitis, West Nile encephalitis/fever, LaCrosse encephalitis, and
dengue, as well as the protozoans causing malaria.
K. Mosquito-Borne Disease Surveillance. Activities associated with
detecting pathogens causing mosquito-borne diseases, such as testing
adult mosquitoes for pathogens or testing reservoir hosts for pathogens
or antibodies.
L. Mosquito Management. Any activity designed to inhibit or reduce
populations of flies in the family Culicidae. It includes physical,
biological, cultural, and chemical means of population control directed
against any life stage of mosquitoes.
M. Mosquito Population Monitoring. Activities associated with
collecting quantitative data to determine mosquito species composition
and to estimate relative changes in mosquito population sizes over
time.
N. Nontarget Organisms. Species or communities other than those
designated for population control.
O. Public Health Authority. A Federal, State, and/or local agency
that has health experts with training and expertise in mosquitoes and
mosquito-borne diseases and that has the official capacity to identify
health threats and determine when there is a high risk for serious
human disease or death from mosquitoes.
P. Pupacide. A pesticide that kills the pupal stage of mosquitoes.
Q. Refuge-Based Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes that are produced within, or
occur on, a refuge.
R. Reservoir Host. A species in which a pathogen is maintained over
time. Reservoir hosts are capable of transferring the pathogen to a
vector.
S. Vector. An organism, such as an insect or tick, that is capable
of acquiring and transmitting a disease-causing agent, or pathogen,
from one vertebrate host to another, or the act of transmitting a
pathogen in such a manner.
7.8 How does the Service protect human and/or wildlife health from
threats associated with refuge-based mosquitoes?
We take the following approaches, each of which we describe in more
detail in sections 7.9 through 7.17.
A. Use of standard operating procedures based on an IPM approach
(see section 7.9).
B. Development of mosquito management plans (see sections 7.10 and
7.11).
C. Determining health threats (see section 7.12).
D. Monitoring to determine appropriate response (see section 7.13).
E. Surveillance for mosquito-borne disease (see section 7.14).
F. Implementing treatment options (see section 7.15).
G. Education and outreach (see section 7.16).
H. High disease risk situations (see section 7.17).
7.9 What standard operating procedures are in place to reduce threats
to human and wildlife health from mosquitoes?
When necessary to protect human and wildlife health, we reduce
potential mosquito-associated health threats using an IPM approach.
When practical, the approach may include compatible actions that reduce
mosquito production and do not involve pesticides. We consider the
procedures described below as long-term practices to reduce persistent
potential mosquito-associated health threats that Federal, State, and/
or local public health authorities have identified. Except in cases
where the Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily suspend,
allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to protect the health and
safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population, where there is
a need to take action immediately, any procedures we use to reduce
mosquito production must be compatible with refuge purposes and the
Refuge System mission. The procedures also must give full consideration
to the safety and integrity of nontarget organisms and communities,
including federally listed threatened and endangered species and
candidate species.
A. We remove or otherwise manage artificial breeding sites such as
tires, tanks, or similar debris/containers, where possible, to
eliminate conditions that favor mosquito breeding, regardless of
whether they are a health threat.
B. When enhancing, restoring, or managing habitat for wildlife, we
will consider using specific actions to reduce mosquito populations
that do not interfere with refuge purposes or wildlife management
objectives. For example, when manipulating water levels for managing
wetlands, you can disrupt mosquito life cycles by timing flood-up and
draw-downs. You also can manage vegetation in such a way that
discourages mosquitoes from laying eggs.
C. Except when we determine it is appropriate during circumstances
where the Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily suspend,
allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to protect the health and
safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population, we prohibit
habitat manipulations for mosquito management (such as draining or
maintaining high water levels inappropriate for other wildlife) that
conflict with wildlife management objectives.
D. We will consider introducing predators to manage mosquitoes only
if we can contain such introductions. To introduce predators, we
require the following:
(1) We must be able to demonstrate effectiveness of the planned
introduction.
(2) The refuge must evaluate the introduction for potential adverse
impacts to nontarget organisms and communities to ensure the
introduction will not interfere with the purpose(s) of the refuge or
other refuge management objectives.
(3) We must have appropriate procedures in place for all species
introductions to ensure that we do not release other species with the
desired introductions.
(4) For introductions of nonnative predators, the refuge must
prepare:
(a) A compatibility determination,
(b) A written plan for containment of the introduced species to the
desired location(s), and
(c) The appropriate level of compliance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act evaluating potential effects of the introduced
predator on federally listed threatened or endangered species and
candidate species.
(d) The appropriate level of NEPA compliance.
(5) In compliance with Executive Order 13112, we will not authorize
any activities likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of
invasive species. (See 601 FW 3.)

[[Page 58328]]

7.10 When does the Service develop mosquito management plans to help
reduce threats to human and wildlife health from mosquitoes?
We develop refuge-specific mosquito management plans (see Exhibit
1) at the field station level for refuges where potential or existing
mosquito-associated health threats have been identified and documented,
or are reasonably expected to occur. We develop these plans in
coordination with Federal, State, and/or local public health
authorities that have expertise in vector-borne diseases, vector
control agencies, and State fish and wildlife agencies.
A. The refuge may need to develop a plan if there has been
documentation of mosquito-borne disease activity within flight range of
refuge-based mosquito species in the previous year.
B. Refuges with an ongoing mosquito or disease monitoring program
must develop refuge-specific mosquito management plans.
C. Identification and documentation of a potential human and/or
wildlife health threat from refuge-based mosquitoes (see section 7.11)
triggers the development of a refuge-specific mosquito management plan.
Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities identify and
document a mosquito-associated human health threat and bring it to the
attention of the refuge manager. Appropriate documentation may include
species-specific adult mosquito monitoring data from the refuge or
areas adjacent to the refuge that indicate an abundance of species
known to vector one or more endemic/enzootic diseases or otherwise
adversely impact human or wildlife health. For refuges without an
ongoing mosquito or disease monitoring program, mosquito-borne disease
activity near the refuge may indicate a health threat or a situation in
which mosquito management needs to be undertaken quickly (refer to
section 7.17). The identification and documentation of a potential
mosquito-associated health threat will not necessarily imply a need for
us to manage mosquito populations, but may indicate the need to
initiate on-refuge monitoring (if not already underway) and mosquito
management planning.
D. We work collaboratively with Federal, State and/or local public
health authorities in the identification of mosquito-associated health
threats. However, the Secretary maintains the authority to act
independently as necessary to protect the health and safety of the
public or any fish or wildlife population.
E. Mosquito-borne disease and vector management may not be an issue
on many Service lands, and not every refuge needs to develop a plan.
F. In the event that the Secretary determines it is necessary to
temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to
protect the health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife
population, when there is a need to take action immediately, we allow
refuges to manage mosquito populations even if they do not have a
mosquito management plan (see section 7.17 for additional guidance).
7.11 What is in a mosquito management plan?
We base mosquito management plans on IPM principles. The Regional
IPM coordinator reviews them, and the Regional and California/Nevada
Operations Office (CNO) Refuge chief approves or disapproves them.
Mosquito management plans consist of four parts: Health threat
determinations, mosquito population monitoring, surveillance for
mosquito-borne disease, and treatment options. See Exhibit 2 for
details.
7.12 How does the Service make determinations about health threats
caused by mosquitoes?
A. We determine if there are health threats at the local level
based on historical incidence of mosquito-borne health threats and
current, local monitoring of mosquito populations and disease activity.
(See section 7.13 for more information on monitoring.) We work with
local, State, or Federal public health authorities with expertise in
mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease epidemiology to identify refuge-
specific categories of mosquito-associated human health threats based
on monitoring data. Where local or State public health expertise in
mosquito-borne disease epidemiology is lacking, we consult with the
Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) to develop these categories.
B. Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities with
jurisdiction inclusive of refuge boundaries determine the human health
threat level using current local monitoring data (see section 7.13C).
Wildlife health experts from Federal or State wildlife agencies
determine if there are threats to wildlife health because of
mosquitoes.
C. Once we identify a health threat through monitoring data, State/
local public health authorities or vector control agencies may take the
pre-determined response(s) developed for that threat category (see
Exhibit 2). We also respond appropriately when neighboring State/local
public health authorities determine there is a health threat.
D. Following guidelines established by the CDC, threat categories
will represent a hierarchical scale of increasing risk to human or
wildlife health based on disease activity and mosquito vector
population numbers, and will include appropriate actions to take for
each threat level category. Such a locally developed health threat
matrix will provide the basis for all future mosquito management
decisions and activities on a refuge, so threat level categories and
responses should be as specifically defined as practical.
E. If we cannot agree with other agencies on the determination of
health threats, threshold values, or other components of the mosquito
management plan, we will work with the public health and vector control
agencies to identify third-party agencies or individuals with
appropriate expertise in mosquito biology and vector-borne disease
ecology for further guidance.
7.13 How does the Service monitor mosquito populations to determine if
a response is necessary and, if so, what the appropriate response is?
A. The objectives of mosquito population monitoring are to:
(1) Establish baseline data on species and abundance,
(2) Map breeding and/or harboring habitats, and
(3) Estimate relative changes in population sizes for making IPM
decisions to reduce mosquito populations when necessary.
B. We use an approach based on specific health threats and refuge
mosquito population monitoring data to determine the appropriate refuge
mosquito management response (see Exhibit 2).
(1) Monitoring should occur at any time mosquitoes are active, even
when there is no evidence of mosquito-borne disease present.
(2) Monitoring protocols specify detailed sampling techniques for
larval and adult mosquitoes. When possible, identify mosquitoes to the
species level.
C. Human and wildlife health threats from mosquitoes may vary
depending on geographic area and time, and we must determine the threat
at the local level. State/local public health authorities and vector
control agencies will be responsible for monitoring mosquito
populations, conducting disease surveillance, and applying pesticide
treatments. We recognize the importance of monitoring mosquito

[[Page 58329]]

populations to document species composition and estimate their size and
distribution because we use this information to make IPM decisions. We
allow State/local public health authorities and vector control agencies
to monitor mosquito populations on Refuge System lands as long as
monitoring is compatible with the purpose(s) of the refuge.
D. Refuges can issue an SUP, memorandum of understanding, or other
agreement to allow compatible monitoring of larval and adult mosquito
populations. To avoid harm to wildlife or habitats, access to traps and
sampling stations must meet the compatibility requirements found in 603
FW 2 and may be subject to refuge-specific restrictions. Where
federally listed or candidate species are present, monitoring methods
must undergo the appropriate level of compliance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act in order to determine whether or not such
monitoring programs will adversely affect the listed or candidate
species.
E. We expect the extent and intensity of a monitoring program to
vary according to the potential and historical incidence of mosquito-
associated health threats, as well as the resources available to the
refuge and the public health authority or vector control district.
F. If a public health authority or vector control agency is not
available to conduct monitoring, the mosquito management plan will
identify the conditions under which refuge staff will initiate
emergency monitoring. Refuges that want to monitor mosquito populations
themselves may do so. They should outline their activities in the
refuge-specific contingency plan (see Exhibit 1), and include mosquito
monitoring protocols in the refuge inventory and monitoring plan. (See
701 FW 2 for more information about inventorying and monitoring
populations.)
7.14 How does the Service use surveillance for mosquito-borne disease
to reduce threats to human and wildlife health from mosquitoes?
We allow Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities or
vector control agencies to perform compatible mosquito-borne disease
surveillance on Refuge System lands.
A. The objectives of mosquito-borne disease surveillance are to:
(1) Detect the presence of pathogens,
(2) Estimate changes in disease or pathogenic activity, and
(3) Assess human and wildlife health threats due to mosquitoes.
B. Federal, State, and/or local public health and wildlife
management authorities may use appropriate documentation of previous or
current mosquito-borne disease activity adjacent to the refuge to
identify potential or existing health threats.
C. Disease surveillance adjacent to the refuge should be within
flight range of vector species found on the refuge.
D. State and local public health authorities or vector control
agencies are generally responsible for other disease surveillance
methods, such as monitoring disease activity in reservoir hosts for
pathogens or antibodies, collecting adult mosquito samples using live
traps, and testing the samples in same-species pools for virus.
(1) On Refuge System lands, we may authorize these activities, and
they must meet the compatibility requirements in 603 FW 2.
(2) Approved, compatible surveillance activities on the refuge will
include specific, detailed methodologies and the number and location of
detection stations.
(3) Where federally listed or candidate species are present,
surveillance methods must undergo the appropriate level of compliance
with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in order to determine
whether or not such monitoring programs will adversely affect the
listed or candidate species.
(4) Surveillance for mosquito-borne disease may involve monitoring
and testing wildlife, especially birds and mosquitoes, and testing
captive sentinel birds on or adjacent to the refuge. We discourage
using caged sentinel chickens on refuges for reservoir host
surveillance due to the risk of spreading disease to wild birds.
E. Refuge employees note dead or sick wildlife during their routine
outdoor activities. In most cases, this will only involve passive
surveillance for affected wildlife.
(1) Refuges identify a facility to test dead or sick wildlife for
mosquito-borne pathogens in mosquito management plans (also see Exhibit
1).
(2) Refuge personnel receive instruction on proper procedures for
safely collecting, handling, shipping, or disposing of potentially
infected wildlife.
(3) If wildlife specimens from a refuge test positive for mosquito-
borne disease, we provide these results to the State and local public
health authorities, State fish and wildlife agencies, and the refuge
supervisor immediately.
7.15 How does the Service determine what treatment options to use for
mosquitoes?
A. We establish numerical action thresholds in collaboration with
Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities and vector
control agencies and identify them in the mosquito management plan (see
Exhibit 2).
(1) The action thresholds represent mosquito population levels that
may require intervention measures.
(2) We develop thresholds considering many factors, including those
listed in Exhibit 3.
(3) Thresholds are species-specific (or species-group-specific) for
larval, pupal, and adult mosquito vectors and reflect the potential
significance of a particular species or group of species in a
particular health threat. For example, mosquito vector species known to
be important in the transmission cycle of a disease may have a lower
action threshold than species with lesser transmission roles (see
Exhibit 3).
(4) We compare current mosquito population monitoring data to the
established action thresholds.
(5) We implement intervention measures only when current mosquito
population estimates, as determined by current mosquito monitoring
data, meet or exceed the established action thresholds.
B. We choose treatment based on our pest management policy (30 AM
12). We base the choice on the following, which appear in order of
preference:
(1) Human safety and environmental integrity,
(2) Effectiveness, and
(3) Cost.
C. We use human and wildlife mosquito-associated health threat
determinations combined with refuge mosquito population estimates to
determine the appropriate refuge mosquito management response (see
Exhibit 2).
D. Where federally listed or candidate species are present, we use
Endangered Species Act section 7 compliance information to assist in
the decision-making process.
E. After we evaluate all other reasonable IPM actions, we may allow
pesticide treatments to control mosquitoes on Refuge System lands.
(1) Before applying pesticides to Refuge System lands, we must have
an approved PUP in place.
(2) We determine the most appropriate pesticide treatment options
based on monitoring data for the relevant mosquito life stage. We use
current monitoring data for larval,

[[Page 58330]]

pupal, and adult mosquitoes to determine the need for larvicides,
pupacides, and adulticides, respectively.
(3) We do not allow pesticide treatments for mosquito control on
Refuge System lands without current mosquito population data indicating
that such actions are warranted.
F. The mosquito management plan also identifies more aggressive
monitoring and control efforts as health threat risk levels increase
(see Exhibit 2). If we determine pesticide treatments are necessary to
quickly reduce mosquito populations, we may allow appropriate
pesticides based on the nature of the threat.
(1) Larvicides. When we can reduce health threats by using
pesticides that kill mosquito larvae (larvicides), we choose an
effective larvicide that causes the least impact to nontarget
organisms.
(2) Pupacides. We limit the need for pupacides by treating
threatening larval populations in a timely manner. We consider using
pupacides only when there is a documented health threat. We select an
effective pupacide that causes the least impact to nontarget organisms.
(3) Adulticides. We allow the use of adulticides only when there
are no practical and effective alternatives to reduce a health threat.
The mosquito management plan will identify best management practices to
reduce nontarget impacts in cases where we use adulticide treatment.
G. We work with public health and vector control agencies to
develop communication procedures, particularly to address high risk
disease situations. Timely communication at the outset of a disease
outbreak will speed any necessary response. We share contact
information with other agencies. Refuge employees have the necessary
contact information for appropriate Service personnel to expedite any
necessary compliance documentation (see section 7.17).
7.16 How does the Service use education and outreach to protect human
and wildlife health from threats from mosquitoes?
A. Where appropriate, we collaborate with Federal, State, and/or
local wildlife agencies, public health authorities, agriculture
departments, and vector control agencies to conduct education and
outreach activities aimed at protecting human and wildlife health from
threats associated with mosquitoes.
B. Where appropriate, we distribute information materials about
mosquito-associated threats through refuge visitor centers and Service
Internet sites.
C. Refuge employees receive instruction on personal protection
measures to minimize their exposure to mosquito-borne diseases.
7.17 How does the Service address high risk mosquito-borne disease
situations on refuges?
Federal, State, and/or local public health authorities may
officially identify a high risk for mosquito-borne disease based on
documented disease activity in humans or wildlife. In addition, the
Secretary has the authority to identify a high risk for mosquito-borne
disease independent of Federal, State, and/or local public health
authorities. Such a high risk determination indicates an imminent risk
of serious human disease or death, or an imminent risk to populations
of wildlife. Public health authorities may request pesticide treatments
to Refuge System lands to decrease mosquito vector populations and
lower the health risk. Refuges with approved mosquito management plans
will have addressed potential high risk situations and appropriate
responses within those documents. Refuges without approved mosquito
management plans should contact their refuge supervisor and Regional
IPM coordinator in the event of a high risk determination. Even during
high disease risk situations, we allow pesticide treatments for
mosquito population control on Refuge System lands only when local and
current mosquito population monitoring data are available and indicate
that refuge-based mosquito populations are contributing to a human and/
or wildlife health threat. Collecting such monitoring data is standard
for making IPM decisions and should not delay appropriate treatment.
For a high risk mosquito-borne disease determination, appropriate
documentation includes identification of infected mosquitoes or
abundant populations of vector species within refuge boundaries. In
high risk mosquito-borne disease situations, we will do the following:
A. If no mosquito population data are available for the refuge, we
will request (or undertake, if applicable) short-term (24 hours or
less) monitoring of adult and/or larval mosquito populations on the
refuge to ensure that intervention is necessary.
B. If necessary, we monitor the populations ourselves. We cannot
use a pesticide unless we have current mosquito population monitoring
data indicating intervention with pesticides is warranted. We will
complete and submit a PUP to the Regional IPM coordinator and
Washington Office IPM coordinator, if applicable, for expedited review.
In a high risk disease situation we may not wait for monitoring results
to initiate the PUP process, and we will expedite the review of PUPs.
C. If there is no site-specific National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documentation for the proposed emergency intervention
measure(s), contact the Regional NEPA coordinator for guidance (refer
to section 7.5).
D. If federally listed or candidate species are present and
Endangered Species Act section 7 compliance has not been completed for
the potential intervention measures, contact the local Ecological
Services (ES) office for recommendations (refer to section 7.17).
E. Notify refuge employees and visitors of the increased human
health risk and provide information for personal protection against
mosquito-borne disease. Where appropriate, we will consider restricting
or closing all or part of the refuge to visitors and restricting
outdoor activities of employees.
F. If monitoring data indicate that intervention with pesticides is
warranted, we will prepare an SUP for pesticide application(s). In the
SUP, we may identify pertinent conditions and restrictions on pesticide
application activities to protect sensitive species or habitats.
Although we may waive the requirement for a compatibility determination
in a high disease risk situation, we will choose effective means to
lower the health threat that pose the least risk to wildlife and
habitats.
G. Preparation of SUPs, PUPs, and other compliance documentation
will be expedited so that any necessary intervention measures will not
be delayed.
H. After pesticide applications, we require (or undertake, if
applicable) additional mosquito population monitoring to assess the
effectiveness of the pesticide treatment(s).
I. See Section 7.5A.(3) for NEPA procedures in emergency
situations.
J. Once a high risk mosquito-borne diseases situation is over, an
affected refuge must develop a mosquito management plan and prepare all
necessary compliance documents (see sections 7.5, 7.10, and 7.11).

[[Page 58331]]

Dated: September 21, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

601 FW 7, Exhibit 1

Outline: Mosquito Management Plan for Mosquito Associated Threats on
Refuges

I. Health Threat Determination

A. Describe the communication process and identify points of
contact and their contact information for Federal and/or State/local
public health authorities, vector control agencies, and recognized
experts in vector ecology, epidemiology, public health, and wildlife
health. Identify agency with public human health authority that has the
official capacity to make a human health determination. Identify
personnel with medical training on the epidemiology of mosquito-borne
diseases.
B. Elaborate on regional/local history of mosquito associated
health threat(s). Identify endemic and enzootic mosquito-borne
diseases.
C. Determine health threat(s) using criteria in Exhibit 2 based on
documentation from Service wildlife health experts, State fish and
wildlife agency health experts, Federal and/or State/local public
health authorities, and/or public health veterinarians employed by the
appropriate public health authorities that refuge-based mosquitoes
threaten human or wildlife health.
1. Off-refuge (or on-refuge, if available) mosquito surveillance
summary data (species and abundance).
2. List of vector species present and enzootic/endemic diseases
they may vector.

II. Monitoring Mosquito Populations (Developed in Cooperation With
Federal/State/Local Public Health Authorities, Vector Control Agencies,
and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

A. Identify the purpose and goals of monitoring on the refuge.
B. Identify who will conduct monitoring on the refuge and their
contact information.
C. Identify when they will conduct the monitoring:
1. Routine, seasonal; or
2. Monitoring only when threat level is elevated (identify triggers
for monitoring).
D. Description of monitoring protocols.
1. Larval and pupal mosquito monitoring and breeding habitat
inventory and mapping.
(a) Objective(s).
(b) Method(s).
(c) Sampling locations and numbers of samples/location.
(d) Frequency of sampling.
(e) Processing/identification of samples (species, larval stage).
2. Adult mosquito monitoring.
(a) Method(s) of sampling (e.g., traps, landing counts).
(b) Sampling locations and frequency of sampling.
(c) Processing/identification of samples.
3. Post-treatment monitoring: Monitoring should continue after any
treatment to determine efficacy.
E. Reporting.
1. Refuge receives copies of all monitoring data concerning refuge.
2. Refuge shares annual habitat management plans, if applicable,
with public health or vector control agency.
F. Restrictions/Stipulations: Identify any restrictions/
stipulations on monitoring activities (e.g., access, vehicle use,
sensitive species or habitats, time of day, etc.) to ensure
compatibility.

III. Surveillance of Mosquito-Borne Disease (Developed in Cooperation
With Federal/State/Local Public Health Authorities, Vector Control
Agencies, and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

A. Identify the purpose and goals of surveillance.
B. Identify who will be conducting surveillance on or near the
refuge and their contact information.
C. Identify when they will conduct surveillance.
1. Routine, seasonal surveillance; or
2. Surveillance only when threat level is elevated (identify
triggers for surveillance).
D. Description of surveillance protocols.
1. Disease monitoring.
(a) Objective(s).
(b) Method(s).
(c) Monitoring locations.
(d) Wildlife testing facility (for dead or sick wildlife found on
the refuge).
2. Disease activity notification procedures between public health
agency, State fish and wildlife agency, and refuge (we develop these
procedures cooperatively).
3. Post-treatment monitoring: Surveillance should continue after
any treatment to determine effectiveness.
E. Restrictions/Stipulations: Identify any restrictions/
stipulations on surveillance activities (e.g., access, vehicle use,
sensitive species or habitats, time of day, etc.).

IV. Treatment Options (Developed in Cooperation With Federal/State/
Local Public Health Authorities, and Vector Control Agencies, and State
Fish And Wildlife Agencies Using Stepwise Approach, Exhibit 2)

A. Identify and categorize refuge-based vector species or species
groups based on role in transmission cycle(s) of enzootic/endemic
diseases.
B. Identify species-specific larval, pupal, and adult mosquito
vector action threshold levels that reflect the importance of vector
species in the transmission cycle (see Exhibit 3).
C. Identify health threat levels and describe potential
intervention measures for each level (Exhibit 2). Include non-pesticide
and pesticide intervention options.
D. Complete NEPA process, as necessary, to examine potential
environmental effects of potential intervention measures. In an
emergency, contact the Regional NEPA coordinator for guidance.
E. Complete Endangered Species Act section 7 compliance for
potential impacts to listed and candidate species from intervention
measures.
F. Identify specific pesticides or other management actions to use
at specific threat levels based on NEPA and section 7 analyses.
G. Unless the Secretary determines it is necessary to temporarily
suspend, allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge to protect the
health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population,
complete a compatibility determination for intervention measures. Refer
to 603 FW 2 for more information about compatibility and emergencies.
H. Follow Service pesticide use and permitting procedures, and
attach approved pesticide use proposal (PUP) and special use permits
(SUP).
1. Complete PUP.
2. Submit PUP to Regional IPM coordinator. In an emergency, contact
Regional/CNO pest management coordinator (and national IPM coordinator,
if adulticides are involved) to expedite PUP approval.
3. Prepare SUP or other agreement for agency conducting
intervention measures, outlining specific actions to be taken (when,
where, how) and describing any restrictions, stipulations, or other
conditions on such actions.

601 FW 7, Exhibit 2

Example of Mosquito-Borne Disease Health Threat and Response Matrix

[[Page 58332]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Threat
Refuge mosquito level Refuge response
Health threat category \1\ populations \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No documented existing or historical No action threshold....... 1 Remove/manage artificial
health threat. mosquito breeding sites such
as tires, tanks, or similar
debris/containers.
Documented historical health threat.... Below action threshold.... 2 Response as in threat level 1,
plus: Allow compatible
monitoring and disease
surveillance. Consider
compatible nonpesticide
management options to reduce
mosquito production (section
7.9).
Above action threshold.... 3 Response as in threat level 2,
plus: Allow compatible site-
specific application of
larvicide in infested areas as
determined by monitoring.
Documented existing health threat Below action threshold.... 4 Response as in threat level 2,
(specify multiple levels, if plus: Increase monitoring and
necessary; e.g., disease found in disease surveillance.
wildlife, disease found in mosquitoes,
etc.).
Above action threshold.... 5 Response as in threat levels 3
and 4, plus: Allow compatible
site-specific application of
larvicide, pupacide, or
adulticide in infested areas
as determined by monitoring
data (refer to section 7.15).
High risk for mosquito-borne disease Below action threshold.... 6 Maximize monitoring and disease
(imminent risk of serious human surveillance (refer to section
disease or death, or an imminent risk 7.15).
to populations of wildlife).
Above action threshold.... 7 Response as in threat level 6,
plus: Allow site-specific
application of larvicide,
pupacide, and adulticide in
infested areas as determined
by monitoring (refer to
sections 7.15 and 7.17).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Health threat/risk as determined by Federal and/or State/local public health or wildlife management
authorities with jurisdiction inclusive of refuge boundaries and/or neighboring public health authorities.
\2\ Action thresholds represent mosquito population levels that may require intervention measures. We develop
thresholds in collaboration with Federal and/or State/local public health or wildlife management authorities
and vector control agencies. They must be species- and life stage-specific.

601 FW 7, Exhibit 3

Factors To Consider When Establishing Thresholds for Use of Larvicides/
Pupacides/Adulticides To Control Mosquitoes To Address Health Threats

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Description Consideration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosquito species............ Mosquito species Consider these
vary in the factors when
following: Their establishing adult
ability to carry and larval
and transmit thresholds. Often
disease; flight the species and
distances; feeding biology of the
preference (birds, mosquito are more
mammals, humans); important in
seasonality; and developing
type of breeding thresholds than the
habitat. relative abundance.
Proximity to human The distance from The potential to
populations. potential mosquito produce large
habitat on NWRs to numbers of
population centers mosquitoes in close
(numbers and proximity to
density). population centers
may result in less
tolerance or lower
thresholds for
implementation of
mosquito control on
NWRs.
Weather patterns............ Prevailing wind Prevailing wind
patterns, patterns that carry
precipitation, and mosquitoes from
temperatures. refuge habitats to
population centers
may require lower
thresholds.
Inclement weather
conditions may
prevent mosquitoes
from moving off-
refuge, resulting
in higher
thresholds.
Cultural mosquito tolerance. The tolerance of In many parts of the
different country, residents
populations may accept mosquitoes
vary by region of as a way of life,
the country and resulting in higher
associated culture mosquito management
and tradition. thresholds. NWRs in
highly populated
areas may require
lower thresholds
because of the
intolerance of
urban dwellers to
mosquitoes.
Adults harbored, but not Refuge provides Threshold for
produced, on-refuge. resting areas for mosquito management
adult mosquitoes on the refuge
produced in the should be high with
surrounding an emphasis for
landscape. treatment of
mosquito breeding
habitat off refuge.

[[Page 58333]]

Spatial extent of mosquito The relative If the refuge is a
breeding habitat. availability of primary breeding
mosquito habitat area for mosquitoes
within the that likely affect
landscape that human health,
includes the threshold may be
refuge. lower. If refuge
mosquito habitats
are insignificant
in the context of
the landscape,
thresholds may be
higher.
Natural predator populations Balanced predator- If refuge vertebrate
prey populations and invertebrate
may limit mosquito prey populations
production. are adequate to
control mosquitoes,
threshold for
treatment should be
high.
Type of mosquito habitat.... Preferred breeding Because breeding
habitat for habitat is species-
mosquitoes is specific, correlate
species-specific. thresholds for each
species to initiate
control with
appropriate habitat
types.
Water quality............... Water quality High organic content
influences mosquito in water may
productivity. increase mosquito
productivity, lower
natural predator
abundance, and may
require lower
thresholds.
Opportunities for water and Management of water Thresholds for
vegetation management. levels and treatment should be
vegetation may higher where we can
reduce mosquito control mosquitoes
productivity. through habitat
management.
Presence/absence of vector Many areas do not Thresholds for
control agency. have adequate human management may be
populations to much higher or non-
support vector existent in areas
control. In without vector
addition, resources control.
available for
mosquito management
vary among
districts.
Accessibility for monitoring/ Refuges may not have Thresholds will
control. adequate access to probably be higher
monitor or for refuges with
implement mosquito limited access that
management. will require cost-
prohibitive
monitoring and
treatment
strategies.
History of mosquito borne Past monitoring of Thresholds in areas
diseases in area. wildlife, mosquito with a history of
pools, horses, mosquito-borne
sentinel chickens, disease(s) will
and humans have likely be lower.
documented mosquito-
borne diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-20201 Filed 10-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P