Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-22 Board of Health Agenda Packet Attention: Date Change North Andover Board of Health Meeting Agenda Thursday, January 22, 29115 7:00 pan. North Andover Police Department Community Room 1475 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. PUBLIC HEARINGS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes from November 20,2014 to be presented for signature. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. COMMUNICATIONS,ANNOUNCEMENTS,AND DISCUSSION A. Middle School viral outbreak—after action discussion B. Permit renewal status C. Septic season status D. 2015 Mosquito Control season;opt out procedures.Northeast MA Mosquito control representatives to present plan for 2015 VIII. CORRESPONDENCE/NEWSLETTERS IX. ADJOURNMENT 2015 North Andover Board of Health Meeting—Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 1 Note: The Board of Health reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss and/or vote on items that are not listed on the agenda. Board of Health Members: Thomas Trowbridge,DDS,MD,Chairman;Larry Fixler,Member/Clerk;Francis P.MacMillan,Jr., M.D.;Joseph McCarthy,Member; Edwin Pease,Member Health Department Staff:Susan Sawyer,Health Director; Debra Rillahan,Public Health Nurse;Michele Grant,Public Health Inspector;Lisa Blaclzburn,Health Department Assistant a� e0111>1t onweattb of Olaooarbnoettl 9S MABgq STATE RECLAMATION AND MOSQUITO CONTROL BOARD o��� ay�e�l � NORTHEAST MASSACHUSETTS MOSQUITO CONTROL AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT DISTRICT i e ,•:' " 261 Northern Boulevard,Plum Island �I Newburyport,MA 01950 Phone: (978)463-6630/Fax: (978)463-6631 Commissioners William Mehaffey,Jr.:District Supervisor John W.Morris,CHO:Chair Robyn A.Januszewski:District Administrator Vincent J.Russo,MD,MPH:Vice Chair Emily D.W.Sullivan:Wetlands Project Coordinator Paul Sevigny,RS,CHO Esteban Cuebas-Incle,Ph.D.:Entomologist Joseph T.Giarrusso,Conservation Officer Rosemary Decie,RS Best Management Practice Plan North Andover FY16 Percentage of assessment allocated to specific measures as prescribed by individual municipalities Best Management Practice (BMP) in the town of North Andover For 2016 the District is asking for a level funded budget. For FY16our primary goal is to protect our subscribing communities from virus. We will do all in our power to reduce the mosquito populations on a regional and town wide basis thus reducing the virus risk to our residents. We look for continued support and understanding from all the communities we serve if we are to be successful. Assessment: As estimated by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services for, in accordance with Chapter 516 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth. The assessment formula is based on a regional concept,which considers square miles and evaluation. The District offers this breakdown as a general guide to how funds are allocated specific to your community. FYI Estimated Assessment for the Town of North Andover $90,141 ,00 (1'"�"15 $91:1J,(j 1.00 District Breakdown of Administr4tive and General Operational Cost State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board 2.45% 1 Administration and Facilities Cost Share 28.8% $25,960,61 Balance of assessment allocated to Operational Cost 68.75% $611.1971,94 District Breakdown of Specific Control Measures available to each community General Operational Cost Share Regional Adult Mosquito Surveillance Program Regional Vector/Virus Intervention i 2015 Best Management Practice Plan:North Andover Page 2 1 Surveillance 1 Larviciding/Catch Basin Treatment/Manual Ditch Maintenance Adulticiding/Barrier Treatment(Board of Health requests) Ditch Maintenance Wetlands Management Tire Recycling Program Inspectional Services Property Inspections Mosquito Habitat Mitigation Research and Development Education and Outreach 2014 Overall Mosquito & Arbovirus Surveillance Sum mary Abundant snowfall and accumulations occurred during the winter of 2013-2014. However, drought conditions dominated from April through the rest of the spring and summer. With little water available for larval development, "Spring Brood"mosquito populations (those that emerge in May up to mid-June)were at the lowest levels ever recorded in the Distinct in the 21"Century. While the District was hit with heavy rains from hurricane Arthur during the Independence Day weekend, the ground was so dry that practically all the.water that fell upon it was absorbed. Very little standing water remained long enough to activate and sustain the development of floodwater mosquitoes throughout most of the District. Furthermore,the summer stayed on the cooler side, with temperatures rarely reaching 90°F. which retarded development. In fact, a true heat spell with temperatures and relative humidity into the 90's did not occur until the first full weekend in September. With much less standing water present and cooler-than-normal temperatures, overall mosquito populations were,with the exception of one species,the lowest since the current surveillance protocols were implemented in 2002. Two species in eastern Massachusetts are found to be the most efficient vectors (i.e., "carriers") for West Nile Virus (WNV), Culex pipiens ("Northern House Mosquito") and Cx. restuans. .Although these vectors in the District normally proliferate during drought conditions,the cooler temperatures restricted mosquito development and adult activity. Furthermore,the"blitzkrieg" campaign to treat all the District catch basins relatively early may have also contributed to the low numbers of West Nile vectors developing. These species develop in artificial containers that hold organically- i 2015 Best Management Practice Plan:North Andover Page 3 polluted waters such as catch basins. The basins were treated again in 2014 with either bacterial or hormonal-like agents (product use depended on what each municipality favored)that eventually killed mosquito immatures while they were in the aquatic stage. Along with lower populations of vectors there was also a lower rate of amplification and transmission of WNV. As shown in Table 1,the numbers of mosquito-WNV detections were at the lowest since 2009, a remarkable reduction from what was recorded in 2011 through 2013. The majority of the 2014 virus "hits"occurred after 1 September,near the end of the surveillance season,which was normal. Arboviral abundance in an ecosystem is always at the highest just before the end of the summer since it takes several months to build up sufficient circulating virus that can be easily detected. Although vector mosquito populations were at historic lows,there was one human case of West Nile-generated encephalitis from Saugus (confirmation of a second case, in Peabody is still pending at this date). This demonstrates that during peak arbovirus transmission season, from 1 August until 30 September,the risk for infection with WNV (as`well as for EEEV)is always present regardless of how low the populations of vectors. This tells us that while vector species were at a minimum, if sufficient infected birds migrate into a community,the few mosquitoes present can still acquire and transmit the virus to residents. Such low populations usually do not warrant ground-based adulticiding operations therefore during the late summer/early fall,District residents should engage in personal protective measures when venturing outdoors for extended periods. Application of repellents and minimizing exposing one's skin to possible bites during the late afternoons and early evenings will aid in reducing the risk of infection. Populations of the principal vector of Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus (EEEV),the Cedar Swamp mosquito Culiseta melanura,were also at record-low levels for 2014. The reason was the same as for the other mosquito species,the lack of abundant water. These mosquitoes develop inside the tree hummocks (inside the water-logged root zones,known as"crypts") in white cedar and red maple swamps. With water levels extremely low,the crypts had either little or no water. With insufficient breeding areas available,there was little development and emergence of relatively few vectors. The only two EEEV"hits" (Table 1 &Figure 3) occurred late in the season and were detected in communities that are adjacent to freshwater swamps in great abundance. In such habitats,there are usually pockets of abundant water present all season long and, if the appropriate environmental conditions are present, Cedar Swamp adults will develop. Only one species of mosquito was present in great,abundance at levels never reached before under the current surveillance protocols. This was the attail Swamp mosquito Coquillettidia pertur•bans (also known as the"Salt&Pepper"mosquito). This species is normally the most abundant species in our District,but its record populations in 2014 were a surprise. The biology of this species will not be discussed here;the reader can refer to BMPs of previous years for a complete description of the habits of this species. Since the adults of this'species begin to emerge in mid-June and peak in early July, it can be surmised that the freshwater swamps where these mosquitoes develop were yet to be hard hit by the drought. The mosquitoes are usually gone from the scene by mid-August; they only have one generation per year. Nonetheless,the drought seemed to have little-to-no impact on reducing the population of this species. One hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is that the increase of residentialibusiness developments adjacent to cattail swamps has caused more water to accumulate at these swamps to enhance survival of Cq.perturbans;the same could be hypothesized for the increase in beaver impoundments. i 2015 Best Management Practice Plan:North Andover Page 4 i . Table 1. Detections of West Nile (WNV) and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEEV)viruses in infected mosquitoes in Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control District from 2002 through 2014. Number of pools* WNV EEEV Submitted for Positive Pools Positive Pools Year Testing No. Percentage No. Percentage 2002 740 14 1.9 0 0.0 2003 646 2 0.3 0 0.0 2004 604 4 0.7 0 0.0 2005 870 11 1.3 2 0.3 2006 1,181 5 0.4 11 0.9 2007 850 16 1.9 0 0.0 2008 774 10 1.3 0 0.0 2009 567 2 0.4 13 2.3 2010 714 21 2.9 0 0.0 2011 1,009 58 5:7 0 0.0 2012 1,039 48 4.6 14 1.3 2013 1,315 76 5.8 4 0.3 2014 804 7 0.9 2 0.2 * "Pool"is a sample containing from 3 to 50 mosquitoes, all of the same species collected on the same date from the same location later tested by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 2015 Best Managentent Practice Plan:North Andover Page 5 Legend Tov+nswith EEEV Human Cases Figure 1. NE MA Mosquito Control District Towns with EEEV Detections Municipalities reporting WNV and i Towns with BOTH EEEV SWNV EEEV infections in 2012 1 Towns With WNV Detections U Towns not in District Towns in white had no virus detected / d r7 iRSed ivsneR t`rf� IGRTNMI RCJi Et SIMON 1W. hAOOIETON/�// ���� GeeUCEST�R���, GMlVERS e�RLY µµ;; /�%/ h�AAEi ENEVS w4 t uYT QP e Odl Figure 2. NE MA Mosquito Control District Municipalities reporting WNV and EEEV infections in 2013. a �i"Si lidlm I o t V 1 I 9. r ' Po� �bF rt 1 Legend same as Figure 1 except cross t °s,0 1 �• hatching are WNV human cases. 1 2015 Best Management Practice Plan:North Andover Page 6 Figure 3. NE MA Mosquito Control District Municipalities reporting WNV and EEEV infections in 2014. A'�~ SALISEURY� MERRI MAC 1 +� iav'E ST NEVdBURY HAVERHILL , �., NEIATURY" f GRO VELAMJa X^ %4ETHUEN "1r E1 rRGETOVdN y WREN ax BoXFCRD IPSWICH rr - ORTHANDQVE'R y �-t,r^-7 0C ANDOVER ESSEX HAMILTON ESSEX C7UUEST MIDDLETON VlENHAA9 �. � -�,�— �'u1kNGHESTER^�, C ANVERS 1 BEVERLY o YNNFIELrq SALEM' ?�,� 4 hAA�tBLE w� NIPST TT. ,,,✓✓✓✓✓✓ N �+ EVER �f THCP Legend: Red municipalities-WNV-mosquito detections Blue municipalities- EEEV-mosquito detections Cross-hatchings- Municipalities with WNV-human cases (final confirmation pending with Peabody human case) 2015 Best Management Practice Plan:North Andover Page 7 North Andover As overall mosquito populations increased District-wide in 2014,they decreased in North Andover by over half from 2013 numbers. Most of the species of concern exhibited decreases in their populations, especially the principal encephalitis virus vectors Culiseta melanura and Culex pipiens/restuans. The season-long drought, as explained in the previous section,was the principal cause of the declines of these populations. The Cattail Swamp mosquito, Coquillettidia perturbans, experienced an increase but their impact was deemed insignificant. Although only a small number was collected (27 adults),the appearance of the Brown Salt Marsh mosquito,Aedes cantator,was perplexing being that the nearest salt marsh is over twenty miles away. However,this species is noted for breeding in brackish roadside ditches and this could explain its appearance in North Andover. There were no arbovirus detections in North Andover in 2014 and there were no WNV-infected mosquitoes collected from adjacent communities. This was most welcomed news since North Andover has a large urban center and major suburban habitats radiating in all directions favoring the development of the WNV vectors. It was not that long ago there were repeated detections of WNV in vectors collected in North Andover. In fact, WNV has been collected in North Andover mosquitoes in five of the past seven years. The early-season treatments of catch basins with larviciding agents may also have contributed to keep populations of the WNV vectors to historic lows. No EEEV was detected as well. With the extensive forested wetlands in nearby southeastern New Hampshire as the local focus of EEE virus,there will always be concern of transmission and human infection by this virus in North Andover and all surrounding municipalities. Furthermore as reported in the previous section,virus presence and transmission in the District did not cease due to low populations of virus vectors. There were virus detections in mosquitoes in several communities and there was at least one non-traveling resident infected with WNV (Saugus). Residents in areas endemic for WNV and EEEV must take the necessary precautions, especially during the late summer,to reduce the risk of infection from these viruses,regardless of low mosquito populations and/or aggressiveness of control. Recall that there is no treatment for West Nile infection, no vaccine to prevent infection, and that in many instances infected people of all ages become gravely ill and/or die from these infections! Property Exclusion from Pesticides Date: Please exclude the following property from mosquito control activities this year: Resident name: Address: Town: Telephone number: Property owner (if different): Address of owner: Town: Types of mosquito control applications to be excluded: Adulticiding Larviciding This form must be submitted by certified letter dated between January 1 and March 1, of the year the exclusion is requested,to the Municipal Clerk in the town in which the property exists. The exclusion will run from April 1 of that year to March 31 of the following year. 2. MA Department of Agricultural Resources: Pesticide Board Exclusions from Pesticide Application 333 CIVIR 13.03: Exclusions from Pesticide Application (1) General. (a) Wide Area Applications of pesticides and mosquito control applications of pesticides approved by the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board shall not be made to private property which has been designated for exclusion from such application by a person living on or legally in control of said property. (b) Designation for exclusion from Wide Area Applications of pesticides and mosquito control applications of pesticides approved by the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board may be made by supplying the clerk of the municipality in which such lands lie with a certified letter providing the name, address, and telephone number (if any) of the person requesting the exclusion, the address of the property to be excluded, and a description of the types of pesticide application programs for which exclusion is requested. (c) Designation for exclusion may be made prior to March 1 st of each year and shall be effective from April 1 st of that year through March 31 st of the following year. (d) A designation for exclusion made by a tenant shall not be deemed to limit the right of the landlord to apply, or authorize the application of, pesticides to that land if by the express or implied terms of the written or oral rental agreement the owner retains the right to apply or authorize the application of such pesticides. (e) 333 CIVIR 13.03 shall not be deemed to limit the right of an easement holder to apply pesticides to land which is subject to the easement if the easement expressly or implicitly included the right to apply pesticides. (f) A designation for exclusion made by a joint owner, tenant in common, or owner of a condominium unit shall not be deemed to limit the right of any other joint owner, tenant in common, condominium unit owner or condominium association to apply or authorize the application of pesticides to land if by the express or implied terms of the deed, condominium agreement or other agreement governing such land such other joint owner, tenant in common, condominium unit owner or condominium association retain the right to apply or authorize the application of such pesticides. (2) Marking Areas for Exclusion. All areas designated for exclusion from Wide Area Applications of pesticides and mosquito control applications of pesticides approved by the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board shall be marked as follows: (b) Ground Applications. The person requesting exclusion shall mark the boundaries or areas to be excluded at least every 50 feet with orange surveyor's tape or another Department -approved marking device which clearly defines the area of exclusion. These markings shall be made known to the Contracting Entity, who shall be responsible for communicating the details of their marking to those who will carry out the application. (3) Requests for exclusion shall not be honored in those cases in which: (a) The Commissioner of Public Health has certified that the application is to be made to protect the Public Health Definition of Wide Area Applications: All aerial applications made for the control of Public Nuisance Pests, and all ground applications made for the control of Public Nuisance Pests which cross property lines or are made to areas that exceed one acre.