PESTICIDE STUDY SERIES  - 9
 This study is  the result of Contract  No.  68-01-0129
 awarded by the OWP,  as part of the  Pesticides Study
(Section 5  (1)(2)  P.L.  91-224) to Cornell  Aeronautical
                    Laboratory, Inc.
          The EPA Project Officers were:

          Charles D.  Reese, Agronomist
          David  L.  Becker, Chemical  Engineer
                Office of Water Programs
             Applied Technology Division
                  Rural Wastes Branch
                       July 1972
          For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OHicc
                   Washington, IXC. 20402 - Price $1.75

                EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication.  Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This report is a result of only six months of study and research, and its
completion required significant cooperation from a large number of people.
Although it is not possible to recognize every contribution, the project
director thanks the following for their valuable assistance:
Mr. Edward Cooper
Allied Chemical Corp.
Wilmington, Delaware

Mr. Carl Amalia
Amalia Tree Surgeons
Manchester, Massachusetts

Mr. Richard Ferrara
Hartney Spray Corp.
Norwood, Massachusetts
Dr. Gordon Nielsen
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
Dr. Richard Magee
American Cyanamid Co.
Princeton, New Jersey

Mr. Paul Morse
R. F. Morse and Co.
Wareham, Massachusetts

Mr. Julius Elston, Chief
Mosquito Control Section
Connecticut State Dept. of Health
Madison, Connecticut
                       University of Massachusetts

                 Cranberry Experiment Station, Wareham, Mass.
                          Dr. Chester Cross
                          Dr. Karl H. Deubert
                          Mr. I. E. Demoranville
                 Cape Cod Extension Office, Barnstable, Mass.
                          Mr. Oscar S. Johnson
                          Mr. Arnold C. Lane
                          Mr. Durwood French
                 Suburban Experiment Station, Waltham, Mass.
                          Dr. John Naegele
State Pesticide Control Board
Durham, New Hampshire
Dr. James Bowman
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire

                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      Agricultural  Research  Service

          Dr.  Irwin  Gilbert             Gainesville, Florida
          Dr.  Claude Sr:hmiat            Beltsville, Maryland
          Dr.  Warren Shaw               Beltsville, Maryland
          Mr.  John Fluno                Beltsville, Maryland

                        Soil  Conservation  Service

          Mr.  August Reese              Middleboro, Massachusetts
          Mr.  Henry  Ritzer              Middleboro, Massachusetts
          Mr.  J.  Louis  Robert!          Hyannis, Massachusetts

                        DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          State Reclamation  Board

                           Mi.  Edward Wright.
                           Mr.  John McColgan
                           Mr.  Clarence Tourville
                           Mr.  Harold Rose

                    Cepe Cod Mosquito Control Project

                           Mr.  Oscar W. Doane, Jr.
                           Mr.  Paul Velkenier
                           Professor W. J.  Wall, Jr.

                East Middlesex Mosquito Control Project

                           Mr.  Robert Armstrong

                     Department of  Natural  Resources

                       Division of Marine Fisheries
                       Sandwich Laboratories

                       Department of Public  Health
                       Pesticide Board
                              Lewis Wells

Mr. Donald Mairs                        Mr,  Rudolph D'Andrea
Maine State Pesticide Board             State Department of Natural' Resources
Augusta, Maine                          Providence, Rhode Island

                              TABLF. OF CONTENTS

 II.   FINDINGS AND NEED FOR ACTION                                       3

      A.   INVENTORY OF Ut^E£                                              3

      B.   METHODS OF APPLICATION                                         8

      C.   ROUTE INTO WATER                                              10

      D.   IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT                                     13

      E.   DEGRADATION AND METABOLISM                                    ^5

      F.   LAWS AND REGULATIONS                                          20

      G.   ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CONTROI,                                22
                                  FART TWO

  I.  STATEMENT OF WORK                                                  1

 II.  NATURE AND EXTENT OF VECTOR PROBLEMS                               2

      A.  DISEASE VECTORS                                                2

      B.  NUISANCE VECTORS                                               3

III.  PESTICIDES USED FOR VECTOR CONTROL                                 4

      A   KINDS OF MATERIALS USED                                        4

      B.  SPECIFIC MATERIALS USED                                        5

      C.  QUANTITIES USED                                                6

      D.  PESTICIDES USED ON CAPE COD                                   11

      E.  PESTICIDES USED IN TWO SALT MARSHES                           11


      A.  ADULTICIDING                                                  15

      B.  LARVICIDING                                                   16

      C.  FORMULATIONS OF MATERIALS USED                                17



                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



       A.   INTRODUCTION                                                 20

       3.   HANDLING AND TRANSFER ^ETHODS                                21

       C.   FINAL APPLICATION AND CONTAINER DISPOSAL                     24

       D.   INTENTIONAL APPLICATIONS                                     28

  VI.   IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT                                            33

       A.   DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AP.EA                                    33

       B.   TOXICITY OF PESTICIDES                                       55


       D.   IMPACT OF VECTORICIDES ON MAN                                79


       A.   INTRODUCTION                                                 93

       B.   DECOMPOSITION MECHANISMS                                     96

       C.   RESIDUAL LEVELS OF INSECTICIDES,                             108

       D.   GLOSSARY OF TERMS                                           123

VIII.   LAWS AND REGULATIONS                                            132

       A.   FEDERAL REGULATION OF PESTICIDES                            132

       B.   MASSACHUSETTS REGULATION OF PESTICIDES                      135




                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


                                                                     -1 QO



                                                                     1 Qii
     C.  NATURAL ENEMIES OF THE ADULT MOSQUITO                       iy*

     D.  NATURAL PARASITES                                           194


     F.  CONTROL BY ALTERATION OF LIFE CYCLE                         196

     G.  MECHANICAL METHODS OF MOSQUITO CONTROL                      198




     In the northeastern United States the mosquito

abatement programs are conducted for the vector control of

Eastern equine encephalitis, to reduce the nuisance problem

caused by mosquitoes, and to enhance recreation areas.

Typically, these programs consist of the application of

pesticides (vectoricides) and the drainage of stagnant

water.  Unfortunately, pesticide applications are often made

without proper safeguards to prevent damage to the aquatic


     Almost all aquatic organisms spend at least part of

their life cycle in the salt marsh and estuarine areas or

depend on a steady flow of nutrients from these areas where

migratory birds and waterfowl are regular visitors.  Damage

to aquatic environment is of concern to the commercial

fishing industry and to those who enjoy the aesthetic values

of recreational areas in the region.

     This report summarizes a case study concerning an in-

depth investigation of a specific vectoricide use situation

documenting the kinds and quantities used, their route from

the point of initial application into the water environment,

their ultimate effect on the ecosystem, and the laws and

regulations which affect their use.  Cape cod was chosen for

this study because it is an important commercial fishing

center and the most popular seashore recreational area in

the Northeast.  It has a long history of mosquito abatement

programs whicn formerly included the use of persistent

vectoricides but in recent years has been limited to easily

degradable light mineral oil.  With this treatment history,

the area affords an opportunity to study the long-term

effects of vectoricides without interference from effects

caused by recent applications.

     The Bass Hole Marsh in Dennis and the Herring River

Marsh in Harwich were selected for intensive study to

compare the effects of treatment programs on the north and

south shores of Cape Cod.  A literature search was conducted

and interviews were held with concerned officials,

businessmen and private citizens throughout New England.

Additional field work was undertaken in the two marshes to

observe the effects of vectoricides on the aquatic

environment,  and soil and water samples were analyzed to

check the general level of vectoricide residues.

Inventory of Usgs
     In New Enqland, malathion was the principal chemical
compound used in 1970.  It was used as both a mosquito
larvicide and adulticide, and it accounted for nearly 60% of
the total quantity reportedly used in the various states, as
shown in Table 1.  Althouqh pesticide consumption records
are qenerally inadequate to permit precise estimates of use
patterns in most states  (New Hampshire is the lone
exception), it is qenerally believed that the use of
malathion has increased at a rate which matches decreases in
the use of DDT and other persistent chlorinated
hydrocarbons.  Methoxychlor, which is a relatively
nonpersistent chlorinated hydrocarbon, is also increasinq in
popularity as a vectoricide.  Abate, naled, and carbaryl are
gaininq in importance.  Other chemical compounds used
include carbofuran, fenthion and DDT; Maine was the only
state reportinq the use of DDT as a vectoricide in  1970,
None of the New Enqland States permits the use of DDT as a
vectoricide after 1971,

                          TABLE  1


                    IN NEW ENGLAND, 1970

                (Ibs. oi active  ingredients)
              Conn..  Maine    Mass..    N-._ik  R-._Ia   Vt.-

Malathion      550    410   32,000     4,100           X

Methoxychlor          420   10,550     3,804           X

Naled                 152    4,430                     X

Abate                        3,100

Carbaryl                               2,626           X

Others         160     42    1,140                     X

Total          710   1,024   51,220     10,530   N.A.   N.A.
N.A. - Not available

Source:  Connecticut State Department of Health

         Maine State Board of Pesticides Control

         Massachusetts State Reclamation Board

         Rhode Island Department ot Natural  Resources

         New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board

         Vermont:  Pesticide Advisory Council and

                   Division of Plant Pest Control,

                   Department of Agriculture

     Vectoricide use on Cape Cod as reported by the Cape Cod

Mosquito Control Project is shown in Table 2.  On Cape Cod,

                          TABLE 2

Final Formulation


1930-1942  Fuel Oil

19 30-19 U2  Pyrethrwns
1945-1956  DDT

1957-1961  Fuel Oil

1957-1961  Dieldrin

1962-1965  Abate

1962-1965  Paris Green

1966-1969  DDT

1966-1969  Malatniori
               6.25% in fuel oil

               Surfactant 1:400

               2$ granular

               2-1/2 oz, in 50

                gals, water

               10* granular

               10/i granular

               2.4 in fuel oil
1970-1971  Larvicide Oil  As received
                     Not recorded




                     2500 Ibs/yr

                     4000 gals/yr

                     200 Ibs/yr

                     160 Ibs/yr

                     800 Ibs/yr

                     400 Ibs/yr

                     250 Ibs/yr

                     3000 gals/yr

Source:   "History  of  the Cape Cod  Mosquito  Control

           Pro-ject,  1928-1971"

concern about  the  potential  for adverse effects  on  the

environment w^s  instrumental in curtailing  the use  of

persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides  such as  DDT

and dieldrin in  favor of more reaaily decomposable  phosphate

insecticides.  However, even these materials have now been

discontinued,  arid  the sole vectoricide reportedly used on

Cape Cod  in 1971 was mosquito larviciding oil.   There are no

reports of mosquito adulticiding work on Cape Cod.

     Cape Cod  includes 50 square miles of salt marshes and  5

square miles of  freshwater swamps in addition to 170 qreat

ponds  (above 10  acres).  In the past ten years,  an  average

annual use of  650-950 pounds of pesticides  (active

inqredient banis) nas provided acceptable control of

mosquitoes on  these 32,500 acres.  These low rates  of

application were accomplished by making spot treatments  by

hand to only those stagnant pools and puddles where large

numbers of mosquito larvae were identified,  Thus,  with

proper timing and precise placement, the quantities of

vectoricides can be held at low levels.

     In the Bass Hole Marsh in Dennis (Chase Garden Creek

section)  and the Herring River Marsh in West Harwich, we

carried out intensive studies of the uses,  effects, and

residues of vectoricides.   The quantities and products

reported in use followed much tiie same pattern as elsewhere

on Cape Cod (Table 3) .

                          TABLE 3


              (cumulative, active ingredients)
                                 Bass Hole

                                Herring River

                                (w. Harwich)



Fuel Oil



Larvicide Oil
80 gals,

0.2 Ibs,

33.8 Ibs.

30 gals.
53 gals.

0.2 Ibs.

7.6 Ibs,

12 gals.
Source:  Data supplied by Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project

     During the period 1961-1965, the principal larvicide

was a mixture of common fuel oil plus a surfactant to permit

even spreading and application.  Small quantities of Abate

were used in 1966-1970, together with slightly larger

quantities of malathion.   The quantities of each material

used in individual years during the period was a function of

the severity of larvae build-up.  The work crews of the Cape

Cod Mosquito Control Project were instructed to apply

vectoricide only after the need had been identified and

measured.  Furthermore, the practice was to treat only

depressions where water remained at low tide, thus only a

relatively small portion of the marsh was treated.  The
areas studied cover over one square mile each, or more than
1280 acres, but quantities used suggest that much less than
1 percent of the surface was treated.

     Beginning in  1970, and continued in 1971, a larviciding
oil was again used in both of these marshes.  Unconfirmed
reports indicate that the new larviciding oil is not
completely satisfactory, since it does not always kill
quickly and requires repeated visits to treatment areas in
order to check the completeness of kill.

     Need for Acti.on—State agencies should be given the
authority and funds needed to develop records of pesticide
consumption in sufficient detail to permit analysis of data
to identify use patterns, and promote more effective
monitoring and control.
Methods of Application
     In New England, mosquito adulticidinq normally is done
by machine, and the ultra low volume  (ULV) method has become
the most widely used.  Both thermal and cold fogging
machines are used, and offer the advantages of covering

large areas with well dispersed aerosols in short periods of

time.  Indiscriminate use, however, may lead to wind drift

and application of pesticide chemicals directly to live


     High volume equipment is seldom used for mosquito

control by mosquito abatement organizations but it is

commonly used by cities and towns to spray large trees.  In

densely populated urban areas there is little open soil to

absorb run-off and drip, and this method permits entry of

pesticides into the water environment through the storm

drain system.  Pollution from this source is often

attributed, wrongly, to mosquito abatement activities.

     Larviciding, when done by hand, can be controlled

precisely to treat only those pools that are heavily

infested.  Spot coverage averaging less than one percent of

salt marsh areas has proven successful on Cape Cod.

Larviciding by machine, on the other hand, cannot be

controlled as precisely and some non-infested areas are


     Major materials used for larviciding in New England

include a two percent solution of malathion in fuel oil, a

similar solution of methoxychlor, a water solution of Abate

varying from 0.05% to 0.10X, and mineral oils which are

refined especially for use as larvicides.  Surfactants may

be used with all of these liquid formulations.

     Granular formulations of the above materials are also

available throughout the area.  Formulated on sand and other

carriers at low concentrations, these materials can be

spread mechanically by aerial or ground equipment.  Hand

spreading may not be feasible because of the acute toxicity

of the materials.
Route Into Waters
     Vectoricides enter the aquatic environment through both

intentional and accidental means,   Intentional is more

important in New England,  since vectoricides are applied in

and around swamps and marshes;  subsequent rains or flooding

may move the materials directly into the water environment.

Wave and tidal action in salt marshes may also move

vectoricides from the point of application into the liquid

phase and distribute them to other areas.  Nonresidual

materials {such as organophosphates, carbamates, mineral

oils, etc.)  do not move far from where applied since

decomposition to harmless forms occurs rapidly.

     The practice of applying vectoricides to storm drains

in urban areas may lead to direct contamination of the

aquatic environment.  Even light showers may generate

sufficient run-off to rapidly transport minerals from the

individual drains to outflows.  Highly toxic materials thus

transported can have significant acute toxicity effects on

nontarget organisms, particularly if showers occur soon

after the pesticide is applied.

     Substantial quantities of pesticides are used for

agricultural purposes in New England, but are normally

adsorbed by soil particles and held in place until degraded.

Pesticides applied to cranberry bogs, however, may be

released into the aquatic environment when bogs are

improperly drained.

     Accidental means of pesticides entering the aquatic

environment include spills during handling, transportation

and storage.  Trucks which transport pesticides to

distribution points in New England have been involved in

accidents which resulted in broken containers and loss of

material.  Prompt handling {detoxification and clean up)  by

specially trained crews of experts  (under the direction of

the National Agricultural Chemicals Association's Pesticides

Safety Team Network) has averted disaster to nunnans and

large animals, but the traces which remain have the

potential for water contamination.  Improved and more

durable packaging, economically possible with the more

expensive vectoricides currently used, should re.luce

accidental release.

     The disposal of empty containers is a serious  problem

 in New Enqland.  Some states have issued clearly defined

 regulations  identifying both the prescribed methods and

 correct disposal sites, but have experienced significant

 difficulties in getting municipalities to implement them,

 Most local health officials appear to place low priority on

 the  problem, and as a result there are few disposal systems

 that have set aside land fill areas specifically for  this

 purpose.  Also, many localities do not have proper  land fill

 areas and containers cannot be buried.  During our  study we

 noted considerable reluctance among commercial pesticide

 users to discuss this problem, since many are not able to

 comply with the regulations.

     Once released into the environment, pesticides move by

 several means.   Principal mechanisms for vectoricides in New

 England appear to be:  (1)  sediment transport, where

 compounds are adsorbed to finely divided particles of soil

 (clays)  or organic matter,  and (2)  atmospheric transport of

 their volatile fractions.   Since most soils on Cape Cod are

 sandy and with low clay contents, pesticides more commonly

 adsorb to organic matter such as mulch, bark, straw, leaves,

etc,   Heavy showers, tidal  action,  and flooding move these

easily,  but the rate and direction of transport can be

predicted.   Less is known about atmospheric means of



     Nj~<=3 J^or Action — Regulations regarding the disposal  of
empty pesticide containers should be improved and
standardized throughout the New England states.  Provisions
should he made to check the adequacy of local disposal
Impact on the Environment
     There  is a  limited  diversity to the flora and
macrofauna  (fish, birds, mammals) in the two salt marshes we
studied;  however, there  is a great diversity ot microfauna.
In addition to the mosquitoes and other insects that inhabit
these areas, there are innumerable invertebrate larvae,
worms and shellfish.  The marshes act as efficient energy
nutrient  traps and supply a major portion of the food for
commercially important fishes which pass Cape Cod in
seasonal  migrations.  Tidal action distributes the food to
eacn life form both within and at the mouth of the marsh,
and this  periodic flushing by the tide results in a rapid
turnover  of  materials.

     Simply  put, the food chain in these salt marshes begins
with salt grasses which  decompose via machine action to

 detritus.   The  detritus,  algae and diatoms, are  consumed by

 small  fish,  shellfish and other filter feeders.   Larger

 predator  fish,  eels, and  lobsters, are at the top of  the

 food chain.  Tne effect ot birds is minimal when compared to

 the total  system.  The interrelationships between prey and'

 predator  provide for a complex web.  These organisms  carry

 out their  life  cycle in the water, or land periodically

 covered by it,  in  close association with each other.   One

 species may serve  as prey lor another species during  early

 stages of  development, but the roles are reversed later.

     We surveyed the literature for both the acute and

 chronic effects of Abate, DDT, malathion, and mineral oils

 on typical salt marsh organisms.  Abate, which kills

 mosquito  larvae at a concentration of 11 parts per billion

 (ppb) or  less,  must be present at a concentration of  greattir

 than 1 part  per million (ppm)  to affect -juvenile  killifish.

 DDT,  which  is not now usad for mosquito control  in New

 England,  kills  juvenile killifisn at only one-fourth  the

 concentration needed for mosquitoes and also may  concentrate

 to toxic levels in animals high up in the food chain.

 Malathion is not toxic to minnows at the concentration used

 for larvicide work.  Mineral oil (Flit MLO)  has  no effect on

mummichogs at application rates greater than ten  times that

reguired  for mosquitoes.

     Our observations indicate that there is no measurable

long-term effect on the typical biota found in these marshes

which can be attributed to the materials and treatment

techniques used by the cape Cod Mosquito Control Project.

Maximum vectoricide treatment levels have been consistently

below the levels necessary to affect more organisms.

According to their data, the Project's highest application

rate was 0,02 Ib. malathion per acre to a limited area of

the marshes; even if localized mortality occurred, the

effects would be quickly neutralized by repopulation from

adjacent areas,

     It is our general conclusion that the local, spot

application of vectoricides as practiced during the past ten

years by t'he Cape Cod Mosquito" Control Project to the

stagnant waters at the fringes of the marshes does not

produce a risk of significant toxic effects to important

species,  Our analysis has included species of interest for

commercial and aesthetic considerations.  No human health

problem has been predicted.
     Studies of pesticide metabolism are helpful in reaching

rational assessments of hazards arising from their use.

Most compounds used tor mosquito control are complex,
synthetic organic chemicals, and the action of natural
processes  (chemical or microbial)  produce degradation
products which have ditterent properties and effects on the
environment.  In order to understand the potential effects
on nontarqet organisms from the treatments used in the two
marshes, the literature was surveyed tor studies dealing
with those chemicals.  In the light of these findings, soil
and water samples from these marshes were analyzed to
determine how much of the chemicals used (or their
degradation products) were present.  Although the scope of
the program was limited, and the results from our testing
program are not statistically valid, we believe that the
results are indicative of the general levels of pesticides
that are residual in those two salt marshes.

     The major breakdown products of DDT is DDD and DDE, and
these,  together with DDT, have been found up to ten years
after its application.  The quantities found, however, are a
function of the particular environment; in moist, fertile
soils,  DDT may disappear in a few months, but up to 30
percent may be retained after ten years in the upper,
organic layers of forest podosols.  in general, it appears
that DDT tends to degrade more rapidly where a large and
varied  soil microbe population is present, and persist for
the longest periods of time in environments such as aquatic

and other areas where microorganisms are more limited in
number and kind.  The amount of nutrients available for
growth of microorganisms also is of importance.

     Dieldrin is more resistant to breakdown than DDT but on
exposure to sunlight is likely to form photodieldrin, which
is more toxic to rats and pigeons than dieldrin and less
toxic to certain fish.  Aldrin and several unnamed
metabolites are formed by tne actions of a number of
microorganisms, but most species of soil microbes are
incapable of degrading dieldrin.  Most studies classify it
as a highly resistant compound, with major losses from soil
by means ot volatilization and sediment transport.

     Malathion is less stable than most other insecticides,
and may be degraded within 24 hours of its application to
some soils.  Biodegradation appears to be the major means of
decomposition in aquatic environments, although aeration
alone has some effect.  Biological oxidation of malathion
produces malaoxon, the active insecticidal compound, which
undergoes a parallel degradation route.  Other malathion
degradation products are relatively harmless, particularly
in the small quantities which can be found at any one time
in the environment.

     Abate is a newer material, and fewer studies have been
conducted with it.  The major degradation products seem to

be its sulfoxide and sultone derivatives, neither of which

have been extensively tested for their effects on typical

aquatic biota.  Abate is somewhat more resistant to

degradation than malathion,  but the limited studies that

have been conducted seem to indicate that Abate is not

deleterious to nontarget organisms.  We suggest further

research on its degradation and metabolism should be


     Historical vectoricide treatments in the two salt

marshes on Cape Cod included the four chemicals discussed

above  {DDT and dieldrin were used prior to 1961, and

dieldrin is currently recommended for insect control in

cranberry boqs in the area) .  Samples of soil and water were

taken from the general areas where these vectoricides had

been applied and where observations of effects on typical

biota were made.  In consultation with our analytical

chemists, analyses were carried out by Dr. Karl Deubert of

the University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment

Station at Waroham.   Dr.  Deubert has been active in

determining soil pesticide levels on Cape Cod, and was able

to correlate these results with those done earlier.

     The general findings were as follows:

     -   Residue levels are low, averaging 0.026 ppm DDT,

        0.007 ppm DDE, and 0.021 ppm dieldrin.

     -  No evidence of malathion or Abate was found.

        Although the number of samples does not provide a

        firm statistical base, there is some evidence that

        DDT levels have decreased by a factor ot  10  (from

        0,2 to 0.026 ppm) in two years,  Dieldrin levels

        showed little or no change compared to those found

        two years ago.  However, we must emphasize tnat

        further testing of a larger number of samples would

        be necessary in order to confirm these results.

        The low levels of DDT, DDE, and dieldrin found

        suggest that these residues may be due to "steady

        state" pollution from atmospheric and ocean

        transport sources rather than residual front previous

        treatments for vector control.

     Need for ActjLon—Research programs on the degradation

and metabolism of newer compounds, such as Abate and mineral

oils, are needed.  Monitoring programs to measure the level

of persistent compounds should be expanded and a data bank

on the distribution of pesticide residues in the biota of

salt water marshes should be developed.

     and Regulations
     The existing laws and regulations in Massachusetts and

some other New England states generally provide a broad and

flexible means tor controlling pesticides.  However, they do

not provide adequate environmental protection because little

effort is made to assure that actual practices and

procedures in the sale, transportation, storage, use and

application of pesticides conform to existing laws and

regulations.  Information distribution, monitoring,

investigation, and enforcement are lacking, largely because

of insufficient funds, personnel, and facilities.

Registration, labeling, and licensing mechanisms are used

perfunctorily.  They have some informational value, but

little control value other than creating a framework inside

which incidents and problems can be worked out.

     The major reason for this state of affairs is lack of

funds for personnel (administrative, legal, technical) and

facilities  (laboratory, etc.) to control pesticides.

Another reason is the lack of coordination between

individual state agencies and between state and local

agencies concerning their roles in pesticide control


     Today, if the public took a close look at the

regulation of pesticides in New England, it would  find that


very little of the authorized regulation is being

effectively exercised.  As a result, the general public and

the environment is mostly at the mercy of the common sense

and degree of public interest that persons who use or deal

with pesticides voluntarily bring to their work.

     This lack of effective control under existing laws and

regulations has not escaped notice.  There are citizens and

groups who have expanded their use of lawsuits,

investigations, public accusations, written articles, and

political activities to assure that pesticides are more

adequately regulated.  For example, in Massachusetts, any

ten citizens, because of a new law passed in 1971, can bring

action in the courts, whether or not they are directly

affected by damage or potential damage to the environment,

This, and similar actions will likely become more important

because citizens have not obtained a prompt, adeguate

response when they have gone to the existing regulatory

agencies in the various states.

     If state and local governments do not begin to

effectively regulate pesticides soon, these citizen-

sponsored lawsuits and other public actions are likely to

produce unbalanced solutions for pesticide control issues,

There are many legitimate uses of pesticides, including

those necessary to provide acceptable control of insect

vectors,  Some of these uses could be in danger of

 elimination  by  aide-door solutions based  heavily  on  leqal

 and  political criteria.  Most pesticide control issues

 require  a  great  deal ot flexibility, accuracy, and delicacy

 in  irri.vi.nq  at  balanced decisions.  Regulatory agencies,

 operatinq  properly, can more effectively  leal with this

 broad  range  of  issues  in a  proper mariner.
 Alternatiye Methods_of_Control
     A study of the life cycle of the mosquito indicates

 tnat it  spends a great deal of time in the aquatic

 environment, passing through all three juvenile stages  (ova,

 larva, and pupa)  in this medium.  Most species select small,

 stagnant pools or puddles of water, wnich often are

 contaminated with a great variety of impurities which have

 run off trom surrounding lanu areas.  These impurities

 present some practical difficulties in developing biological

methods of control.

     At the present time, the use of mosquito-eating

predator fish appears to offer the best overall method of

natural control,  both in fresh and salt water.  In the

Southern United States, Gambusia sp. thrive and may live

almost exclusively on mosquito larvae.  Transplants of these

fish have been successful as far north as Ohio, but most

efforts to establish them in new England have failed.   In

the Cape Cod salt marshes there are small salt water  fish,

such as mummichoqs and striped killifish, in small streams

and drainage channels.  Where these fish are present  in

larqe numbers, the population of mosquito larvae in

surrounding pools is very low.  The problem is to keep  these

fish in intertidal areas during low tide; as the water

retreats, the fish tend to go with it.  In certain areas,

shallow holes can be dug in tne marshes which will retain

water even at low tide and provides a sanctuary for the

fish.  Then, at high tide, the fish are present in large

numbers, move out of the holes, and prey on mosquito  larvae.

     A number of other biological means of control have been

described, and some have been proposed for use.  The  use of

disease pathogens has riot yet been successful because of the

genetic resistance to diseases that mosquitoes have

developed while living in contaminated environments.  The

sterile male technique, whereby artificially sterilized

males are released in large numbers to mate with natural

females, potentially can be useful in areas where only one

or two species of mosquitoes need to be controlled.

     Synthetic materials wnich mimic the action of juvenile

hormones have been shown to inhibit pupal development,  in

laboratory tests and limited field trials.  One serious

problem to be overcome, however, is the destruction of  these

 compounds  by only  a  few hours of exposure to  sunlight.

      The most  important nonchemical method of controlling
 salt  marsh mosquitoes  in New England today is water
 management by  the  use  of adequately planned and maintained
 drainage ditches.  When coupled with the leveling of small
 depressions, drainage  ditches provide channels for the water
 to  move completely out of the intertidal areas, small pools
 and puddles are eliminated, and mosquitoes are deprived of
 preferred  places to  lay eggs.  The ditches must be regularly
 maintained to  avoid  silting and debris accumulation which
 can interfere  with the flow of water.  In the two salt
 marshes that we studied on Cape Cod, it is believed that the
 low use of  vectorocides has been made possible by the
 properly designed and maintained drainage ditches.

      While  natural controls such as drainage ditches and
 predaceous  fish offer important means of keeping mosquito
 populations down to acceptable levels,  pesticides are
 required from time to time.   The history of vectoricide
 application to salt marshes in the Cape Cod area indicate
 that applications may be necessary every year, or riot more
than once  in five years, depending mainly on weather
patterns.   When mosquito build-ups appear imminent,
treatment with a larviciding agent is necessary.  When
conditions  are exceptionally favorable for mosquito growth
and reproduction,  several  applications to the same area may

be necessary.  For practical purposes, we believe that

mosquito populations can be controlled at acceptable levels

through the proper and timely use of small quantities of

hand-applied larviciding agents.

                     PART TWO — REPORT AND APPENDIX
                         I.   STATEMENT OF WORK

          The objective of this work was to carry out a case study of

the pesticides used for insect vector control on Cape Cod in New England,

and their effects on the natural environment.  An investigation was con-

ducted to provide quantitative documentation of the kinds and quantities

of pesticides used, their route from the point of initial application into

the water environment, and their ultimate effect on the ecosystems of the

Chase Garden Creek section of the Bass Hole Marsh in Dennis, and the

Herring River Marsh in Harwich.  Further objectives were to analyze the

laws and regulations concerning the use of pesticides in New England

generally, and for mosquito abatement in Massachusetts particularly, and

determine the protection to the natural environment which they provide.

Additionally, the importance of non-chemical methods of controlling

mosquitoes was investigated.

          The major findings of this work, including the needs for action,

were summarized in Part One of this report.



          Two disease problems caused by insect vectors are known in

New England, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) transmitted by mosquito

and Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) transmitted by the American dog

tick.  Massachusetts is the only Northeastern state reporting problem

areas on both disease vectors.

          Approximately 50 human cases of EEE have occurred in the south-

eastern part of the state in the last 35 years,' with a recurrence taking

place every ten years.     The largest number of human cases—32—were

reported in 1936.  The disease appeared again in 1946 causing 12 cases,

then in 1956 causing six cases, and the last human case was reported in

1970.  Before human cases are reported, EEE becomes a serious problem in

the equine population.  In 1970, although there was only one human case,

54 confirmed equine cases were reported in southeastern Massachusetts.  A

recurrence of EEE was noted in 1971 with ten confirmed cases of horses

reported dead but no incidents reported on humans.

          The second disease problem, Rocky Mountain spotted fever spread

by the American dog tick, also is known only in the southeastern part of

Massachusetts.  Nearly all cases—which have been reported at an average

rate of one a year for the last 30 years—occurred in the Cape Cod area.

          Scattered cases of EEE and RMSF are reported from time to  time

in the Boston area or inland, but their origins have all been traced back

to the southeastern part of the state.

  Private communication with Dr. Waterman, Department of Public Health
  Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts.                '

          Neither Rhode Island, New Hampshire nor Maine have reported any

major problem area of disease vectors.  New Hampshire and Maine consider

that the southeastern parts of their states have a potential for disease

vector problems because of the proximity to Massachusetts, but cases have

not been reported.

          Vermont has had cases of tularemia transmitted by deer flies,

and a total of 30 human cases have been reported over the years to the

Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council with a 10% mortality incidence.  Out-

breaks of other diseases caused by vectors have not been reported.


          Vectors are considered a nuisance problem throughout New England.

The mosquito population, although spread throughout the area, causes

greater problems in the coastal areas due to salt marshes and a large num-

ber of ponds.  The nuisance is also more severe along the coast because

population and summer resorts are concentrated more heavily in that area.

Like mosquitoes, black flies are a nuisance problem throughout the region,

but only a few control programs have been established.

          In addition to mosquitoes and black flies, green flies are

reportedly a nuisance in the state of New Hampshire, especially in the

mountain area.  Green head flies and culicoids are reportedly a nuisance

problem along the coastal areas of Massachusetts.

          Maine reports nuisance mosquito, black fly, and deer fly

problems, but only mosquitoes and black flies receive treatment.  There

are no organized treatment areas, and most work is done privately around

lakes and ponds, drive-in theaters in low-lying areas, and homeowner




          Probably the first method of chemical control of mosquitoes

consisted of the spreading of petroleum oil over standing water on the

marsh  lands.  The oil killed the larvae by eliminating oxygen at the

water  surface.  Chemical  products can be used either to eliminate the

insect at a larval stage (larviciding) or to eliminate it in the adult

stage  (adulticiding).  Under most conditions, control procedures against

mosquitoes are most  effective and most economical when designed to

eliminate larvae.  Mosquito larvae live only in  water, and the manage-

ment of water is the basic means of control, but  often it must be

complemented by pesticides, chemicals, or oils, known as larvicides.  In

areas  where stagnant water contains only one brood of mosquito  larvae,

one well-timed application of a suitable pesticide in the spring may be

all that is necessary.  Where several broods are present, a pesticide

application for each brood may be required.

          Today, many different materials are used as  larvicides, includ-

ing mineral oils (such as Flit MLO), Abate, malathion in oil, and others.

The oils provide effective control by killing mosquitoes in all their

aquatic stages—ova, larva, and pupa.  The oil on the water surface has

a lasting time of 48 to 72 hours.  Kill may be rapid when water is calm,

but slower and less positive with wave action and wind.  In some cases,

the larvae may live but appear to be in suspended animation, and control

crews have elected to re-treat with chemical pesticides.  Control of

adult mosquito populations is done primarily by chemical methods.  The

control is mostly temporary and the effectiveness depends not only on the

thoroughness of the control methods, but also on the size of the area

treated, the species, and the life stages.  Since some adult mosquitoes

may fly several miles, adulticiding programs must cover a large area.

These insects migrate so far and so quickly that an individual cannot ob-

tain any measurable relief by his own efforts, and entire areas must be


          In chemical control there are at least two types of treatments:

in one, the insects are killed almost instantly after application, by

contact with the insecticide which has a high acute toxicity; in the other,

long-lasting components have a residual effect.  With proper timing and

thorough, coverage, an adult mosquito population can be reduced to acceptable

levels quickly with materials such as malathion and naled.  On the other

hand, treatment with methoxychlor may result in less rapid but longer last-

ing control since it does not degrade as quickly as the phosphates.

          In the case of other nuisance insects in New England, such as

the green head fly, chemical control  (when used) is applied  mostly to the

adult population.  Larval control is difficult because the breeding cycles

are not well known and breeding sites have not been adequately described.

When chemicals are used for green head fly control, malathion is popular.

On Cape  Cod, nonchemical methods such as the Manitoba boxes (cages) appear

to provide some relief by trapping females.


          Until its application was banned, DDT was the most popular pesti-

cide used for vector control in New England, but in 1970 only the states

of Maine and Vermont reported its use.  Malathion, naled and methoxychlor

are currently the most popular pesticides used to control the adult

mosquito population.  Mineral oils, Abate, methoxychlor and malathion in

oil are the most popular larvicides.


          Shown in Table III-l is the estimated total pesticide consump-

tion within each state in New England.  These estimates, from the New

England Governor's Conference, are not based on exhaustive surveys, but

rather on the records kept in recent years by agencies in some states and

personal knowledge and experience of officials in other states.  Available

data on the types and quantities of pesticides used in New England for

mosquito control is largely incomplete.  For the most part it represents

only that  portion of the control program that falls within the juris-

diction of a local or state agency.  Some states can estimate the

quantities from reports required of custom applicators, but others have

not yet established sufficiently good record-keeping systems.

          The state of New Hampshire requires that all pesticide appli-

cators be registered with the Pesticide Board, including government

agencies, and make an annual report of the types and amount of pesticide

used annually.  It is the only one in the New England region that can

provide state-wide information on the materials used for vector control.

In the other states where individual or community efforts are not

required to report to the state's pesticide office, no records are kept

that will permit extracting comprehensive data as to the types and amounts

of pesticides used.

                                               TABLE  III-l

(thousands of pounds active ingredient)
Farm & Commercial
Grand Total
New Hampshire
Rhode Island


N.A. = Not available

Source:  "Report on Use and Control of Pesticides in New England," The New England Governor's Conference
         Committee on Environment, July 7,  1971.

          Table III-2 presents partial information on the products used

by the individual states.  This data is subject to the following comments:

          •  New Hampshire has records of most of the pesticides

             used in the state for vector control because the state

             requires that all applications of pesticide made by

             licensed persons to the land of another be recorded

             and records made available.  The Board of Pesticides

             keeps yearly records (since the time of its formation)

             of the types and quantities of pesticides used in the

             state.  Data prepared by the Board for this study ex-

             cludes applications made to private lands by owners.

           •  Massachusetts statistics represent the estimated pesti-

             cide requirements for vector control as submitted by

             the eight individual Mosquito Abatement Districts to

             the State Reclamation Board.  Since these requirements

             are estimated substantially in advance of use, there may

             be differences  in the final use pattern.  Data does not

             include products used by municipalities, communities

             and individual  applicators, and no record in this respect

             is maintained at the state level.

           •  Maine  data  reported by  the State Board  of Pesticide  Control

             represents  only partial information since the regulation

             establishing required reporting of pesticide usage  by

             custom applicators was  enforced only during 1970.

                                                      TABLE III-2

                                                    IN NEW ENGLAND
                                  New Hampshire
:tive Ingredients)
Mineral Oil (gal.)
1970 1969
4,100 4,100
3,804 3,800
2,626 2,600

10,530 11,500



10,550 -


1969 1968



1970 1969 1968 1970 1969 1968
410 550 550

5 160 160
1,074 710 710
        Sources:  Connecticut State Department of Health
                  Maine State Board of Pesticide Control
                  Massachusetts State Reclamation Board
                  New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board
                  Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources—no data available
                  Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council—no data available

•  Connecticut data refers to pesticides used by the

   state to control salt marsh mosquito species along

   the shore, and does not include pesticides used for

   freshwater mosquito control.  Inland control is left

   to the individual cities and towns for solution and

   records are not available at the state level.  To

   obtain accurate and complete information would require

   contacting 169 towns in the state, first by letter and

   then by follow-up visit.

•  Vermont:  No figures exist on the actual use of

   pesticides in  Vermont, although estimates have been

   made by state officials.  In a report to the Governor,

   the Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council stated that

   there are no state laws governing the use of pesticides

   by public and private agencies or individuals and

   records of pesticide use in Vermont are incomplete and

   preclude meaningful assessment.

•  It is believed that relatively little amount of chemical

   pesticides have been used in Vermont, cotapared with the

   previous decade.  The only known record of pesticide use

   for vector control  is for DDT in 1967, when 600 pounds

   was delivered to local associations and custom applicators

   (ground equipment) for use in mosquito and shade tree

   spraying in the Burlington, St. Albans, and  Grand  Island

   areas.  As of December 1971, however, usage  of  DDT will

   be banned in the state.  New measures concerning

             licensing of custom applicators by the Pesticide Advisory

             Council will improve procedures for record-keeping of

             pesticide application throughout the state of Vermont.


          Kinds and quantities of pesticides used for vector control on

Cape Cod by the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project are shown in Table III-3.

As reported by the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project, the official abate-

ment district for Barnstable County, fuel oil has been the principal

material used over the years.  Chemical pesticides were used after World

War II, when the effectiveness of DDT was shown.  However, concern over

possible residue build-up, together with signs of insect resistance to DDT,

resulted in a shift to other materials.

          Dieldrin was used for about five years but  was replaced with

Abate  (an organophosphate) and-Paris Green (copper acetoarsenite).  These

materials were in turn followed by malathion for the salt marshes, and DDT

for the freshwater swamps which offered no outlet to salt water and no

route  to estuaries.  In 1969 and 1970, these materials were given up in

favor  of a new mineral larvicide oil formulated especially for mosquito

larva  control,


          Shown in Table III-4 are the kinds and quantities of pesticides

used   in the Bass Hole Marsh in Dennis and the Herring River Marsh in

Harwich for the years 1961-1971.  The data, as supplied by the Cape Cod

                                              TABLE III-3
                            MOSQUITO LARVICIDES USED ON CAPE COD, 1930-1971
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Paris Green
Larvicide Oil
Final Formulation

6.25% in fuel oil
Surfactant  1:400
2% granular
2-1/2 oz. in 50 gal.  water
10% granular
10% granular
2% in fuel oil
As received
(Active Ingredients)
Not recorded
Test quantities only
2500 Ibs. per year
4000 gals, per year
200 Ibs. per year
160 Ibs. per year
800 Ibs. per year
400 Ibs. per year
250 Ibs. per year
3000 gals, per year
Source:  "History of the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project, 1928 to 1971"

                                             TABLE III-4

Fuel Oil Plus
Surfactant (gal.)



(Active Ingredient Basis)
Abate (Ibs.) Malathion
Bass Herring Bass
Hole River Hole

0.03 0.01 2.76


                                                                                        Oil (gal.)
Note:  Bass Hole Marsh includes Chase Garden Creek and tributaries.
       Herring River Marsh  (West Harwich) between Bells Neck and Lothrop Roads.
Source:  From data supplied by the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project.

Mosquito Control Project, shows malathion to be the most important chemical

used during this period, but oils made up the largest total quantity.  A

shift from oil to chemical back to oil is noted, reflecting dissatisfaction

with the chemicals.


          There are two general types of pesticide applications used for

mosquito control in New England:  larviciding and adulticiding.  Each

can be done mechanically or by hand, but in general, adulticiding is done

both by machine and by hand.


          The  modern control of adult mosquitoes is most successfully

carried out by aerosols, using ultra-low volume, thermal and non-thermal

equipment.  Both ground and aerial equipment are used in New England.

The popularity of this type of application focuses around:

          •  The speed with which large areas can be covered with

             well-dispersed aerosols.

          •  The small quantities of material and diluent needed

             reduces the number of refills and speeds up the


          •  The control of droplet sizes provides flexibility in

             confining applications to the target areas.

          Indiscriminate use of aerosol equipment could provide a route

of pesticides into the water environment.  There is a danger of intro-

ducing chemicals accidentally into live streams when large  areas are

covered.  Variations in wind speed or direction, and variable temperature

gradients between different elevations can mean trouble for careless

operators who do not adjust their machines accordingly.  Aerosols which

are allowed to drift out of the target areas are a major source of concern

to regulatory agencies,  and account for a sizable number of complaints

from property owners and inhabitants.

          The use of high-volume equipment has been reduced in New

England, and most mosquito control programs use other means.   There are,

however, several cities  and towns that still use hydraulic machines to

cover large trees  with  ground equipment.   The large volumes used (up to

100 gallons or more per  acre) may cause drip and runoff problems, partic-

ularly in urban areas where paved streets, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.,

cut down on the area of  soil available to absorb and degrade  these materials.


          In our study area all larviciding  has been done by hand using

back-pack sprayers.  With this equipment, precise applications of larvi-

cides can be made that will reduce or eliminate the entry of materials

into the water environment.  Spot treatments of stagnant  pools and puddles

can be made, and wasting chemicals on other areas is avoided.  There are

obvious savings in materials, although there are also high labor costs.

          Mechanical larviciding is done with low-volume, liquid aerial

or ground equipment, and with broadcast spreaders of granular materials.

Indiscriminate use of mechanical larviciding, like adulticiding, can place

pesticides where they can be transported into water.  Equipment used to

spread liquid larvicides include standard low-volume machines which can

apply in the range of 5-10 gallons per acre.  Helicopter-mounted  booms and

nozzles can be calibrated at these rates.  Ground equipment may be the

same as  used for aerosols, but adjusted to provide larger quantities of

larger droplets.

          Granular broadcasters, aerial or ground, consist normally of a

spinning disk which imparts centrifugal force to each granule and moves it

a measured distance from the machine.  Particle size, disk speed, and

forward speed of the carrying vehicle all can be varied to change the rate

of application.  Normal rates are in the range of 10-20 pounds per acre of

formulated materials.


    1.  Larvicides
          In New England, the major material used in 1970 for larvae

control was malathion, and the major formulation was 2% active ingredient

dissolved in fuel oil.  Starting material is usually 55-57% emulsifiable

concentrate containing about 5 pounds malathion per gallon.  Standard No. 2

fuel oil is the major diluent, and surfactants (spreader-stickers) may or

may not be necessary depending on the concentrate used.

          Abate, an organophosphate compound produced specifically for

larviciding, is normally used in a water solution at the rate of 5-10

gallons per acre.  The emulsifiable concentrate tests about 49% and con-

tains 4 pounds Abate per gallon.  Working solution is made by dissolving

5 fluid ounces of the concentrate in 50 gallons of water.

          Mineral oils especially refined for mosquito larviciding (such

as Flit MLO) are normally applied in the same form as received, and not

diluted.  Analyses indicate contents of 99% petroleum fractions and 1%

inert ingredients.  It is widely believed that the inert fraction may

consist of surfactants.

    2.  Adulticides

          The use of ultra-low volume applicators has brought about a

change in materials used to kill flying,  adult mosquitoes.   Special

formulations of concentrated products are now used widely throughout New

England, the most popular being malathion (95%,  9.7 Ibs.  active per

gallon) and naled (85%,  14 Ibs.  active per gallon).

          When applied in accordance with label instructions,  ULV

concentrates differ very little from normal emulsifiable  concentrates of

lower dilutions.   In these highly concentrated forms,  however,  they are

more dangerous to handle during transportation and applicator  loading.

Accidental spills can release them into the environment where  they would

pose a threat to nontarget organisms.   Accordingly,  a greater  burden is

placed on the application supervisor,  who must ensure that  his  operators

have received proper timing and have proper respect  for the material.


          Early pesticides used on Cape Cod to control mosquito larvae

consisted of fuel oil only.  Various formulations of pyrethrums were used

in early years, but sufficient records are not available  to define exact

formulations.  From 1945 to 1956, the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project

r-sports that the DDT it  used was formulated with 75  pounds  technical DDT

(about 99% pure), 10 gallons of Xylene, and 140 gallons of  fuel oil.

Application was at the rate of 5-10 gallons per acre.  Dieldrin as 2%

granular served as the pre-season larvicide from 1957 to  1961,  at the rate

of 10-12 pounds per acre in freshwater swamps, with about one-fourth of

the total area covered.   Fuel oil fortified with one pint surfactant to

50 gallons was used during the season.  Paris Green granules, 10% active,

were used in 1961-1965, together with a solution of Abate consisting of

5 fluid ounces of 49.2% Abate 4E  (contains 4 Ibs. active per gallon) in

50 gallons of water.  The low quantities applied shown earlier in

Table 1II-4 are based on a general application rate of 10 gallons per acre

of this dilute solution.

          When the use of DDT was restarted in 1966, the 10% granular

form was applied  to freshwater mosquito breeding areas.  On the average,

about 0.1 Ib. active DDT was applied  to each acre.  Malathion was used

from 1966 to  1970, in an oil solution formulated with 3-1/2 gallons of

57% emulsifiable  concentrate  (5 pounds active per gallon) in 100 gallons

of fuel oil.

          The pesticides used in  Bass Hole and Herring River Marshes were

based on  the  above formulations.



          The route of pesticides into the water environment has been

categorized broadly as either (1) intentional or (2) accidental.  These

routes have been further subcategorized    as follows:

              (1) Intentional

                  (a)  Agricultural and forestry uses;

                  (b)  Aquatic uses for controlling insects, weeds,

                       trash, fish, etc.;

                  (c)  Household and garden use;

                  (d)  Municipal and industrial use;

                  (e)  Public health use;

                  (f)  Manufacturing.

              (2) Accidental

                  (a)  Accidents in manufacture, handling,  trans-

                       portation, storage and use;

                  (b)  Industrial and municipal wastes;

                  (c)  Agricultural wastes such as crop  residues,

                       food, industrial wastes;

                  (d)  Drift from application or movement by

                       attachment to soil particles,  etc.;

                  (e)  Fires, floods.

To varying degrees, all of these represent potential routes of pesticides

used for vector control into the environment of the New England States.

Because of the objectives of vector control some paths of pesticides into

the water environment are, obviously, of much less importance than others;

for example, accidental releases during manufacturing, handling, trans-

portation, storage and use could be expected to be less contributory than

would intentional application near aquatic areas for public health use.

Nevertheless, accidental releases would be expected to have a greater

immediate impact on a localized environment due solely to concentration

effects than the intentional releases which would be contributory to chronic

background levels over long terms.  Because pesticides for vector control

may require several handling and transfer operations before their final,

intentional application, our examination of their routes into the water

environment began with tracing their paths from the manufacturing plant

through the distribution channels to the final application points in order

to assess all potential routes for entry into the water environment.


          The products used in vector control in New England, especially

in the Cape Cod area which is of particular concern to us, basically are

not manufactured in the region, although some formulation may take place.

Consequently, the potential entry into  the water environment at manufac-

turing sites is of limited concern in this region.  Nevertheless, the

                                                                  [2 3]
prevention and control of spills of hazardous polluting substances   '

demands increasing attention at all stages of formulation, storage,  transfer,

                                                      [3 41
transportation and distribution.  A number of surveys   '   have indicated

that the loading, transportation and unloading operations are areas of

high potential for spills; furthermore, there are areas where inadequate

provisions often exist for preventing or controlling the spread of spilled


          In New England the pesticides products used in vector control

are shipped into the region by trucks and rail transport.  Tank cars and

tank trucks are used when large volume usages justify the economics of such

transportation.  The most frequent methods of shipment are in five-gallon

cans or fifty-five-gallon drums for liquid products and plastic-coated

paper bags for solid products.  Truck transport can be either in company

or hired carriers.  In the case of less than truckload shipments, company

trucks most commonly ship pesticides with other hazardous polluting sub-

stances, e.g., oils.  In the case of hired carriers' transporting mixed

cargoes, there is no direct control over the product mix being shipped.

          Accidental spillage or leakage of pesticides during shipment

such as might occur in truck or rail accidents, can be reported by the

operators to the Pesticides Safety Team Network in order to obtain advice

and assistance in prompt and effective cleanup and decontamination.  This

network became operational on March 9, 1970, when a central telephone

number (513) 961-4300 in Cincinnati, Ohio, was activated on a 24-hour basis.

Twelve member companies of the National Agricultural Chemical Association

(NACA) are cooperating in the program by furnishing personnel, equipment,

and expertise for the prompt and efficient cleanup and decontamination of

Class B poison pesticides involved in a major accident.  More than forty

safety teams currently make up the national network, the operation of

which is outlined in the attached "Emergency Procedure for Handling Acci-

dental Spills of Class B Poison Pesticide Chemicals."  The success of  the

network depends principally on  (1) the rapid notification of such an acci-

dent by someone at the scene and  (2) the rapidity with which isolation  and

containment of the spills is achieved so that cleanup and decontamination

can proceed effectively. *• ' ^  The Safety Team Network has a voluntary

cooperative agreement with the American Truckers Association (ATA).  There

are, however, no laws or regulations to enforce notification of such acci-

dents, and incidents have occurred where drivers were unable or unprepared

to hold trucks until the Safety Team Network had the opportunity to inspect

the site and  take appropriate action.  Although our survey did not discover

any reported  transaction incidents, it seems very clear  that the potential

for massive entry of pesticides into the water environment is very high

during transportation because of  the volumes involved and the difficulties

of preventing migration into water resources.

          The shipping destination from the manufacturer's plant or central

distributing warehouse  (in some cases, cargoes are temporarily stored at

trucker's terminals) is one or more of the following points:

                  (a)  Wholesaler or local distributor

                  (b)  Vector control districts

                  (c)  City, town or municipality

                  (d)  Commercial applicators

                  (e)  Retailers

When the products are received at (a) they are stored for further transfer

to another destination such as  (b), (c), (d), or (e).  In the case of

large volume users such as vector control districts and  commercial applicators,

shipment may be direct from the manufacturer.  Our contacts with distributors

did not uncover any admissions of losses due to breakage or leakage from

cans, drums or bags.   The explanation given most frequently was that the

present high cost of pesticides resulted in better packaging in small units

(5-gallon cans or 4-pound bags) to allow easier handling.   Furthermore, the

containers themselves are more resistant to breakage than was the case with

low-cost products, e.g., DDT, where the low competitive prices for the

product precluded quality packaging.  The results of our survey indicated

that the probability for entry of massive amounts of pesticides into the

water environment during their transportation from manufacturer to wholesale

distributor are no greater than any other hazardous polluting substance

being transported in commerce.


              Once the pesticide has reached the organization or person

responsible for its final dispersal, its application and the disposal of

containers is to a large extent determined by the laws and regulations of

individual states.  While applicators are primarily responsible for inten-

tional  additions of pesticides to the environment, they must also be

considered for potential releases due to accidents in handling, preparing

and  applying pesticides as well as  the disposal of used containers, unused

products and equipment cleaning solutions.  Our survey of pesticide

applicators indicated that recently issued regulations, which are more

stringent  than older rules,  are resulting in fewer but more proficient

applicators; those without broad knowledge of pesticides and their uses

often discontinue operations.  For  example, we estimate that within recent

years nearly 20% of New Hampshire's applicators have left the business,

primarily  those not attuned  to the broader aspects of pesticides as applied

to vector  control.  This indicates  a trend toward upgrading  the quality  of

commercial applicators, a very desirable step forward in assuring better

usage of pesticides.

              During our field interviews we encountered difficulty in

getting straightforward answers to many of our questions regarding the

procedures for disposing of used containers, unused pesticides, and equip-

ment cleaning solutions.  Although the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire

and Maine have established specific regulations concerning the disposal of

containers on unused pesticides (see Table V-l for a summary of these

regulations), we  could not confirm that these regulations are strictly ob-

served by the applicators or  closely monitored by state regulatory agencies.

We received  reports in Massachusetts that pesticide bags as well as crushed

containers and drums often are disposed of at town dumps, but we could not

determine whether these areas are officially designated by local Boards of

Health for disposal as required by Massachusetts law.  Several commercial

pesticide applicators complained that many towns had no such areas, and any

disposal would be in technical violation.  Burning of combustible containers,

and dilute solutions of pesticides in combustible solvents, in municipal

incinerators or other devices approved by the Board of Health is prescribed

in Massachusetts,  Rhode Island and New Hampshire; however, we found no

indication of the relative frequency of incineration as compared with

burying.  Furthermore, we were able to obtain only meager information con-

cerning the  actual methods of disposing of equipment and container washings.

Although the rules and regulations in New Hampshire and Rhode Island are

quite clear  in the procedures to be used, other states generally specify

only that these shall be disposed of by burial in a manner which will pre-

vent entry into the water environment.

                                        TABLE V-l

!• Disposal Areas

2. Disposal Method
2a General Provisions

2b Liquid Combustible


Municipal incinerator or other
place assigned by the local
Beard of Health

In auch a manner and at such
location that contamination of

minimized and that the material
will not be uncovered or other-
operations in the area. If
burled, pesticide shall be
covered with at least 18" of
compact cover material.

Other than organophosphate and
hormone type may be burned and
residues disposed according to
Burning is restricted to 2 days
a week and 1 gallon per time
under appropriate atmospheric
conditions' Organophosphate and
hormone type* treated as non-

Municipal Incinerator
or approved disposal

Surplus or unused
pesticide shall be
disposed of by
burial in same man-
ner as Massachusetts.


Stored in a safe plac
or buried: (1) on
the land of the appli
land of and with the
approval of other thai
the applicator pro-

be put in or close to
watering wells, open
springs or areas wher
material will flow
directly into water-

Burled with at least
18" of compacted
cover material.


3 8
B? in
a S
^ JM
§ ^

tn Q
2 i
(J 04
a. w
" S
S *
M >
S o
5* M
C/l )-*
>-l Ul

* 1

35 M
M 2
*" 3
s §


prohibited. No pesticide or con-
tainer therefore shall be discarded
lutlon of any waterway or endanger
plant and animal Ufa or the public
health and safety.

U 1 0
8J B >
u o w
a « z
o u p- o
o S >. S
Z 0 -J -J

s S S a
| - a a
2 Q U W
5 U) M H
W» W O* <
3 « H
U. M
0 « H

w w in
o u »H afi
M O * 2
Q j-. w 5
U OT M o«S
BU < O
0. H C


only at approved refuse disposal
sites, in a municipal incinerator
or In a special incinerator which
meets. with the approval of the

, tlcides
shall be disposed of by burial
with at least 18 inches of
and at such a location vithin
the disposal area that contami-
nation of ground water is

TABLE V-l (Continued)

2b (continued)

2c Solid

Id Containers

3. RE-USE of Container*


By burial In accordance with 2(a)

By burial In accordance with 2(a)

According to rule* and regula-
tion* eatabllahed by the Dept. of
Public Health.

Unless treated In conformity with
Public Health regulations, con-
tainers shall not be used for
storage of human or animal food or
water or for the storage of cook-
Ing utensils, dishes or clothing.


Glass: breakage and
burial (18" deep)
Metal: rinsing, punch-
ing holes on top and
bottom, crushing and
burning. Rinsing sol-
ution should be buried
POUNDS: Rinsing and
disposing of water by
No pesticide container
shall be used for
storage of food, water
cooking utensils,
dishes or clothing.
No pesticide contain-
ers should be used for
any other purpose un-
less approved by the
Board of Health after
properly cleaned.

If not returnable,
shall be perforated 01
-crushed and burled
with at leaat IB" of
compacted cover

Return to manufacturer
If returnable, or sell
,to reconditioning
companies. All other
containers shall be
handled in accordance
with 2d.



Organophosphate Containers
Class - Break and bury as In 2 (a).
Metals - Wash with caustic soda
snd detergent solution. Bury
rinse water as in 2(a).
Other Pesticide Containers

solvent. Dispose of rinses as in
2 (a).

and buried aa in 2 (a).

No pesticid container shall be used
for the sto age of human or ani.ir.al
food or wat r nor such containers be
used for th storage of cooking uten-
sils, dishe or clothing.
No pesticide containers shall be
used as dock or raft floats.
ta other purpose unless such purpose
las been approved by che Department
of Natural Resources after the con-
tainers have been properly cleaned.

              Other potential paths for entry of pesticides into the water

environment are through back-siphoning when tanks are filled from surface

waters and where inattention results in overflow of tanks.  The practice

of siphoning water from surface supplies is forbidden in New Hampshire—an

excellent precautionary measure in our opinion.

              In summary, although we have not yet documented specific

incidents where pesticides entered the water environment due to accidents

or poor disposal practices by the applicators, we also were unable to

ascertain any uniformity of control practices by regulatory agencies.  Because

of the multiple handling, mixing, and transfer required of the applicators,

there is a potential for significant numbers of uncontrolled entries into

the water environment.

              In our opinion, better procedures should be developed to help

reduce the potential for spills such as requiring all loading and unload-

ing of concentrated liquid pesticides be performed on impervious surfaces

in a curved area draining to a containment sump from which spilled materials

could be removed and treated for disposal.  The disposal of spent containers

and unused pesticides should be monitored more closely, perhaps through an

accountability system such as numbering of containers and requiring return

to an authorized disposal site and specific disposal procedures established

for each pesticide.  Although a number of legalistic schemes might be

developed for reducing the potential for spilled pesticides getting into

the water environment, the most desirable first step is an expanded educa-

tional program involving the applicators including, perhaps, a licensed

operators program such as employed for sewage treatment plant personnel.


              The intentional application of pesticides for vector control

in the Northeastern United States utilizes all of the commonly accepted

methods of air, ground, and water application.  Atomization of liquids for

application from air or ground-borne equipment has been the subject of

large numbers of studies to determine the most desirable droplet size ranges

and atmospheric conditions.  These are two prime factors in affecting the

distribution of active materials, and minimize the drift of particulates into

unwanted areas.  Akesson, et al.    gave a succinct review of methods for

controlling spray atomization in aerial applications.  Both air and water

routes of pesticides dispersion in the environment is discussed in the

January 1969 "Report to the President—Control of Agricultural Related

Pollution."  Aerial application or ground application using foggers are the

most difficult to control precisely with respect to area covered.   Both

methods could, conceivably, cause direct entry of pesticides into the water

environment, but only where direct spraying is carried out or where drift

occurs.  In the Cape Cod area there are cranberry bogs which may inject

pesticides into "flooding" water, but provisions are made to hold the water

sufficiently long enough for deposition and degradation to occur,  before

drainage to water courses is allowed.  Of course, the he-"Ing time required

for complete degradation may be impossible in the case <-f some pesticides;

consequently, adsorption on soil particles and detritus with concomitant

slow release rates must be relied upon to minimize widespread dispersion

throughout the ecosphere.

              The air route of pesticide application is dependent, obviously,

on the microclimatology effects at the site of application.  Although elab-

orate mathematical models    exist for predicting the dispersion of aerosol

from point and diffuse sources, the major criteria for the application of

pesticides is that calm wind conditions prevail and that temperature gradients

meet certain criteria.  It is generally accepted^ that a normal lapse

condition (i.e., where temperature decreases with height) of about 0.1°F

should exist between the 8 and 32 foot elevations.  The effect of wind

velocity on horizontal drift of an aerosol particle of a given diameter is

to increase the drift distance in virtually direct proportion to the wind

velocity.  Consequently, careful consideration "•  ^ must be given to the

optimum droplet size as well as atmospheric conditions for effective, safe


              In our surveys of the Cape Cod area we determined that ground

and helicopter spraying equipment is more common than fixed wing aircraft.

The use of helicopters is attributed primarily to the limited field size,

the wooded nature of the terrain, and the nearby location of a U.S. Air

Force Base.  The direct application of pesticides onto water is practiced

only on cranberry bogs, where the technique of holdup of the water for a

specified period of time is practiced.

              The generally sandy nature of the soils in the Cape Cod area

could be expected to have a lower adsorptive capacity than clayey soils

or, conversely a higher release rate by either desorption or, in the case

of the more volatile pesticides, by volatilization.      Furthermore, only

the most persistent pesticides or their metabolites might be expected to

be found in the soil column at any appreciable depth.  For example, we

         f 131
were told     that where chlordane has been applied to golf courses on

Cape Cod for control of Japanese beetles, chlordane content four inches

beneath the surface is in the range of 0.05 to 0.08 ppm and estimates of

deepest penetration are in the vicinity of three feet.  Literature references

describe laboratory studies which indicate that the transmigration rates

of such refractory pesticides as dieldrin may be extremely slow and in ex-

treme cases, as long as several hundred years per foot of  soil.   Obviously,

no generalization can be made because the adsorptive-desorptive properties

are so highly dependent upon the individual  pesticide, its degradability

and the unique properties of the soil into which it is dispersed.   Therefore,

the most pertinent information must rely upon analyses of  samples  recently

secured from the area and these are discussed in another section.


1.   Control of Agriculture-Related Pollution, A Report  to  the President
          (January  1969).

2.   Goodier, J.L.,  et  al.,  Spill Prevention Techniques  for Hazardous
          Polluting Substances—Report  on  Contract  14-12-927 to the  Environ-
          mental Protection Agency.

3.   Wechsler, A.E.,  et al., Preliminary  Report on Contract 14-12-950  to
          the Environmental Protection  Agency.

4.   Dawson, G.W., et al., Control of  Spillage of  Hazardous Polluting
          Substances—Report  on Contract 14-12-866  to  the Environmental
          Protection Agency.

5.   Garrett,  S.T., Jour,  of the Water Poll. Cont.  Fed., 43,773  (1971).

 6.   Thompson,  C.H., and P.R. Heitzenrater, "The EPA's Hazardous Material
          Spill Program," Amer. Inst. of Chem. Engr. Workshop, Charleston,
          W. Va.,  October 27-28,  1971.

 7.   Akesson,  N.B., W.  E.  Yates  and  S.E.  Wilce, "Controlling  Spray
          Atomization,"  Agrichemical Age,  110-13  (Dec. 1970).

 8.   Turner, D.B., "Workbook of  Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
          Environmental  Science Services Administration  (1969).

 9.   Akesson,  N.B., and W.E. Yates,  "Problems Relating  to Agricultural
          Chemicals and  Resulting Drift Residues,"  Annual Rev. Entomol.,
          j), 285-318 (1964).

10.   Mount, G.A. ,  "Optimum Droplet  Size  for Adult  Mosquito Control  with
          Space Sprays or Aerosols of Insecticides," Mosquito  News,
          30, No.  1 (March 1970).

11.    Huang, Ju-Chang, "Effects of Selected Factors on Pesticide Sorption
          and Desorption in the Aquatic Environment," Journ.  Water Poll.
          Cont. Fed., 43, No.  8, 1739-1749 (1971).

12.    Quenzi, W.D. ,  and W.E.  Beard,  "Volatilization of Lindane and DDT from
          Soils," Soil Sci. Soc. of  Amer., Proceedings, _34,  443-447 (1970).

13.    Personal Communication,  Mr.  Charles  Adao,  Otis Air Force Base,  Cape
          Cod, Massachusetts.

                      VI.  IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT


     1.  Geographic and Hydrologic

          Salt water marshes are land forms resulting from the invasion

of shallow water by land vegetation.  They develop in those coastal areas

where land erosion and deposition of sediments have built up an intertidal

flat and where the shore is protected from the open sea by a bay or spit.

On Cape Cod, as along the entire glaciated East Coast, the marshes formed

on land scraped bare by the retreating ice, or on piles of debris left as

the glaciers Belted.  Spartina alterniflora grass germinated in these areas

anchoring the soil and preventing further erosion.  Once established, such

salt water cordgrass built up the marsh by accumulating salt marsh peat and

by acting as a trap for sediments brought seaward or carried shoreward by

the incoming tide.^

          Each successive generation of marsh grass grows on the root stocks

and trapped sediments of the preceding generation causing the marsh to

increase in depth and to spread.  At the same time, the deposition of

sediment continues, primarily by incoming tides, but also from inland runoff

carrying silt from the land, allowing cordgrass to become established further

out into the intertidal flats.  On Cape Cod the Sandwich moraine stretches

from the Cape Cod Canal to Orleans at a height of 100 to 300 feet above sea

level.  This mass of sand, clay and rock cleanly separates our two study

areas and the Bass Hole Marsh and Herring River Marsh receive entirely distinct

runoff water, although the two areas are within six miles of each other.

The entire area has exceptionally good drainage and the soil a high infiltration

rate; rain water percolates through the sandy/gravely soil rather than running

off.  The major difference between these two Cape Cod marshes and most other

salt water marshes is the low volume of fresh water and inland nutrients

resulting from runoff.

          The moraine is largely uninhabited, and there is little waste to

the Bass Hole and Herring River Marshes; waste from areas of dense population

in general passes directly into Cape Cod Bay on the north or Nantucket Sound

on the south.  Because of this pattern these two marshes are largely uncontam-

inated by industrial pollutants and domestic sewage.  Agricultural wastes are

little in evidence; the major segments of Cape Cod agriculture have declined,

and only a few active cranberry bogs and nurseries remain.     In general,

although  there has been an increasing population pressure on Cape Cod, little

ecological change has resulted from the increased release of wastes and

marshes  have generally retained their form.

          The marshes under study are unusual in that the effect of surf is

negligible.  The Herring River effectively separates its marsh from the sea,

and a large  permanent sand bay isolates Bass Hole.     Water mixing in these

marshes is therefore almost entirely the result of tidal action and density


          The Herring River Marsh water system does interconnect with fresh

water ponds  upstream of the area we studied.  The Bass Hole Marsh area studied,

in contrast, has no contact with open bodies of fresh water.  There is a

significant  difference in the magnitude of the tides; in the Bass Hole Marsh

the mean range is approximately 9.5 feet, while at the mouth of the Herring

River there  is a mean range of 3.7 feet.

          Water temperature also was  another physical characteristic which

has an effect on the biota of the two marshes.  Cape Cod Bay at the mouth of

the Bass Hole Marsh is cooled by the Arctic Current, but an extensive sand

bar allows little cold water to enter the area.  In contrast, Nantucket Sound

is warmed by the Gulf Stream.

     2.  Biotic

          General observations did not reveal major differences in speciation

of either plants or animals between the two study areas, although differences

in the distribution of fish are known.  Sampling of water and taxonomic

classification of the contained biota was conducted to determine the extent

of large differences in  the microflora and microfauna.  Samples were taken

of the main  streams, feederstreams and mosquito control ditches during the

ebb tide to  obtain material derived from the marsh rather than from the sea

and in a manner designed to eliminate any bottom sediment.  Formaldehyde was

used at proper concentrations to assure the successful preservation of both

                            [4 5]
plant and animal specimens.   '

          Microscopic examinations revealed that the water samples contained a

rather limited number of life forms.  In order to statistically compare micro-

biota from the Bass Hole Marsh versus the Herring River Marsh, samples were

concentrated prior to observation.  Ten ml of each sample were centrifuged

for one hour, the collected insoluble material was resuspended, and half of

the volume was placed on a slide.  Four quandrants on each slide were observed

under a magnification of 264 X's.   The  location of  sampling  sites  in our  two

 study  areas  is  indicated in Figure VI-1.

     FIGURE VI - I


          Two samples from the lower Herring River Marsh  (12 and 16) and

two samples from the upper Bass Hole Marsh  (33 and 34) exhibited only higher

plant debris and detritus with no organized life forms (visible at 60 X's

magnification).  The plant debris found in all samples was presumed to originate

from Spartina grasses.  Animal life forms, Crustacea and nematinea, were seen

only in one Herring River sample (number 11) and in two samples from the Bass

Hole Marsh (26 and 27).  Other than these animals, the most commonly found

life forms were filamentous algae, (none blue-green) colonial algae,

diatoms (mostly Cymbella, a freshwater genus)    and a dinoflagellate.

          Based upon these samples, the two marshes appear to be nearly

identical in those microscopic organisms which reside at the base of the

food chain.  Therefore, descriptions of much of the environmental relation-

ships in this report will apply to both areas, although specific exceptions,

especially in regard to fish life will be made.

     3.  Biodynamics

          The primary chemical energy production in the marsh occurs in the vascular

plants which utilize radiant energy for photosynthetic food production.  These

plants decompose slowly and enter the water as organic detritis which, together

with absorbed bateria, fungi, protozoa and algae, become the important food

source for most of the marsh animals.

          The salt marsh and associated estuarine ecosystem is a highly productive

environment.  It is richer in nutrients and has a higher annual production rate
                                                                        r 01
than any other sea or land areas with the exception of cultivated areas.

It has been estimated that tidal marsh ecosystems produce approximately 3 tons/acre

of dry plant material per year, as a result  of the nutrient cycle trap effect of

the estuaries.     The most important factor in this effect is the binding

capacity of the fine sediments which allows them to contain large quantities of

adsorbed nutrients, trace metals and other materials.      There is also a

trapping effect caused by the vertical movement of water masses of different

salinities and hence densities and the favorable oscillating tidal currents.

Nutrients are added to the sediments by the decay of marsh as well as marine

organisms, and through the process of biodeposition in which filter feeding

molluscs and crustaceans remove large amounts of suspended particles from the

water and excrete fecal pellets or pseudofeces.  These more concentrated organic

foodstuffs may be eaten by deposit feeding organisms or become part of the

nutrient store of the sediments.  Once "trapped" and adsorbed by the

sediments nutrients are easily released for reuse by the primary producers.

          The organic detritus in the sediments is decomposed by intensive microbial

activity which through the sulfur, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles release

usable ammonia, phosphate and nitrate from complex organic compounds.  The

burrowing animals and filter feeders present in the marsh environment also

release nutrients from the sediments by bringing them to the surface.

          The tides are very important in the nutrient cycles of the marsh.

Decomposition occurs where there is ample moisture and exposure to air.  This

is both the source of detritus and a means of releasing much of the nitrogen,

phosphorus, and other plant nutrients which are then available for synthesis

into forms which plants can use.  Unused nitrates and phosphates, however, also

move out with the tides and become a nutrient source for the bay plant life as

well as settling to the sediment bottom.

          Water movements, as well as salinity changes play an important role

in determining what organisms live in any particular marsh as well as the

distribution of those organisms!     For example, the distribution of

mussel larvae may be determined by the magnitude of the tide at the time of

settling.     Since they are filter-feeding animals, their rate of growth is

determined by the length of time they are covered by water and by the amount of

food brought to them by the tide.


          Relatively few plant and animal species are able to adapt to the

marsh environment.  It is an area of extremes involving changes in salinity,

temperature, and desiccation.  Those that have been able to adapt remain

relatively free of predators and competing species allowing them to occupy a

broader niche and to be more abundant than otherwise would be possible.

          Of the limited number of life forms which have successfully adapted

to the salt marsh ecosystem, nearly half are terrestrial species,  common  through-

out the grassy areas and on higher ground.  These species have made only

slight adaptation to the marsh ecosystem and are represented primarily by insects

and arachnids.  Many of these insects live and feed directly on the Spartina,

eating either the tissues or the juices as well as using the plants for pro-

tection from the incoming tides.  Others are mud dwelling and feed on detritus.

The birds comprise the major remaining segment of the terrestrial species, along

with a few racoons and rodents.

          Of more importance to the energetics of the marsh are the estuarine

and aquatic marsh species.  With the estuarine species are zooplankton such as

copepods and larval forms of invertebrate species such as shrimp, mussels,

annelids, crabs, snails, and clams, as well as most stages in the life cycles

of many species of fish.  These animals primarily occupy the lower borders of

the marsh because they are not able to withstand exposure.  Several species

of larger invertebrates live on the marsh surface and in the creeks.  Many of

these are burrowers, using the mud to avoid exposure at low tide and as a constant

salinity and temperature source.  Those that do not burrow usually maintain

shells which can be completely closed to avoid drying.  Amphipods, blue crabs

and shrimp are found in the main stream; worms, oysters and mud snails are

found in ditches; ribbed mussels, periwinkles, fiddler crabs and marsh crabs

are representative of those animals found on the marsh surface.  It is among

these larger invertebrates that one finds the animals of most importance to the

energetics of the marsh ecosystem.  Filter feeding animals such as the

mussels, clams, and polychaete worms remove large quantities of suspended

particles from the water consolidating the nutrients for use by such deposit

feeding marsh animals as the annelids, nematodes and periwinkles.  It has

been estimated that a marsh area contains approximately 3,673,000 mussels per

acre each capable of pumping 1.2 gallons of water per hour,    thereby

removing tremendous quantities of detritus and suspended nutrients.  The

deposit feeders return the nutrients to the sediments where they remain

available for reutilization by the marsh ecosystem.  Burrowing animals

(particularly crabs) rework the surface of the marsh at low tide and further

concentrate organic matter in their feces, thereby having a considerable

influence on other populations.

          The primary producers available in the low marsh at low tide are

the mud algae, large algae and 5partina alterniflora.  These together with

organic detritus form the first step of the food chain.  The low marsh

consumers include amphipods or beach fleas, marsh crabs, fiddler crabs, green

crabs, marsh insects (who venture down to the intertidal area at low tide)

and periwinkles.  Few secondary consumers (carnivores) are present in the

low marsh at low tide.

          The primary producers in the high marsh at low tide are the large

algae  andSpartina patens.  These together with organic detritus are eaten

by the primary consumers which include periwinkles, marsh snails, beach fleas

and insects.  Secondary consumers include spiders which feed on insects,

birds  such as rails, crows and sandpipers which feed on periwinkles, snails

and beach fleas, and song birds which feed on insects.

          When the tide comes in the food chains of the marsh change.

Many animals decrease their activity at this time.  Insects climb up or

into Spartina stems, birds retreat to their nests or higher ground, crabs

either climb plants  (marsh crab), or burrow (fiddler crab) or become active

(mud crab, green crab and blue crab).  Plankton is added by the tide as an

additional foodstuff to the first step in the food chain.  Filter and deposit

feeders  (mussels, barnacles, annelids and sand shrimp) increase their consumption.

Isopods, fish and invertebrate larvae are also swept into the marsh as a food

source for worms, shrimp, clams and crabs.  Finally a new population of secondary

consumers, the larger fish, are introduced as top carnivores for whom most of

the marsh invertebrates function as a food source.

     4.  Species in  the Cape Cod Marshes

          a.  Plants

          The plants growing in the two Cape Cod salt marshes of our study

may be classified by their specific habitat; the lower border, the meadow,

the panne, and the upper border.  The lower border of the marsh begins below

the point of mean low tide and includes the edge of the meadow which is highly

saline.  Eelgrass (Zostera marina) grows below the low tide point where it

is continually covered with sea water.  Above the mean low tide region salt

water cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) dominates the edge of the meadow with

its mat  of roots holding in place the underlying layer of peat and helping

to prevent extensive erosion of the marsh by wave action.

          Beyond the salt water cordgrass region, the marsh opens out into

a relatively flat meadow which becomes flooded for a while at every high

tide.  The saline concentration of the meadow is lower than that of the

lower border and consequently different plants inhabit this area.  The

meadow comprises the major portion of every marsh, and salt meadow cordgrass

      ina patens') is the most common and most important plant here.

           Frequently  one  encounters  shallow  depressions  in the midst of

 the meadow which  are  called  pannes and  contain water  that  is  highly saline.

 Arrow  grass  (Triglochinmaritirna), seaside plantain  (Plantago  oliganthos) ,

 glassworts (Salicomia sp.)>  sea lavender (Limaniwn nashii),  saltmarsh aster

 (Aster tenuifolius) and purple gerardia (Gerardia maritima) are all

 halophytes which  inhabit  panne regions  and which we have observed  in our

 study  areas.

           The  upper border of the marsh begins  at  the mean high tide.

 It accounts  for only  a small percentage of the total  land  area of  a marsh  but

 is of  significance in this study because it  is where  chemicals,  if used, are

 applied for  mosquito  control.  The plants in this region cannot  tolerate

 much salt, and get flooded only during  exceptionally  high  tides  and storms.

 The orach (Atriplex patulo),  marsh mallow tfibiscus palustris") ,  saltwort

 <§alsC(,a. kali), sea-blite (Suaeda sp.),  seaside goldenrod  ($ olidago satnpervirens)

 switchgrass  (Paniown  virgatum"), spike grass  (Distichlis spicata},  and common

 reedgrass (Phragrrtites Gommunis) all  inhabit  the upper border.   Black grass

 (Jwious gerardi), a dark  green rush, is very common in this region especially

 in the Herring River  Marsh,  and shrubs  such  as the  marsh elder (Iva frutese&ns)

 and sea myrtle tree (B accharis halinrifolia)  begin to  invade the marsh at the

 border.  Poison ivy (JRhus radicans~)  is  frequently common at the edge of the

northern border, especially if the region has been disturbed by cultivation

 as at  Bass Hole.[13'14'15]

           In a marsh  there are also  many plants, of  lower phyla that cannot

 be identified  without a microscope.  The purple sulfur bacteria for example

 are anaerobic  organisms which inhabit the oxygen free layer of mud just

 below  the surface.  Numerous  kinds of diatoms and algae  are found  in the debris

 at the bottom.      Filamentous species of blue green algae are especially

 common.   The totality of  these unicellular and colonical organisms is usually

referred to as phytoplankton.  Although they are most important in the food

chain, it is our belief that a discussion of their tazonomic classification

does not contribute to an understanding of their role and has been omitted.

          b.  Animals

          Just as the salt water marsh contains a variety of plant life,

classes of which find a distinct niche dependant upon the salinity and maximum

depth of water, so too, can distinct niches be allocated for the animal

population of the salt water marsh.  One of these niches is inhabited by

fresh-water species, which live on the landward edge of the marsh.  These

animals include the big green darner (Anax jimius), a high-flying species of

dragon fly which feeds on mosquitos and other flying insects as an adult

in  the marsh but which as a nymph lives in fresh water.     Such species will

not be enumerated here since this introduces a whole range of organisms and

food  chains which are only of peripheral concern to the marsh ecosystem.

It  is taken for granted that the marsh ecosystem and the fresh-water system

which borders it would have some relationship implicit in the concept of

natural interdependence.

          A group of species which also have little inter-relationship with

the marsh life are those terrestrial species which do live in the marsh.

Many  of these are insects such as the green-head fly (.Tdbanus), cinch bugs

(.Isohnodesmus) , or tumbling flower beatles  (Mordellid).  Other terrestrial

insects living in the marsh are specific species of grasshpper, plant hopper,

sand  fly, and ants.  Other invertebrates in this niche are worms such as

Chaetopsis aena  and spiders such as Lycosa modesta.  Among the vertebrates

are the sea-side sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) and the rice mouse  (Oryzomys

palustris).  Although many terrestrial species  live their entire  lifetime  in

the marsh, because of their greater adaptability they usually evidence  less

interaction with the true marsh ecosystem than  species whose lives are more

directly related to the estua'rine water system  and tidal pattern.


                   TABLE VI-1

     Gem Shell (Gemma gemma)
     Annelid (Streblospio benedioti)
     Annelid (Lumbrineries  tenuis)
     Annelid (H eteronastus  filiformis)
     Metanemertean Worn//.mpfr£porws spJ
     Spire Shell (Hydrobia  mlnuta)
     Ostracod ('Ostracoda spp.)
     Blood Worm (Glycera dibranahiata)
     Moon Shell (Polynioes  duplioata)
     Common Synapta  (Leptosynapta inhaerens)
     Heteronemertean Worm (Miarura leidyi)
     Plumed Worm ('Diopatra  cuprea)
     Annelid (Saolopus fragilis)
     Polychaete Worm (Eteone  heteropoda)
     Polycheate Worm (Pygospio  elegans)
     Bamooo Worm (CyImene1 la  torquata)
     Mud Snail ('Nassarius obsoletus)
     * Animal species present at concentrations
       of greater than Ig/m2 in Barnstable Harbor
       in 1959 [18].

                                        TABLE VI-2


Duck  Clam  (Maooma balthioa)
False Angel Wing (Petrioola pholadiformis)
Oyster (Crassostrea virgin-Loo)
Razor Clam (Ensis direotus)
Channeled  Whelk (Busycan oannaliaulatum)
Bay Scallop (Aquipeaten irradiccns)
Oyster Drill (Urosalpinx cinerea)
Ribbed Mussel  (Modiolus demissus)
Periwinkle (Littorina littorea)
Blue  Mussel (Mytilus edulis)
Quahog (Venus  meraenaria)
Long-Neck  Clam (Mya arenaria)
Marsh Periwinkle ('Littorina irrorata)
Land  Snail (Melampus bidentatus)

 Clamworm (Nereis virens)
 Trumpet Worm (Cistenides gouldii)
 Polychaete Worm (H arnothoe extenuata)
 Polychaete Worm (Nephthys oiliata)
 Blood Worm (Glyoera dibranahiata)
 Plumed Worm (Diopatra ouprea)
 Heteronemertean Worm (Cevebratulus lacteus)
Sipunculoid worm ( Golfingia gouldii)

Acorn Barnacle (B alanus irrrprovisus)
Spider Crab (Libinia sppj
Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus)
Lady Crab (Ovalipes ooellatus)
Green Crab (Carcinides iraenas)
Rock Crab dCanaer irrovatus)
Jonah Crab (Cancer borealis)
Fiddler Crab (Vca pugnax)
Mud Crab (Neopanope texa.no)
Blue Crab (Callineotes sapidus)
American Lobster (H omarus americanus)
Isopod (Cyathura polita)
Isopod (Idotea baltiaa)
Common Prawn ('Palaerr.onetes vulgaris)
Common Sand Shrimp (Crago septemspinosus)
Eel Grass Shrimp (H ippolyte zosterioola)
Opossum Shrimp (Mysis stenolepis)
AmphipodfAmphithoe rubricated
Amphipodf Amphiinoe longimana)
Marsh Crab (Sesarma retioulatunj
Plant Hopper (Prokelisia marginata)
Greenhead Fly (Tabanus nigrovittatus)
Sand Fly (Culicoides aanithoraa)
Carpenter Ant (Camponotus pylartes)
Salt Marsh Mosquito (Aedes solliaitans)
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
Luna Moth (Tropaea luna)

A more detailed investigation can reveal enormous diversity of species in
the estuarine habitat.      Thus 49 dif f erent Foraminipherans were found in

the lagoon and estuaries of Buzzards Bay on the south shore of Cape Cod.

Random sampling in Barnstable Harbor at the mouth of the Bass Hole Marsh of

the intertidal fauna revealed 24 different annelids1   , and of the more than

1300 common invertebrate marine animals found in the shallow waters of the

North Atlantic Coast, 35 common species of ribbon worms can be found.

Omitted from Table VI-2 are those phyla with only minimal representation in

our study area such as the Coelentera which contributes the burrowing sea

anemone (Bduardsia") , the turbellarians of the Platyhelmia and the Echinoderms

such as the keyhole sand dollar (Mellita testudinata) .

          Among the Arthropods especially, an enormous  diversity of speciation

is found; enumerable different species live in the salt marshes of Cape Cod.

The same is true for ants, grasshoppers and spiders.  The listing of a

single mosquito species is, of cours, also a simplification since it has

already been stated in this report that more than twenty species of mosquitoes

of seven genuses have been found on Cape Cod.      However, Aedes sollicitans

is able to tolerate the highest salinity within the marsh and, thus breeds more

out into the marsh itself rather than in the less saline water of the salt

marsh border,

          To supplement our literature searches, a small beach seine was used

by the Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources, Common-

wealth of Massachusetts to sample the fish population at the mouth of the

Bass Hole Marsh.  Those fish trapped in the seine included the four spine

stickleback, winter flounder fry (locally called blackbacks) , mummichog,

American eel and a small number of pipe fish.  At this location, in addition,

cunner and silverside were observed and, by observation, it was estimated

that the mummichog represented the fish present in greatest density throughout

                    TABLE VI-3.

Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia  tyrannus)
Atlantic Herring (Clupea  h. harengus)
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Mummichog (Fundulus heteroalisus)
Striped Killifish (Fundulus majalis)
Atlantic Cod (Gadus morkua)
Atlantic Tomcod ( Microgadus tomcod)
Fourspine Stickleback (Apeltes quadracus)
Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus  aculeatus)
Northern Pipefish (Syngnathus  fusous)
Striped Bass ('Roccus saxatilis)
White Perch (Morone amerioana)
Bluefish (' Porriatomus saltatrix)
Mackerel Scad(Decapterus  maoarellus)
Northern Kingfish (Mentiairrhus saxatilis)
Scup (S tenotorms chrysops)
Gunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus)
Tautog (' Tautoga onitus)
Atlantic Mackerel (S ooniber saombrus)
Northern Searobin (Prionotus aarolinus)
Striped Searobin (Prionotus evolans)
Grubby (Myoxocephalus aenus)
Longhorn Sculpin (Myoxocephalus ootodecemspinosus
Lumpfish (Cyclopterus  lunrpus)
Tidewater Silverside (I'.enidia  beryllinaJ
Atlantic Silverside (llsnidia menidia
Windowpane (S cophthalrrrus  aquosus)
Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus)
Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea)
Northern Puffer (3pheroides maculatus)
Ocean Sunfish (Mola mola)
Goosefish (Lophius ameriaanus)
Orange Filefish (Alutera  schoepfi)
American Sand Lance (Ammodytes amerioanus)
Crevalle Jack (Caranx hippos)
Black Sea Bass (Centropristes  striatus)
Sheepshead Minnow (Cypronodon  variegatus)
Rainwater Killifish (Lucinia parva)
Planehead Filefish (Monaoanihus nispidus)
Striped Mullet (Mugil aephalus)
Oyster Toadfish (Ops anus  tau)
Big-Eye Scad (Selar cnunenophtkalmus)
Lookdox>m (Selene vomer)
Atlantic Needlefish (S trongylura marina)
Hogchoker (Trineates raaulatus)
White Hake (Uropkyais tennis)
Sea THaven(H emitripterus amerioonus)
American Smelt (Osr.erus mordax)
Rock Gunnel (Pholis awinellus)

the Bass Hole Marsh.  The raummichog, as well as the cunner,  are more

plentiful in the Bass Hole Marsh than the Herring River Marsh.   In the Herring

River Marsh, one would expect to find a relatively high number  of alewife,

striped killifish, scup, and Atlantic silverside.  The distribution of

fish in each marsh varies with time of year, stage of development and tide

level.  For instance, the large predator species move into the  marsh only

with the tide and then only when they are in the region.  Striped bass,

for instance, would be in the marsh from June to October as  they come to

Cape Cod along their migratory route.  The same would apply  for menhaden,

but the marsh would also serve as a continual forage area for the young fish

of this species.  Mackerel, herring, sea herring, and dog fish

would be found at the mouth of the marsh only.

          The American eel, winter flounder, and alewife use the marsh at

quite distinctive times in their developmental cycle.  Thus  the anadromous

alewife  use the Herring River as a major run.   They spawn in the inland

lakes, with the adults arriving there in late April.  The juveniles descend

into the salt marsh from July until the fall.  Flounder spawn in the marsh

and the young-of-the-year live there.  By the second year of age these fish

will only be found at the mouth of the marsh.  The American  eel by contrast

spawns in salt water and arrives at one or two years of age  with the female

going up into the fresh-water ponds and the male staying in the lower marsh.

They remain for several years before returning to the sea.

          The blue fish or snapper is like the sea bass, except it is more

prevalent on the south side of the Cape:     This is a transient species

which also makes a summer run and will not enter into areas of decreased

salinity in the marsh.  Pipe fish are to be found the year round.

     A complete listing of those fish species which have been observed

in the salt marshes of Cape Cod is presented in Table VI-3.  This

Table does not indicate those fish for which only a single sighting was

made such as the twospine stickleback at the Herring River or the haddock at

the Bass Hole Marsh.  The distribution of the fish between the Bass Hole

Marsh and the Herring River is noted with attention drawn to the most common
fish species.

          The vertebrate class Chondrichthyes is represented by the skates

(Raja erinaoea and Raja ocellata) and smooth dogfish (tfustelus can-is) at
the mouths of both of the Marshes.  Representation by the Amphibia and
Reptilia is not significant in the Cape Cod Marshes with only an occasional
fresh-water turtle, snake, or frog making an appearance in the marsh.

A large number of bird species, however, are found in the Cape Cod marshes.
A total of 384 species  (including those now extinct or exterminated) have been
reported for the entire Cape.     Sixty-eight bird species have been reported
in Connecticut tidal marshes.
          Table VI-4 includes those birds most commonly found in the marshes.

No listing has been made of  those species rarely observed such as the Osprey,

King Rail and Black-Crowned  Night Heron which are commonly associated with
the estuarine habitat.  A separate table has been prepared, however, Table VI-5,
of those bird species of lesser occurence (between rare and common) but

which are familar to the amateur ornithologist.
          Mammals do not form an important part of the Bass Hole Marsh or
Herring River Marsh ecosystem.  Most come from the surrounding forest, such as
the squirrels and carnivores.  The little brown bat (.Myotis leuoifugus') does

use the marsh as a feeding ground but does not live there.  The moles, woodchuck,

and field mouse enter that portion of the marsh which does not get flooded.

                 TABLE VI-4
                SUMMER RESIDENTS

Great Horned  Owl (Bubo virginianus)
Red-Tailed  Hawk (Buteo jamicensis)
Sparrow Hawk  (Fatoo  sparverius)
Herring Gull  (LOTUS  argentatus)
Great Black-Backed Gull (Larus  marinus)
Crow (Corvus  brachyrhynchos)
Blue Jay ( Cyanocitto. cristata)
Robin (Turdus migratorius)
Starling (S turnus vulgaris)
Bob-White Quail (Colinus virginianus)
Ring-Necked Pheasant (Phasianus colahicus)

                WINTER RESIDENTS

Black Duck  (Anas rubripes)
Goldeneye (Bucephala alangula)
Merganser (Fergus merganser)
Junco (Junco  hyemalis)
Goldfinch (Spirus tristis)
Meadowlark  (Stumella magna)
Bufflehead  (Bucephala albeola)


Greater Scaup (Ay thy a marila)
Marsh Hawk  (Circus ayar.eus)
Great Blue  Heron (Ardea herodias)
Semipalmated  Sandpiper ('Ereunetes  pusillus)
Laughing  Gull (Larus at-rioilla)
Arctic Tern (Sterna  paradisaea)
Coot (Fulica  ameriaana)
Wood Duck (Aix sponset)
Green Teal  (Anas carolinensis)
Blue Teal (Anas discors)
Flicker ('Colaptes auratus)
Downy Woodpecker (Dendrooopos pubescens)
Song Sparrow  (Melospiza melodia)
Crackle (Quisoalus quisaula)
Mourning Dove (Zenaidura maaroura)
Barn Swallow  (Hirundo rust-Lao)
Semipalmated  Plover  (Ckaradrius serrripalrratus)
Piping PloverfCharadri-us rr.elodus)
Black-Bellied Plover (S quatarola squatarola)
Whimbrel (T.ur-.enius phaeopus)
Greater Yellowlegs (Totar.us melanoZeucus)
Tree Swallow  (Iridoprocne  bicolor)
Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sa>~.d^ichensi.-s)
Snow Bunting  (Pleotropher.ax nivalis)

                TABLE VI-5
Screech Owl ( Otus asio)
Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus)
Duck HawkfFaZeo aolumbarius)
Pigeon Hawk (Botaurus  lentiginosus)
Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris)
Woodcock (Philohela minor)
Common Snipe (C
          The rest of the species within the  marshes    our study area can

be subdivided by their relationship to the water.  Thus there are estuarine

species limited to the low-water level such as the hydrozoan ($ ouganvillia) ,

and razor clam (Tagelus plebeius); and estuarine species which live in the

stream side marsh such as the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) .   Estuarine

species also occur well into the marsh including the annelid worm (Neanthes

suooinea) .  Aquatic species with planktonic larvae like the ribbed mussel

(Modiolus demissus) and aquatic species living their lives entirely within

our study areas as the isopod (Cyathur otxpinata) must also be classified as

true marsh species.

          Of considerable importance in the marsh in terms of numbers are

microscopic animals such as protozoans, the trochophore larval forms of

invertebrates, and the round worms found among the zooplankton.   However,

because of observation and classification difficulties in providing a dis-

cussion of those particular species found in the two study areas in the

Cape Cod marshes and the complexity of their population dynamics    , these

microscopic animals   have been largely omitted in the current discussion of

the animal inhabitants of these marsh areas.  They will only be discussed in

relation to ecological interactions, important toxicological considerations,

specialized roles in the food chain and rapid turnover.

          Sanders     has indicated that the major elements of the biomass

in the Bass Hole environs are the fifteen invertebrate species listed in

Table VI-1, but there  are hundreds of other species of invertebrates which

inhabit the salt-water marshes of Cape Cod.  Table VI-2 presents a sampling

                         C19 20 21]
of these lower life forms1   '   '   ; note that other names may be used for

some species.  For example, the reader must make the association between the

quahog, Venus mercenariat Meroenaria mercenoria, round clam, hard-shell  ^lam,

little neck clam, cherrystone clam and all other names invented for  the  same  organ


The only animals that can be  called true residents are the muskrat

 (Ondatra zibethioa"), meadow  vole  (Microtus pennsylvaniaus), white-

footed mouse (Peromysous leucopus) and the racoon (Procyon lotor) .

          5. Food Chains

          Within the salt marsh itself, the feeding patterns are not entirely

cyclic.  Many of the predators are migratory and both birds and fish remove

energy from the salt water marsh and contribute it to ecosystems in other

locations.  The loss of energy is more than made up for by the solar energy

absorbed by the plants and the nutrients entrapped as a result of the tidal

movement s.

          As in most ecosystems the plants form the basis of the food chains

but the salt-water marsh is distinctive in the extent to which a large

portion of the food  chain is  dependent upon the initial consumption of detritus.

Only the insects, the blue crabs and the occasional mammals feed directly

on the Spartina grass and this at a low level.  It has been calculated that

in a Georgia salt marsh less  than 5% of the energy in the Spartina is consumbed

by insects.  The majority of  the energy in this grass serves as an energy

source in the form of detritus which, coupled with algae, is food for the

bacteria, crabs, worms, and other filter feeders.  The crabs and nematodes
 consume over 10% of the  energy available to them1     Phytoplankton release

 organic materials  into the marsh and also serve directly as foodstuffs.

          The marsh crab consumes  the cord grass directly and its fecal

 pellets contain nutrients which other animals can make use of.  The fiddler

 crab feeds on detritus and on algae in the mud.  Although not a filter

 feeder, this crab  carries mud to his mouth where fine bristles screen out

 the nutrient material and leave the reduced mineral content behind.  The

 fecal pellets of the fiddler crab  also provide a more concentrated foodstuff

which can then be consumed by worms and molluscs.  However, 90% of the solar

energy trapped by the Spartina and algae is removed from the land and enters

the marsh water system:

          While it would be excessive to describe in detail those specific

species which live on the microscopic aqueous flora and fauna of the marsh    ,

it is important to realize the diversity of organisms which depend upon this

mixture of diatoms and algae.  In addition to the mussels already mentioned,

the majority of molluscs are also filter feeders.  Thus, spire shells and

Tellina agilis feed on diatoms and Aligena elevata on algae.  The dinemertineans,

Amphiporus and Cerebratulus lacteus feed on similar microscopic food sources

with the latter supplementing its diet with the aforementioned spire shell as

well as Odostonria^ annelids and the larvae of mussles.  Other ribbon worms also

consume polychaete annelids as evidenced by the setae found in their stomach


          Most of the annelids consume diatoms with additional consumption of

nematodes by 5pic? setosa, other polychaete worms by blood worms, detritus by

members of the  5ootopos genus, Eteone andAmphitrite ozmata, gem shell larvae

by the clam worm, and crustaceans by the plumed worm.  The spire shell is

also consumed by the common synapta (pynapta inhaereus) which is an echinoderm.

Diatoms, algae and detritus are consumed by such arthropods as C.areinoganrnarus

micfonotus3 Eupagarus longiearpus> and the crabs previously mentioned.  This

diet is supplied by polycheate worms in Edotea montosa  and with gem shells,

nematodes and other Crustacea in the common shrimp.  The crustaceans as well

as the other invertebrates are consumed mainly by fish.  Fish also eat insects

in the marsh.  The sheepshead minnow, for instance, feeds on mosquito larvae.

The herring consumes many invertebrates, but at early stages in its life may

be consumed by jellyfish and predatory worms.   •*

          Fish of the small size of the minnow, mummichog and silverside

furnish food for the predatory species.  While some predators, like the

alewife which travels through the Herring River marsh, do forage in the

marsh channels, many of them only enter the lower reaches of the marsh with

the incoming tide.  However, since the flow of energy is toward the sea,

the marsh provides an especially rich source of organic foodstuffs, important

to the growth of such carnivorous fish.

          Amoung the birds commonly found in the Cape Cod marshes, the herring

gull and great black-backed gull are primarily carnivorous in their feeding

habits.  The great blue heron feeds on fish as does the greater yellow legs

and the greater scaup.  The latter also consumes crabs.  Black duck feed

on intertidal animals as well as plants and seeds.  The whimbrel feeds on

fiddler crabs.  Also feeding on Crustacea and other mudflat animals are the

semipalmated plover, piping plover, black-bellied plover, golden eye, and

crow.  A number of birds feed on seeds and insects in the marsh; the raptorial

birds on rodents.


          To determine the impact of the vectoricide pollution on the water

environment we researched the literature for data relevant to the toxicity

pesticides.  Using data obtained with different animal species, it is then

possible to postulate the effects which would be obtained on the distinct

species found in our Cape Cod study areas.  Acute effects are those which

are experienced immediately (within 96 hours of exposure), while chronic

effects are those seen upon extended exposure to a particular toxic compound.

Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity are measures of quite

specific toxic behavior which are not of great importance in relation to

wildlife (but are of extreme concern insofar as man is concerned).   Finally,

sublethal concentrations of pesticides can produce biochemical and physio-

logical effects which may be of importance.

          1.  Acute and Chronic Toxicity

          Tables VI-6 to VI-10 present the pertinent data which indicate

the lethal potential of the compounds Abate, DDT,  Malathion, and Flit MLO.

Additional data is also presented in Table VI-7 on the toxicity of  decompo-

siton products of DDT which have been found to be  important in the  environment

because of their persistence.  We have not included data which we do not

believe to be relevant to our study area; e.g., the findings which  have

been obtained with the coturnix quail have been left out of these tables since

this species does not inhabit our study area, and  data relating to  rainbow

trout and other fresh water fish has been eliminated in those cases where a

knowledge of the toxicity to saltwater species was available.  Data relating

to the toxicity of compounds to man has been left  out since it must be obtained

randomly and not from controlled experiments, and  does not give a true indica-

tion of the toxicity of compounds.  Information on the effects in man of

various compounds mentioned (except Flit MLO can be obtained from our previous

publication on "Organic Chemical Pollution of Freshwater."

          2.  Carcinogenicity, Teratogenicity and  Mutagenicity

          Extensive work has been done on the carcinogenicity of DDT.

Positive results have been found in the trout^  •*  and rat:     The production

of tumors in mice was attained with lower concentrations of DDT than in any

other species.  Five generations of mice were fed  DDT at 3 ppm of the diet

for 6 months.  One-third of these animals developed tumors.     DDT has also
been found to produce C-mitosis (chromosome breaks) when administered as a

saturated solution to plants.     Such mitotic chromosome breaks can be an

indication of the mutagenicity of a compound.  However, when fed to mice at

                                 TABLE VI-6



Mosquito Larvae
Juvenile Shrimp
Juvenile Killifish
Mallard duck

0.4-11 ppb
0.020 ppm
1.0-1.5 ppm
1 ppm
>2000 mg/kg
1200 ppm
4000 mg/kg
10 mg/kg/day

  LC 50
  EC 50
  LC 50
No effect
  LD 50
  LD 50
  LD 50
Minor liver
damage and
         Effects are statistically calculated values for observations
         to be expected with an infinite population.

              EC 50 = Concentration at which 50% of animals
                      should show an effert
              LC 50 = Concentration lethal to 50% of animals
              TLm   = Approximate equivalent of LC ^Q
              LD 50 = Dose lethal to 50% of animals

                                  TABLE VI-7


Juvenile Shrimp
Adult Shrimp
Hermit Crab
Juvenile Killifish
Sheepshead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Mallard Duck
White Rat
12 ppb
2-4 ppb
0.6 ppb
5.5 ppb
7 ppb
3 ppb
6 ppb
16 ppb
10 ppb
32 ppb
19 ppb
43 ppb
9 ppb
>2000 mg/kg
>2240 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
580 mg/kg
113 mg/kg
52 ppb DDE
2-6 ppb DDD
1060 mg/kg DDE
3400 mg/kg DDD
LC 50
LC 50
EC 50
EC 50
LC 50
LC 50
LC 50
LD 50
LD 50
LD 50
LD 50
LD 50
LC 50
LC 50
LD 50
LD 50

                                TABLE VI-8
                          CHRONIC TOXICITY OF DDT





Neonate Rat
Mallard Duck
                               40 mg/kg
0.4-0.7 mg/kg
for 5 generations

1 mg
500 ppm
0.05 mg/kg daily
for 6 months
10 ppm DDE

Increased estradiol
metabolism by liver

Significantly advanced

Stimularion of hepatic
microsomal enzyme

Histological changes in
liver, kidneys, myocardium,
suprarenals and brain

Decrease in reproduction

                                TABLE V.I-9
                        ACUTE TOXICITY OF MALATHION

    30            Mosquito                90 ppm               LC  50
    32            Amphipod                2-4 ppb               LC  50
    32            Hermit Crab             0.1 ppm               LC  50
    38            Minnow                  8.7 ppm               TL  50
    37            Sheepshead Minnow       0.3 ppm               LC  50
    50            Fathead Minnow          9  ppm                TLm
    51            Guppy                   0.84 ppm              TLm
    38            Carp                    6.6 ppm               TL  50
    39            Catfish                 9  ppm                TL  50
    38            Perch                   0.3 ppm               TL  50
    33            Mallard Duck            1485 mg/kg            LD  50
    51            White Rat               1375 mg/kg            LD  50

                                TABLE VI-10
                          ACUTE TOXICITY OF FLIT MLO


Mosquito Larvae
Mosquito Larvae
Grass Shrimp
Fiddler Crab
Longnose Killifish
Domestic Duck

 0.5 gal/acre
 1 gal/acre
 8 gal/acre
 8 gal/acre
 8 gal/acre
 >40 gal/acre
 30 gal/acre
 10,000 ppm
 >10 g/kg

LD 50
LD 90
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
LD 50

105 mg/kg, DDT was not mutagenic.     DDT was also negative insofar as
teratogenicity (the ability to produce congenital malformations when administered
to t'ue pregnant animal) in both the mouse     and the chick.       Tests for
the toxic activity of DDT metabolites have also been made.  ODD has been found
to be negative for carcinogenicity when tested in the  mouse:      It  is  also
negative in the mouse for teratogenicity.
          The organo-phosphate insecticides have also been tested for their
teratogenicity.  In the ewe, Abate has been found to be negative for such

effects.     However,  malathion was injected into  chick eggs  at  75  ppm per  day;
congenital malformations were observed indicating a teratogenic potential.
No evidence for carcinogenetic potential has been found.   Malathion fed to  rats
at 5000 ppm in their diet for two years gave a negative result insofar as the
induction of tumors is concerned.
          3.  Sublethal  Effects
          Sublethal effects are defined here as any adverse response,  except
death, due to insecticide application and/or accumulation in the biota.  The
majority of the literature concerning sublethal effects for the four insect-
icides under consideration deals with the DDT family of compounds,  mainly
because they are persistent in nature and can therefore be traced.   The most
notorious sublethal effect proposed for DDT is the current theory explaining
the decrease in the populations of raptorial birds.  These birds  of prey are
at the top of numerous food chains.  Insecticide residues, especially
chlorinated hydrocarbons, accumulate in these birds.  The DDT residues may  be
 stored in fatty tissues for long periods without conspicuous effects.  In
 birds,, fat reserves are then utilized during migration and reproduction!  ^
 Apparently,  the presence of DDT stimulates the liver to  form metabolizing
 enzymes which can act upon a variety of substances including the sex hormones
 which regulate the reproductive cycle:  '  '

          The decreased populations of these birds may be due to many factors:

          1)  delayed breeding  or failure to lay eggs;

          2)  thinning of egg shells leading to much breakage;

          3)  eating of broken eggs by parents;

          4)  failure to produce more eggs after earlier clutches were lost;

          5)  high mortality of embryos and fledglings

          A direct correlation has been proposed between the thinning of

raptorial bird egg shells and the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.

Calcium is deposited around an egg in the last 20 hours before laying.  In birds,

calcium metabolism is intimately related to reproductive metabolism      and  is

controlled by estrogen and parathyroid hormone.  Ratcliffe     studied the

incidence of broken eggs in  the nests of sparrowhawks in England and suggested

a cause and effect linkage between increased egg breakage, decreased egg weight,

and exposure to persistent organic pesticides in the environment for the species

examined.  The reason that this type of sublethal toxicity is especially

insidious is that concentrations of pesticide residues found -in vivo are often

quite low compared with a toxic dose.

          Species of birds which have not yet shown a population decrease may

yet be in danger.  Prairie falcon populations in North Aaerica have not

decreased as have the peregrine falcons, but investigators predict that these

birds will exhibit reduced reproduction due to eggshell thinning and related

reasons.  An inverse relationship has been established between eggshell thickness

and levels of DDE in their eggs.      Wurster and Wingate     have pointed out

that the susceptibility to chlorinated hydrocarbons varies considerably with

different species of raptorial birds.  These authors believe that aggressive

behavior, increased nervousness, chipped eggshells, increased egg breakage,

and egg eating by parent birds suggest symptoms of hormonal  disturbance or a

calcium deficiency or both.


          DDT also exhibits other sublethal effects.  It interferes with

normal calcification of the arthropod nerve axon, causing hyperactivity

of the nerve and producing symptoms similar to those resulting from calcium

deficiency:  ^  The DDT metabolites, DDD and DDE, have been found to affect

the steroid metabolism of rats.      It has also been found that DDT disrupts

                                                                 f 781
osmoregulatory events in the intestine of sea water-adapted eels.      The

eel avoids desiccation by consuming sea water and excreting ions through the

gills.  Adenosine triphosphatase enzymes are involved in the transport of

sodium ions and apparently DDT impairs water absorption by inhibiting these


          The biochemical poisoning by sublethal amounts of DDT in other

                                        f 791
fish has also been investigated.  Mayhew1  J described the symptoms of DDT

poisoning in trout as marked irritability and sensitivity to vibrations, followed

by a loss of equilibrium with muscular spasms and convulsion.  The loss of

coordination and other erratic behavior would seriously interfere with the

ability of fish to get food.  Goldfish exposed to a 1 ppm solution of DDT

exhibited complete loss of balance.      EEC activity of exposed cerebellum

tissue was then recorded.  There was an increase in the amplitude and decrease

in the frequency of the spontaneous electrical activity of the cerebellum.

Finally,  in experiments on the effect of DDT on the propellertail reflex,

trout learned to exhibit this reflex with electric shock as an unconditioned

stimulus and light as a conditioned stimulus.  After a 24 hour exposure to

20 ppb DDT, 50% of the fish could not be conditioned at all, and the rest required

significantly more trials than did the untreated control fish.

          It would appear that the principal site of action of DDT in the

vertebrate organism  is the central nervous system.      The organophosphate

insecticides like malathion and Abate can also effect motor responses since

they act  at the site of the nerve muscle junction.  By inhibition of the

enzyme  acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system these compounds depress

or inhibit the transmission of nerve impulses.  Abate produces a 70% inhibition

of blood acetylcholinesterase when administered in the diet of rats at

200 ppm.      Malathion has been reported to produce a 65% inhibition of the
enzyme within 24 hours of placing a goldfish in 0.1 mg/1 of the organophosphate

                            :, in!

insecticide.      In the rat, inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity in
the brain has been observed.

          In non-vertebrates other effects are observed.  Abate at  10  ppb

in sea water causes a loss of equilibrium in juvenile shrimp.      A concen-

tration of 170 ppb causes a 50% decrease in oyster shell growth.  The minimum

                                                                      f 851
threshold level affecting oyster shell growth was found to be 100 ppb.   J

The protozoan ciliate, Tetrdhymena pyriformis, is reduced in population by

somewhat higher concentrations of DDT in its culture.      Finally, sublethal

effects can also be observed in plants.  Concentrations of between 1 and 100 ppb

of DDT reduced the photosynthetic activity of cultures of diatoms, green

                          f 861
algae and dinoflagellates.

          4.  Extrapolation of Laboratory Results

          The most important consideration in utilizing laboratory  toxicity

data for the estimation of the potential impact of these materials in the

particular marsh environment or the environment at large, is that of making

use of a limited number of toxicity determinations to an infinitely variable

biological system.  Thus, in the literature very little is available

concerning the effect of insecticides or their toxicity to plants.  One assumes

that the low level of organic material in pesticides would not compromise

the macroflora of an environment.  However, in the estaurine environment present

in the salt water marshes under study, the algal population is of great importance

in both initially trapping energy by photosynthesis and in providing a

major foodstuff for both filter and deposit feeders.   Thus the phototoxic

effects of a pesticide might be of great significance in evaluating its impact.

          It was necessary in the preceding section to provide listings of

the effects observed in many different species with each agent because the

toxicological sciences have not arrived at a point where predictions can be made

based upon examining a few model species.  One extrapolates the toxic effect of

a material from its effect on related organisms.   Differential toxicity is common,

For instance, it is well known that malathion is  converted to the more toxic

malaoxon more rapidly in insects than in mammals.   This provides a safety factor

in the use of malathion in normal agricultural insect extermination.  In the

salt marsh ecosystem, however, one must be especially concerned with a compound which

has demonstrated a profound toxicity for invertebrate species.

          Another difficulty in making extrapolations to an ecosystem is our

general lack of knowledge of the multiple interactions involved.  The salt marsh

estuarine environment has been studied in significant detail insofar as

multiple food chains and environmental niches which exist.  These have already

been discussed.  However, one must always be concerned with the possibility

that quite specific food chains or sensitive species which may be of importance

can be missed in such an overview concerned mainly with the predominant species

and the movement of the majority of chemical energy from sunlight to higher

organisms and secondary consumers.

          When toxicity testing is performed in the laboratory, pure compounds

are utilized, and the absence of interfering substances assured.  However,

within the aquatic marsh ecosystem such is not the case.  The water is a soup

of diverse biochemicals and chemical interactions can be expected.  Even if

one were to catalogue the various materials present in the marsh it would not

allow one to draw firm conclusions as to synergistic or interactive effects.

The Importance of molecular interactions both in  the environment and

in vivo have only just begun to be investigated.    ^

          The adequacy of the  laboratory research must also be open to

question.  Many insecticidal materials have been  measured for their toxic

effect against fish at concentrations in which they are insoluble.  Also,

experiments have been performed in which it has later been found that most of

the material has adsorbed to the  containder in which the experiment was

conducted.  Analytical accuracy in relating concentrations of material to

toxic effects observed may also be open to question.  For instance, it

is impossible in a study such  as  this to be sure  that all data collected

implicating DDT has in fact been  obtained with this compound and not with

polychlorinated biphenyls.

          In nature, many compounds  of low solubility will adsorb to the

surface of detritus, mud and living  plants.       As such, these adsorbed

materials represent a new chemical species which  was not investigated in the

laboratory.  Thus, how can one extrapolate to determine at what concentration

an aquatic organism would be poisoned by a material present in solution as

opposed to that same material  present in an absorbed state?  Would the toxicity

be higher or lower in the latter  case?  Also, at  what rate would the compound

disassociate from the adsorbed state?  In most cases such questions have not

been answered but are of crucial  concern where filter feeders and deposit feeders

are concerned as in the estuarine environments which we are studying here.


          Pesticides are applied  to  the marshes of  Cape Cod by direct and

localized hand spraying of bodies of stagnant water found to contain larvae.

These bodies of water may be either  pannes, upper channels' (little influenced

by the tidal motion of water), or low areas at the very border of the marsh

which receive water during the monthly spring tide  and in which such water

remains unaffected by subsequent tidal movement.  Concern with the movement

of pesticides from the surface of grasses to primary consumers can be

eliminated.  Rather, our interest insofar as the initial distribution of the

pesticide in relation to the biota of the marsh can be directed wholely towards

the aquatic environment.

          Solubility alters the immediate distribution of a particular pesticide.

Compounds with water solubility such as Abate will disperse throughout the

aquatic pool or channel.  However, DDT can be expected to adsorb onto the surface

of algae, detritus, and mud.  Suspending agents have an effect on distribution.

          The rate of disappearance of compound, whether by hydrolysis,

reversible adsorption, vaporization, or other degradation is of great importance

in determining toxicity.  The half-life of the toxic structure in the environment

is quite as important as its toxicity, since most toxic materials can be shown to have

their effect in proportion to exposure, usually expressed as concentration times

time (Cxt).  A compound with a short half-life like malathion will exert its effect

acutely, whereas a compound such as DDT with an exceptionally long half-life can

be found to have subtle chronic effects.  Relatively few controlled studies of

pesticide duration have been performed in salt marshes.

          Malathion, applied to soil at 3 parts per million, was found in a

concentration in the soil of a tenth part per million after 8 days.      However,

silt loam soil was involved in the study and would be expected to provide a less

destructive environment to malathion than an aqueous environment with its

assoicated organic muds and microorganisms.  DDT, by contrast, applied to a

highly organic forest soil at the rate of 1 Ib. per acre has been estimated

by Diamond et at,  to persist for 30 years.      More directly relevant to our study

area are the residues of DDT found in a Long Island marsh where the DDT in the

water was estimated at 0.05 ppb.      In a Florida salt marsh treated with 0.2

Ibs per acre of DDT, the water was found to contain from 0.3 to 0.4 ppm and the  sedi-
ment as high as 3.5 ppm.1  J

     Although some persistence is found among the organophosphate insecticides,

it should be noted that these compounds are rapidly hydrolyzed in water and

persist only when adsorbed to insolubles.  It would be expected that Abate and

malathion would have broken down to relatively non-toxic compounds prior to

their reaching the mouth of the marsh either as dissolved organic materials

or incorporated into the substance of food organisms.  Actual physical transport

of toxic compounds in the marsh is probably related more to the movement of

persistent compounds through the food chain than the flow characteristics of

the marsh water system.

          Much of the data on the movement of specific pesticides in food

chains will be covered in the next section in which the observed environmental

effects of pesticides have been reported.  However, to introduce this subject,

an understanding of the ability of organisms to significantly concentrate

pesticides is of utmost importance.  A summary of this data is found in the

government publication from the Office of Science and Technology, entitled,

"Ecological Effect of Pesticides on Non-Target Species."1     While this

publication does not indicate concentrations of Flit MLO, Abate or malathion,

it provides innumerable examples of the biological concentration of DDT.

For instance, the eastern oyster concentrated DDT 70,000 times after being

exposed to 0.1 ppb for 40 days; the croaker, a salt-water fish, concentrated

1 ppb DDT 20,000 times in a Long Island salt marsh, plankton concentrated the

DDT over the water concentration 800 times; and fish in a Florida  tidal marsh

concentrated DDT up to 200 fold.  In Lake Michigan  alewife  were  found  to have

10 times the DDT of amphipods, and the amphipods had 30 times the level found

                f 321
in the Lake mud.   J  Microscopic organisms also accumulate pesticides.  After

7 days at 1 ppm DDT algae concentrated the compound 200-fold and, Daphnia con-

centrated DDT 100,000 fold.  Those fish which ate the Daphnia concentrated the

pesticide even further.   J  Investigators at Gulf Breeze, Florida observed that

DDT accumulation in the cells of Papameaium multimioTonuoleatum was 264

times greater and in P.  busaria was 964 times greater than in the medium on

which they were cultured.   ^  The occurrence of bio-concentration is what

most often leads to the deleterious environmental effects observed when persis-

tent pesticides such as DDT are used.

          When an effective pesticide  is used to eliminate bothersome organisms,

the most obvious result is a decrease  in the pest population.  The success

against mosquitoes of the four compounds under consideration (DDT, malathion,

Abate, and Flit MLO)has been implied in our discussion of toxicity and is well

documented?92'93'9'95'9-'  However, there may also be other effects manifested

immediately or at a later time.  Insecticide usage may decrease the insect

problem, but other organisms can be killed instead of or in addition to the

target insects.

          In order to curb the tick population on Bull's Island, South

Carolina, DDT was sprayed manually and aerially on test plots.       The

island is separated from the mainland  by salt marsh and tidal creeks.  The

majority of the test plots were in forest regions, although part of one was

on the salt marsh.  Ond day after the  marsh plot was sprayed with 2 Ibs. of

DDT/acre, 81% of the formerly abundant fiddler crab population was found dead

and more were presumably dying buried  in sediment.  Two species of arboreal

frogs had been abundant in the forest  area, but they started falling from the

trees within two hours after treatment.  By the second and third days after

spraying, a considerable number of these frogs were found dead or undergoing

"DDT paralysis."  The spraying was very effective in eliminating several

species of mosquitoes and in decreasing the number of spiders, wood roaches,

beetles, crickets, grasshoppers, ants, and harvestmen.

          In an unpublished  study, Abate was  applied  to  test plots  of a  Cape

Cod salt marsh with varying  results.   ^  When applied at a dose of 0.4

Ib/acre, excellent control of Culiooides melleus mosquito larvae was obtained,

although fiddler crabs were  killed.  When applied at  a dose of 0.3  Ib./acre,

Abate was ineffective against the  Culiooides  melleus  larvae, but fiddler

crabs were killed again.

          Crustaceans are quite  susceptible to the three pesticides under

consideration, and fiddler crabs,  copepods and shrimp have been found to be

adversely affected by them.  When  DDT  was sprayed on  salt marsh plots in

New Jersey, a 75% kill of the copepod  population was  recorded on the first

day, and by the second day the copepod population was seemingly eradicated.

On the llth day after treatment, there was a  45% recovery; by the 12th day,

the recovery was 80%; and on the 18th  day the copepod population exceeded that

of the control plot.  As long as the insecticide is not continuously applied,

the copepod population is able to  reinstate itself.  The investigators who sprayed

DDT on a tidal salt marsh ditch  in Florida concluded  that the reproduction of

all resident species of fish continued and restored pretreatment population

                   f 981
levels in 4 months.      In  this same  experiment, however, a population of

shrimp (Palaemonetes sp.) was drastically reduced, and the original population

was not resotred in 4 months.

          1.   Biological Concentration of Pesticides

          The environmental  effects of pesticides are not always evident

immediately after spraying.  Deleterious effects are often not discernible

for a long period after initial contact with  a toxic material.  It is commonly

believed that biological magnification of pesticides and their residues occurs

in food webs.  A food web is composed  of the  interlocking food chains of an

ecosystem,  such as in a salt water marsh.  In such cases, those organisms which

do manage to survive exposure to pesticides and their residues are instrumental

transmitting  lethal and sublethal amounts of such materials to consumers,

both herbivores and carnivores.  A number of examples of biological concentration

of pesticide residues in food webs pertinent to this discussion have been found.

          The situation at Clear Lake, California provides a good example.

Clear Lake fs a very popular tourist area which had a serious problem with gnats.

The problem was recognized as early as 1916, and by September, 1949, it was

finally decided that the lake should be sprayed with DDD.   The formulation used

resulted in an application of 1 part DDD in 70 million parts of water.  The

gnat larvae kill was reported to be 99%, but in 5 years, the gnat population

had re-established itself sufficiently to warrant another  spraying.   Therefore,

an application of 1 part DDD in 50 million parts of water  was applied to Clear

Lake in 1954, and again, the larval kill was 99%.  This time, the gnat population

re-established itself in 3 years.  Another application of  insecticide was made

in 1958 using the same concentration of DDD.  However, the percent kill of gnats

was observed to be less than the percentages obtained from previous  applications.

          A few grebes were found dead soon after each application of DDD but

3 months after the 1957 application, approximately 75 grebes were reported

dead on the lake s shores.  Analysis of fatty tissue samples showed the con-

centration of DDD to be 1,600 ppm.  Contaminated food was  suspected to be the cause

of death so local fish were collected and samples of their fatty tissue were

analyzed.  The amount of DDD found in the fat ranged from  40 ppm in carp to 2,5000

ppm in brown bullhead.  Because there were no large-scale  fish die-offs and since

residue concentrations were higher in some species of fish(catfish and large-

mouth bass) than they were in the grebes, it was concluded that grebes exhibit a

weaker tolerance for DDD than certain species of fish.  A grebe diet consists

mostly of fish plus a few insects.  Although these birds are subject to periodic

die-offs, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the grebe losses were

caused by chronic poisoning from DDD.  It is believed that the DDD was

accumulated in the food web shown below, although its presence in planktonic

species of algae was not established.

                                     ^^^ detritus    . ) insects _^_^

          DDD on water 	^  algae •^^") herbivorous fish  	>  grebes

                                     ^*~"5* filter feeders  	^ carnivorous fish

          It has been shown by other researchers that marine phytoplankton

do contain DDT residues and that the uptake of these residues is rapidly and

essentially irreversible.     -1  Very i0w concentrations (a few parts per billion)

of DDT in water reduced photosynthesis in laboratory cultures of four species of

coastal and oceanic phytoplankton representing four major classes of algae and in

                                   r g£ "1

a natural phytoplankton community.      Thus the presence of insecticide residues

in the first link of the food chain is possible.

          A salt marsh ditch  on Santa Rosa Island, Florida, was sprayed with DDT

for experimental purposes.      Eight of the 12 fish species present in the marsh

ditch were placed in enclosed  holding, sites.  The mortality of the confined fish

was 37.7% at one site and  91.3% at another site close to the mouth of the ditch.

Vegetation concentrated DDT residues to a maximum of 75 ppm 3 to 4 weeks after

treatment.  Fish and vegetation accumulated up to 1,500 times the maximum amount

of DDT residues detectable in the water, while for snails and fiddler crabs the

accumulation values were 144  and 99, respectively.

          Evidence indicating the biological concentration of DDT residues was

also obtained from an extensive salt marsh on Long Island.      The marsh was

not treated with pesticides but had most likely accumulated residues from the

river which empties into it.  The  concentration of residues in organisms increased

with succeeding trophic levels; larger organisms and higher carnivores having

greater concentrations.  The  concentrations of DDT residues in raptorial birds were

10 to 100 times those in the  fish on which they feed.

          Investigators at the University of Illinois designed a simulated

ecosystem with a terrestrial-aquatic interface and a seven-element food chain

which simulates the application of pesticides to crop plants and the eventual

contamination of the aquatic environment.       They applied radiolabeled DDT

and terminated the experiments after 33 days at which time samples were examined

for DDT, DDE, ODD and polar compounds.  The food chain pathways in the

simulated ecosystem were:

                                                        v. Algae 	^  Snails
          Sorghum 	^   Salt marsh caterpillers —> Diatoms 	^ Plankton

          Plankton	-^  Mosquitoes 	^ Mosquito Fish

It was demonstrated that mosquito fish concentrated and stored DDT in their

tissues at a level which was approximately 11,500 fold over the level of radio-

labeled DDT in the aqueous phase of the ecosystem.

          Investigators at the Cranberry Experiment Station of Cape Cod,

Massachusetts, devised a model cranberry bog, treated it with radiolabeled

parathion (an organophosphate), simulated a frost protection flood 24 hours

after treatment with the pesticide, and exposed fish and mussels to the run-off

water.       The concentration of parathion in the flood water was 0.12 ppm and in

the aquarium water it was diluted to 0.07 ppm.  Only 20% of the fish  (Fundulus

 heteroelitus) survived the 24 hour exposure in the aquarium.  The dead fish

concentrated the parathion to a level of 1.7 ppm, an amount 80 times  greater than

that in the water at the same period.  After 48 hours the level rose  to 2.11 ppm,

but by 96 and 144 hours it dropped to 0.21 ppm.  The mussels also accumulated a

substantial amount of parathion, 0.99 ppm.

          Measuring the levels of pesticide residues in dead organisms  is useful

for determining the rate of residue accumulation  in the food web, but  one may

not assume that the organisms' deaths were a direct result of high residue  levels,

since such an assumption is invalidated by the fact that analyses of  live fish


have often indicated higher residue levels than those of dead fish from the same

ecological conditions.  The duration of exposure, the treatment dose, the extent

of food contamination, the persistence of the insecticide and its breakdown

products, and possible synergism, must all be considered.

     2.   Effects in Cape Cod Marshes

          When it first became apparent that the concentrations of DDT and

organophosphates in our study areas were very low, we noted in passing that these

concentrations appeared too low to cause toxicity.  In the case of our specific

study areas, it has been a year and a half since either an organochlorine or organo-

phosphate insecticide has been applied for the purpose of controlling mosquitoes.

Flit MLO has been used for spraying this year and only 21 gallons of 2% malathion

solution were applied in all of 1970 (and that probably in the spring only).

Thus, if we are to gain information about the possible effects which might have

occured in the past as a result of the vectoricide program on Cape Cod, it is

necessary to determine the concentration of vectoricides  which would have been

found in the marshes immediately following the appplication of malathion and

Abate in the past, and of Flit tfLO  currently.

          The data provided to -us by the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Program

reveals that the greatest quantity of malathion applied to the Bass Hole Marsh

was 83 gallons of the oil solution.  In 1969, the peak use of Abate was experienced

in our two study areas; 60 1/2 gallons of Abate solution were applied to the

Bass Hole Marsh area and 38 1/2 gallons to the Herring River Marsh.  The peak

reported use of Flit MLO was in 1970 when 18 3/4 gallons were applied to the

Bass Hole Marsh  and 8 gallons to the Herring River Marsh.

          The final concentration of malathion in the oil solution used was 0.17

Ibs. per gallon and the concentration of Abate solution  as applied was 0.003  Ibs.

per gallon.   Thus, the maximum amount of organophosphate insecticide applied to

either of the marshes in a single year was 14 Ibs. of malathion in 1968 and 0.2

Ibs. of Abate in 1969-  However, these applications were made at several times and to

several areas within the marshes.


          The highest application rates of  record  for  a  particular vectoricide

to a specific treatment site our study reveals  the application of  10  gallons

of oil solution equivalent to 1.7 pounts of pure malathion,  15 gallons  of Abate

(0.045 pounds) and 4 gallons of Flit MLO.   By making use of  the United  States

Geological Survey maps of the Dennis Quadrangle and Harwich  Quadrangle  and a

compensating polar planimeter we determined the approximate  acreage of  these areas

and calculated maximum application rates of 0.02 Ib./acre malathion,  0.0006 Ib/acre

Abate and 0.04 gallon/acre Flit MLO.

          While malathion has not been found to be toxic at  the level applied

the application of 0.02 Ibs. per acre does  approach the  level  of 0.1  Ibs. per

acre of the more toxic and active Dursban, which has been found to  have  killed

                                            f 951
fiddler crabs at  this latter concentration.      The  same studies did  indicate

however, that at the rate of 0.05 Ibs. of Dursban  per  acre,  no mortality to

fiddler crabs or other organisms in intertidal  sand plots was  observed.   Dursban

has been found to be five times as toxic as malathion  to invertebrates.

          It should be realized, however,  that  the hand  applications  of malathion

at the maximal 0.02 Ibs. per acre are to very  limited  areas  of the marsh  and

even if some mortality were by some chance  to  occur in one particular area,

immediate repopulation from adjacent areas  would be expected.   Also,  the highest

concentrations of pesticide were used earJ-7 in  the  spring, prior to the  appearance

of the sensitive larval stage of most important fish species except the flounder.

          During the years when malathion was  used in  the greatest quantity in our

study areas (1968 in the Bass Hole Marsh, and  1967 in  the Herring  River Marsh),

the rate of application for the entire year was 0.013  Ibs.  per acre for  the Bass

Hole Marsh and 0.005 Ibs. per acre for the  Herring River Marsh.  The maximum

application of Abate over an entire season  (1969)  was  0.0002 Ibs.  per acre for

the entire season in both the Herring River Marsh  and  Bass  Hole Marsh areas.

At 0.25 Ibs. per acre, Abate is reported to cause  no noticeable mortality  of

ostracods and copepods.


          At these levels of application, it becomes impossible for us to be

able to predict any significant toxic results within the marsh ecosystem.

There indeed may be species sensitive to either of the organophosphates

or to Flit MLO, but it must remain our conclusion that the local application

of toxic pesticides to the two marshes which we have studied does not produce

the risk of significant toxic effect to important species.  Also, the current

use of Flit MLO does not appear to have a lethal effect on any species in the

marsh and, since this material demonstrates little toxicity after dilution, it

is apparently of negligible concern to the generalized marsh ecocystem.

          Numerous reports have appeared which indicate poisoning in estuarine

environments,      but it becomes difficult to positively associate such

effects with vectoricide programs in the face of the numerous other potential

etiologic agents.  Often,lethal effects in the marsh can as easily be assoicated

with other sources of pollution, the effect of oxygen starvation, or an

epizootic.  However, some papers reveal concentrations of material (almost

always DDT) in animals within marsh ecosystems which approach concentrations known to

be toxic.      While this work is not to be denied, and while such data cannot

be obtained from our study areas, a few comments concerning the possibility of

significant toxic effects arising from a vectoricideprogram should be made.

          DDT has no effect on salt marsh microorganisms when applied at levels

as high as 1.75 Ibs. per acre      but the concentration of such a persistent

material through the food chain can result in a lethal dose for organisms at

higher trophic levels in the food chain.  However, in New England where DDT has

been removed from use as a vectoricide, and few other organochlorine materials

are used, the possibilities for build-up through the food chain have decreased

and, thus, outright lethality as a result of vectoricide programs have become

less critical.  The immediate toxic effects of other pesticides would have been

more easily observed in the course of their use.

           Effects of poisoning other than by outright lethality must also

 be considered.  Those animals which lose coordination as a result of the

 inhibition of acetylcholinesterase or,  in the days  of DDT, those animals

 whose eggs become less likely to survive, are indeed being poisoned by

 vectoricides while not being killed.  The problem with documenting this

 kind of poisoning is that the results ofttimes lag  significantly beyond the

 time of treatment.  Here too, though, the demise of persistent  materials has

 greatly overcome the problems associated with poisoning.  Those organophosphate

 materiaJs which produce a sublethal effect in organisms now are either metabolized

 in the organism and allow it to recover, or compromise the organism thus

 removing it from the population.  The removal of organisms can  have the effect

 of resulting in a food deficit for animals of higher trophic levels.

           Starvation does produce a delayed effect  although a close observation

 or population count of what are normally considered to be less  important

 organisms could predict the eventual starvation of  higher ones.  It is possible

 that in some of the vectoricide programs currently  in operation, decrease in

 the invertebrate population is, in turn, leading to malnutrition in higher life

 forms.  While this may seem an unusual result, such malnutrition has already

 been observed in fresh water systems where the aquatic insects  are most vulnerable

 to the use of pesticides.       In local fresh water marshes, for instance, a state

 of protein deficiency has been observed in young wood ducks, presumably as a result

 of a lack of the aquatic insect foodstuffs upon which they feed following hatching.

           One area which is increasing as a problem is that involving synergistic

 effects.       The ability of several materials to  produce a toxic situation

 greater than the sum of each individual materials'  cannot be effectively evaluated.

 In many estuarine environments a vaiiety of pollutants enter the environment and

 may have the opportunity to comprise already weakened organisms.  It is possible in

such situations to trace the multiple effects which  have led to  lethality,

          With agents other than traditional pesticides, (such as the Flit

MLO, which is currently being used in the Cape Cod marshes) other questions

will perhaps be raised in the future.  At the present time, however, little

in the way of detrimental effects on the biota of the salt marsh can be

attributed to the use of Flit MLO.  In fresh water, water boatmen bugs and

certain beetle larvae and adults have been killed because they cannot get to

the air above the larvicide oil.       In the salt water marshes, this would not

appear to be a problem as analogous species have not been identified.  Also, larger

organisms such as the tadpole which does have to reach air, are not in any way

interfered with by the mosquito larvicide oil.       This is not to say that

problems in the future may not develop insofar as toxicity but no evidence based

upon our study of either the literature or the Cape Cod salt water marshes

indicates any such problem.

          D.  Impact of Vectoricides on Man

          In discussing, finally, the impact  of the vectoricide program in our

Cape Cod study areas on man it is important to realize that the most dramatic

effect of this program has been a beneficial one.  There is no doubt that the

vectoricide program has, in fact, yielded a high measure of control of the

mosquito population of The Cape.  A major benefit of mosquito control in the

Cape Cod area, in addition to preventing the spread of disease, relates to

improving the enormous recreational value of the area.  At least part of

people's desire to utilize the Cape Cod region is founded on the peace and

uniqueness of the habitat as contrasted to the urban environment.  It may be

argued that in the absence of mosquitoes this is a false environment, but it

truly cannot be argued that effective mosquito control permits a much larger

number of people to observe and enjoy this environment more comfortably.

          When dealing with the adverse effect of mosquito contol programs

on man, however, esthetic considerations become difficult to resolve with the

general question of human safety.   Innumerable articles have appeared on this

subject in both the lay and scientific press all introducing measure of

philosophy in establishing the relative value of esthetic,

toxicological and quality-of-life  arguments.  The economists have delved

into elaborate systems for establishing the cost-effectiveness  of both the

use and control of pesticides and  the commercial value of the preservation

of distinct environments such as the salt water marsh.  Writers have balanced
the concept of elitism (in that it is the few who actually benefit  from the

utilization of wilderness areas)  versus progress.        Scientists  have
written logical arguments for sanity in the evaluation of  environmental problems.

While it is impossible to resolve the multi-faceted aspects of  these philosophical

discussions in general, certain points concerning esthetics can be raised in regard

to the salt water marsh environment as found on Cape Cod.

          The major fact arising from the previous section of this report is that

little or no toxic effects arise from the use of vectoricides for mosquito

control as currently practiced in our two study areas on Cape Cod.  Mosquitoes

are killed, and when toxic chemicals were used previously, it is probable that

death resulted to a small percentage of certain sensitive invertebrate species.

However, because of the short half-life of these particular insecticides,

malathion and Abate, the effect of the poisoning of such invertebrates was not

passed down the food chain (we are not concerning ourselves here with any

hazards which may exist for the applicators).

          It is a strange quirk of man that esthetics apparently relates to birds

a great deal more than it does to arthropods.  Man can make much greater arguments

for preventing diminished numbers of bald eagles and ospreys than he can for  the

decimation of lowly slime-entombed invertebrates.  If our calculations are correct

and the birds of the Cape Cod marshes are not affected by the mosquito control

program and few mammals and other land invertebrates will be affected  we can resolve

the esthetic argument down to a question of the extent to which periodic,

localized decreases in invertebrates will affect the "esthetics of the salt

marshes" as related to man.

          Before drawing a final conclusion, it is important to remember

that the basis for the mosquito control program currently being utilized in the

Cape Cod salt marshes is ditch digging.1  J  An aerial map of our study are

reveals extensive major drainage ditches present in these marshes (36.7 surface

miles in Chase Garden Creek section of the Bass Hole Marsh) which are kept in

continual repair, both by brush cutting in the summer and reditching in the

winter.      This method of controlling mosquitoes definitely does affect the

marsh ecosystem.       The specific changes in fauna which accompany this

increased drainage and their importance insofar as food chains have not been

determined.  However, in the Bass Hole Marsh the southern regions abutting

Whites Brook contain extensive pannes with their associated distinctive vegetation.

In terms of man, then, the negative effect of ditching would appear to be solely

one of esthetic value insofar as the ditches leave a marsh "unnatural."

However, ditching has been carried on throughout the northeast coast marshes

for such an extended period of time that probably few people can now relate to

an unditched marsh.

          If esthetics are discounted and toxicological hazards eliminated it

is then economic considerations which are left.  It was repeatedly indicated

at thestart of this section that the salt marsh is a major factor in the

feeding of large fishes and shellfish which are of economic value.  Proceeding

in phylogenetic order, one can evaluate stepwise the economic impact of the

mosquito control program in these marshes.  In some New England marshes, salt

hay and seaweed are a cash crop     , but have little economic value on the

Cape.  However, in addition, the marshes under study are not heavily involved


in the shellfish: harvest which is significant on Cape Cod.   No mussels are

harvested in either of our two study areas as in the nearby North River, and

the Herring River Marsh especially does not encourage the organized harvest

of soft shell clams.  The Bass Hole Marsh does feed into Barnstable Harbor

in which a reasonable amount of clara-digging is performed.   However, the number

of soft shell clams harvested at the mouth of the Bass Hole Marsh must be considered

to be below the 1300 bushels harvested from the North River in 1965      and thus

below a value of $15,000 per year.  This figure does not include the number

of shellfish removed from Barnstable Harbor by family diggers, licensed to use

the clam flats.

          There is  an organized culture clam venture located near the mouth of

the Bass Hole Marsh and water is drawn from the marsh to nurture the spawn and

young clams in these commercial pools.  There have been occasional

"clam kills" at these pools, but there has not been any evidence linking them

to the organized vectoricide program conducted in the Bass  Hole Marsh.  These

clam kills may be the result of other insect control programs such as tree insect

control, or they may also be the result of natural failure  of seed clams (bio-

chemical analysis of the dead clams could not be performed).   The value of this

organized commercial activity in jobs and dollar value has  not been determined

since it is a private and closely held organization.

          The value of oysters and quahogs harvested as compared to the soft

shell clam industry is negligible.  Although lobster are occasionally found at

the mouth of the Bass Hole Marsh, the area does not support an organized

lobster fishery.  Similarly, the value of fish caught directly in the marshes

or in the mouths of thse marshes is negligible.  There is little direct economic

benefit as the result of sport fishery fees in these particular areas.  However,

the marsh does contribute to the nutrients consumed by the larger fishes which

make up the North Atlantic commercial and game fishery.  The extent to which the

vectoricide program could decrease fish yields in the North Atlantic however,

is probably small.

          As has been indicated before, the menhaden consumes vegetation

and, as such, can be considered a primary consumer of insecticides.  Althougl

the menhaden catch goes almost entirely into fish protein materials and into

animal feeds and petfoods, it is important as the largest fish catch in the

United States.  Because no concentration step of lipophilic materials (such as

DDT) occurs prior to consumption by the menhaden, one would expect that this fish

would not greatly experience the effect of the vectoricide programs.  By observa-

tion, there would also appear to be sufficient mummichogs, the other primary

consuming commercial marsh fish, to serve their function as bait in the most heavily

treated portions of the marsh.

          With  the carnivorous fish such as the striped bass and mackerel, a

different situation exists.  These fish consume smaller fish or invertebrates'

that have in turn consumed other animals or plants.  As indicated in our section

on the concentration of insecticides in food chains, these animals can be exposed

to high levels  of persistent pesticides and produce even higher levels within

their body tissues.  Besides making such exposed fish less desirable in commerce,

this bioconcentration has the effect of producing toxic symptoms   in such fish and,

in fact, toxic  levels of DDT have in the past been found in many fish species.

Even if such outright lethal toxic levels are not reached, levels which can

be detrimental  to behavior may arise and, as such lead to decreased survival


          In terms of our study areas on Cape Cod, however, it is reported

that no DDT has been used in either the Bass Hole Marsh or Herring River Marsh

in the last 10 years.  Thus, little contribution to the DDT content of fish  or their

food can have resulted from the vectoricide program.  Other sources of DDT,

especially vaporization and atmospheric transport appear to be more significant

in their contribution to the marine environment.       The malation and

Abate which have more recently been used are not persistent in water or organisms.

The insulating value of the food chain between the primary consumers and the

carnivorous larger fish, which exist only in the mouth of the marsh, probably

protect these species from the effect of either malathion or Abate.

          One might make an argument for an overall decrease in the ability of

the salt water marsh to trap nutrients into higher life forms if certain of the

invertebrate classes are periodically decreased by the application of pesticides.

While a  severe depletion of food organisms at any point in the life cycle would,

in fact, decrease the small fish on which the carnivorous and commercially

important fish are dependent, such would appear not to be the case in Cape Cod

marshes.  The exceptionally low level of vectoricide material used, its

restriction to the borders of the salt water marsh and the proven ability of

the marsh life to rebound rapidly from this exposure to organophosphate

materials, would indicate a lack of such involvement.  Further, even if some

small decrement in trapped nutrients in invertebrate animals were noted in the

marsh, it is likely that this decrease in food supply by itself would have

little effect on the commercial fishing in the face of the multiple other factors

tending to decrease the fish population.  Those factors include over-fishing,

generalized water pollution, and commercial development of seaside areas, thus

decreasing nutrient supply in other ways.  Whereas the direct toxic effect of

a persistent vectoricide on a species would have environmental impact, the effect

of a decrease in the food supply at the current time would probably only represent

a weak link in a chain with considerably weaker links.

          The effect of Flit MLO is somewhat difficult to assess.  The inability

to determine true toxicity is both a hindrance but also an indication of the

unique nature of this material.  It is highly refined mineral oil, and its

effect is to temporarily form a barrier to prevent organisms from obtaining

atmospheric oxygen.  Such a barr,.tr appears to be quite effective in causing

the death  of mosquito larvae, but the number of other aquatic species that use

atmospheric oxygen rather than dissolved oxygen is quite limited.  For instance,

large schools of mummichog in the upper channels of the Bass Hole Marsh have

been observed living without distress under layers of oil.

          If such oil were to remain for a considerable amount of time in the

upper reaches of the marsh, oxygen depletion would occur.  However, the oil film

has a limited lifetime and we cannot hypothesize any significant impact upon

the marsh fauna caused by oxygen deprivation.  The fact that the Flit  MLO is

sprayed by hand specifically into stagnant aquatic areas would also tend to

negate the importance of its lipophilic character in interfering with land-basr d

life.  The Flit MLO thus may alter the appearance of the upper marsh channels

for a couple of days following use, but would appear to be innocuous to man as

currently used in our Cape Cod study areas.

          While it is quite obvious that the extensi \e use of persistent

pesticides can have a disruptive effect on the ecology of productive salt marsh

areas, as has been observed experimentally and has been hypothesized on the basis

of decreased production accompanying the use of DDT, it would appear that except

for decreasing the population of mosquitoes and, thus, perhaps compromising those

species directly dependent upon the mosquito as a foodstuff, the impact of

vectoricide pollution on the water environment of our Cape Cod study areas is

negligible. Also, in summary, it w• uld appear that the impact of vectoricides on

man, based on the mosquito cent'     rogram as practiced on Cape Cod, can only

be concluded to be, on balance, -  jntageous.  The mosquito population has been

reduced, thus, all but eliminating  a disease threat  and improving the

recreational aspects of the land area.   At  the  same  time,  there has not been an

evidenced decrement to either the esthetic  or economic  value of the estuarine



 1    Redfield, A.C.   Estuaries,  G.  Lauff  (Ed.),  AAAS, Washington, D.C.  (1967).

 2    Cape  Cod  1980,  Sector of the Massachusetts  State Plan,  Blair Associates,
      Inc.,  College Hill Press,  Providence,  Rhode Island  (1963).

 3    Ayers,  J.C.   Limnol.  Oceanography _4,448-462 (1959).

 4    Swain,  R.B.   The Insect Guide, Doubleday  and Company, Garden City,
      New York  (1952).

 5    Lee,  A.B.   The  Microtomists' Vade-Mecuro,  P.  Blakiston's Son and  Co.,
      Philadelphia (1921)

 6    Clegg,  J.   The  Observer's Book of Pond Life, Frederick  Warne and Co.,
      New York  (1956).

 7    Teal,  J.  and Teal, M.  Life and Death  of  the Salt Marsh,  Ballantine
      Books,  Inc., New York (1969).

 8    Odum,  E.P.  and  Odum,  H.T.   Fundamentals of  Ecology,  W.B.  Saunders  Company,
      Philadelphia, 344 and 365 (1959).

 9    Niering,  W.A.  The Life of The Marsh,  McGraw-Hill and The World  Book
      Encyclopedia, New York (1966).

10    Odum,  W.E.   Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.  100,  836-346  (1970).

11    Riley,  G.A.   Estuaries, G. Lauff (Ed.), AAAS, Washinton,  D.C.  (1967).

12    Seagle, E.   Estuaries, G.  Lauff (Ed.), AAAS, Washington,  D.C.  (1967).

13    Roberts,  M.F.  Tidal  Marshes  of Connecticut, Connecticut Aboretum,
      New London,  Connecticut (1971).

14    Petry,  L.C.  and M.G.  Norman.   A Beachcomber's Botany, The Chatham
      Conservation Foundation, Inc., Chatham, Mass. (1968).

15    Hinds, E.R.  and W. A. Hathaway.  Wildflowers of Cape Cod, The  Chatham
      Press,  Inc., Chatham, Mass. (1968).

16    Lackney,  J.B.  Estuaries, G.  Lauff (Ed.), AAAS, Washington, D.C.
      291-302 (1967).

17    Ketchum,  B.H.  Ecology 35, 191-200 (1954).

18    Sanders,  H.L.,  E.M. Goudsmit,  E.L. Mills  and G.E. Hampson, Limnol  &
      Oceanogr.  7^, 63-79 (1962).

19    Teal, J.M.  Ecology _43_, 615-624.

20    Miner, R.W.  Field Book of Seashore Life,  Van Rees Press,  New York (1950).

21    Borror, D.J. and D.M. DeLong, An Introduction to the Study of Insects,
      Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (1964).

22    Murray, J.W.  Micropaleontology _14, 425-455 (1968).

23    Doane, 0.  Personal communication (1971)

24    Coates, P.G.  Personal communication.

25    Hill, N.P.  The Birds of Cape Cod, Massachusetts,  Morrow,  San Diego (1965).

26    Bailey, W.  Birds of the Cape Cod National Seashore and Adjacent Areas,
      Eastern Natl. Park and Monument Association (1968).

27    Hellebust, J.A.  Estuaries, G. Lauff (Ed.), AAAS,  Washington, D.C. (1967).

28    Shuster, Jr., C.N.  The Nature Of A Tidal  Marsh, The New York State
      Conservationist, August-September, 1-8 (1966).

29    Buchsbaum, R. and M. Buchsbaum.  Basic Ecology,  Boxwood Press, Pittsburgh,
      Pa, 77 (1957).

30    American Cyanamid Co., Technical Information on Abate,  Mosquito Larvicide
      and Insecticide.

31    Lowe, J.I., P.D. Wilson and R.D. Davison,  In Progress.   Report of the
      Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Center for  Estuarine and Menhaden Research,
      Pesticide Field Station, Gulf Breeze,  Fla., Circular 335 (1969).

32    Pimentel, D.  Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Non-Target Species,
      U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washinton, D.C., 1-20 (1971).

33    Tucker, R.N. and D.G. Crabtree.  Handbook  of Toxicity of Pesticides to
      Wildlife.  U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Bur.  Sport Fish Wildl., Resource Publ.
      No. 84 (1970).

34    McCarty et al.  J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc.  152, 279 (1968).

35    Gains et al., Archs. Envir. Hlth 14, 283 (1967).

36    Turner, N.  DDT in Fish:  Second Report Circular of the Connecticut
      Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, #232 (1970) .

37    Hansen, D.J. In Progress Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
      Center for Estuarine and Menhaden Research, Pesticide Field Station,
      Gulf Breeze, Fla., Circular 335 (1969).

38    Macek, K.J. and W.A. McAllister.  Trans. Araer. Fish. Soc. 99, 20-27 (1970).

39    Henderson, C., Q. H. Pickering and C.M. Tarzwell.  Trans. Amer.  Fish.  Soc.
      88, 23-32 (1959).

40    McKee, J.E. and H. W. Wolf (Editors), Water Quality Criteria Second Edition,
      Pub. No. 3-A (1963)

41    Naishtein, S. Ya., E. E. Klebanova, L.A. Tomashevskaya, and A.I. Lur'e,
      Gigiena i Sanit. _33_(l-3), 47-52 (1968).

42    Gains, T.B.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 14 (3), 515-555 (1969).

46    Risebrough, R.W., D.B. Peakall, S.G. Herman, M.N. Kirven.  Nature 220,
      1098-1102 (1968).

47    Tarjan, R and T. Kemeny.  Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 7_, 215-221 (1969).

48    Heinrichs, W.L., R.J. Gellert, J.L. Bakke and N.L. Lawrence.  Science  173,
      642-643 (1971)

49    Heath, R.G., S.W. Spann, and J.F. Kreitzer.  Nature _224^ 47-48 (1969).

50    Mount, D.I. and  C.E. Stephan, Trans. Am. Fish Soc. g6, 185-193 (1967).

51    Pickering, Q.H., C. Henderson and A.E. Lemke.  Trans. Amer. Fish.Soc.
      jtt, 175-184  (1962).

52    Micks, D.W., G.V. Chambers, J. Jennings and K. Barnes.  J. Econ. Entomology
      61, 647-650  (1968).

53    Marketing Technical Services, Humble Oil & Refining Co., Technigram.
      D238-E, September 17 (1969) pp. 1-4.

54    Marketing Technical Services, Humble Oil & Refining Co., Technigram.
      D238-E, September 17 (1969) pp 1-2.

55    Marketing Technical Services, Humble Oil & Refining Co., Technigram,
      D238-B, September 19 (1969) pp 1-2.

56    Davis, T.R.A., A.W. Burg, J.L. Neumeyer, D.M. Butters, B.D. Wadler.
      Water Quality Criteria Data Book V. I Organic Chemical Pollution of
      Fresh Water. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  (1970).

57    Falk, H.L., S.J. Thompson and P. Kotin.  Arch. Environ. Health 10, 847-858,

58    Fitzhugh, O.G. and A.A. Nelson.  J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therap. 89,  18-30  (1947)

59    Tarjan, R. and T. Kemeny.  Food Cosmet. Toxicol. _7_(3), 215-221;  266-267,

^O    Report of the Secretary's commission on pesticides and their relationship
      to environmental health, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Health,
      Education and Welfare (1969).

61    Epstein, S.S.  and H.  Shafner.   Nature,  219,  385 (1968).

62    Marliac, J.P.   Federation Proc. 23,  105 (1965).

63    Shubik, P. and J.L.  Hartwell.   U.S.  Government Printing  Office,
      PHS No. 149 (1957).

64    Anonymous.  Food Cosmet.  Toxicol.  ]_, 79-83 (1969).

65    Khera, K.S. and L.L.  Whitta.   Can. Med. Assoc. J.  100, 167-172 (1969).

66    Shubik, P.  U.S. Government Printing Office, PHS No.  149 (1957).

67    Woodwell, G.M., C.F.  Wurster and P.A.  Isaacson. Science 156,  821-824,

68    Hart, L.G. and J.R.  Fouts.  Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch. exp.  Path.  u.
      Pharmak. 249,  486-500 (1965).

69    Peakall, D.B.   Nature _216^ 505-506 (1967).

70    Peakall, D.B.   Scientific American ^22_, 72 (1970).

71    Hickey, J.J. andD.W. Anderson.  Science l^, 271-273 (1968).

73    Ratcliffe, D.A.  Nature _215_,  208-210 (1967).

74    Enderson, J.H., D.D.  Berger.   Presticides, BioScience _20_, 355-356  (1970).

75    Wurster, C.F., Jr.  Science 159, 979-981 (1968).

76    Gordon, H.T. and J.H. Welsh.   J. Cell.  Comp. Physiol. 31, 395  (1948).

77    Welch, R.N., W. Levin and A.H. Conney.   Chemical Fallout - Current
      Research on Persistent Pesticides.  Thomas,  Springfield, Illinois,
      390-407 (1968).

78    Janicki, R.H.  and W.B. Kinter.  Science r73_, 1146-1147  (1971).

79    Mayhew, J.  Proc. Iowa Acad.  Sci., 62,  599-606 (1955).

80    Aubin, A.E. and P.H.  Johansen.  Canad.  J.  Zoology,  47, 163-166 (1969).

81    Anderson, J.M., H.B.  Prins and J.  Fish.  Res. Bd.  Can, 27, 331-334 (1970),

82    Weiss, C.M.  Sewage  Ind.  Wastes, 3^(5), 580-593 (1959).

83    Wirth, W., G.  Hecht  and C. Gloxhuber.   Toxikologie-Fibel, 353-355  (1967).

84    Keith, J.O.  Letter  from Fish and  Wildlife Service, Davis, California
      to American Cyanamid Company,  February  15, 1966.

85    Butler, P.A., A.J. Wilson, Jr. and A.J. Rick.  Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries
      Assoc., 51, 23-32 (1960).

86    Wurster, C.F., Jr.  Science, 18_, 1474-1475 (1968).

87    Murphy, S.D.  Residue Rev. No. 25, 201-221 (1969).

88    Huang, J.-C.  Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 43,
      1739-1748 (1971).                                                ~

89    Lichtenstein, E.P., K.R. Schulz, R.F. Skrentny and P.A.  Stitt.
      J. Econ. Entemology, _5_8, 742-749 (1965).

90    Diamond, J.B., G.Y. Belyea, R.E. Kandunce, A.S. Getchell and J.A. Blease.
      Canad. Entomol. 102, 1122-1130 (1970).

91    Croker, R.A. and A.J. Wilson.  Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. £4, 152-159 (1965).

92    Clancey, B.M., C.S. Lofgren, J. Salmels and A.N. Davis.   Mosquito
      News 25_, 135-137  (1965) .

93    Micks, D.W. and J.A. Berlin.  J. Econ. Entology, 63, 1946-1957  (1970).

94    Micks, D.W.  J. Econ. Entomology, 63. 1118-1121 (1970).

95    Wall, W.J., V.M. Marganian, R. Benton and R.A. Coler, "The Effect of
      Selected Pesticides on Intertidal Biota", in press.

96    Ruber, E., F. Ferrigno.  Some Effects of DDT, Baytex and Endrin on
      Salt Marsh Productivities, Copepods and Aedes Mosquito Larvae.
      Proceedings of the 51st Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito Extermination
      Association, Atlantic City, N.J., 85-92 (1964).

97    Goodrun, P., W.P. Baldwin and J.W. Aldrich.  J. Wildlife Management,  13,
      1-10  (1949).

98    Croker, R.A. and A.J. Wilson.  Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 94, 152-159 (1965)

99    Linn, J.D., R.L. Stanley.  Calif. Fish and Game, 55, 164-178 (1969).

100   Hunt, E.G. and A.I. Bischoff.  Calif. Fish and Game, 46, 91-106 (1960).

101   Cox, J.L.  Science, 170, 71-73 (1970).

102   Metcalf, R.L., G.K. Sangha and I.P. Kapoor.  Environmental Science &
      Technology, _5, 709-713  (1971).

103   Miller, C.W., B.M. Zuckermand and A.J. Charig.  Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
      95, 345-349 (1966).

104   Colton, J.B., Jr. and R.R. Marak.  Guide for Identifying the Common
      Planktonic Fish Eggs and Larvae of Continental Shelf Waters, Cape Sable
      to Block Island, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Woods Hole, Mass.
      No. 69-9, 1-43 (1969).

105   Butler, P.A.  Sport Fishery Abstracts,  lj>  179 (1971).

106   Ruber, E, md D.M. Jobbins.  Proceedings on the  Forty-Eighth Annual
      Meeting ff The N.J. Mosquito Extermination  Association,  159-163 (1961).

107   Hatfield, C.T.  Canadian Fish Culturist, 40_,  61-72 (1969).

108   Grice, D.  Personal communication (1969).

109   Zavon, M.R.   BioScience, 19_, 892-895 (1969).

110   Humble Oil and Refining Company,  Unpublished  Observations,  Evaluation
      of Flit MLO for Control of Early  Spring Aedes spp. in Woodland Pools,
      Delaware (1968).

Ill   Harrison, G.  Saturday Review, November 6  (1971),  77-86.

112   Stokinger, H.E.  Science, 174. 662-666  (1971).

113   Hayes, W.J., Jr.  Bull. Wld. Hlth.  Org., 44_,  277-288 (1971).

114   Rankin, J.S., Jr.  The Connecticut  Arboretum  Bulletin No. 12,  8-12

115   Jerome, W.C., Jr., A.  P. Chesmore and C.O.  Anderson, Jr.  A Study
      of the Marine Resources of the Parker River-Plum Island  Sound Estuary,
      Division of Marine Fisheries, Dept.  of  Natural Resources, Mass.,  1-79 (1968),

116   Fiske, J.D., C.E. Watson and P.G. Coates.   A  Study of the Marine  Resources
      of the North River, Division of Marine  Fisheries,  Dept.  of  Natural
      Resources, Mass., 1-53 (1966).

117   Committee on Oceanography, Chlorinated  Hyrocarbons in the Marine
      Environment, National  Academy of  Sciences-  Washington (1971).

                      VII.   _DEGRADATION OF PESTICIDES

          In varying degrees, pesticides may be contaminating and accumu-

lating in man's food supplies as well as the soil, water, and air of his

environment.  In this study, we have surveyed the literature pertaining to

the degradation and metabolism of two chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides—

DDT and dieldrin—and two organophosphate insecticides—malathion and Abate—

under a variety of environmental conditions.  The choice of pesticides

studied in this section was based on those chemicals which have at some time

been used for vector control in the area of our study.


          Studies of pesticide metabolism are necessary for several reasons.

From a practical viewpoint, information on the chemical behavior and reac-

tions of insecticides in biological systems is essential for the rational

assessment of hazards arising from the use of these compounds for vector

control.  Clearly, the identification and establishment of the toxicological

properties of the metabolic products produced in plants, animals or by

environmental factors are mandatory before residual hazards may be assessed.

(Such toxicity effects will be discussed in another section of this report.)

In addition to assessing the toxicological effects, data on the metabolic

breakdown of pesticides, particularly in animals and microorganisms are

basic to our understanding of the mode of action of such chemicals.  Such

information is of paramount importance for the elucidation of the intoxication

and detoxification processes that occur in animals, plants, and microorganisms.

          As shown in Figure VII-1, when a pesticide is applied to plants,

animals, soils, water or air, there are many factors that may effect chemical

changes.  The rates of such alterations will depend on the nature of the

                          Metabolic Factors
         Molecular Changes
      Oxidation    Hydrolysis     Reduction     Conjugation
                                                    Physical Factors
                                                                 Dilution    New Tissue    Storage
                                                 I              I              I
                                             Penetration   Transport      Systemic
Protein Bound      Molecular Dimension      Cell Membrane
                                                              FIGURE VI1-1

                                             FACTORS AFFECTING THE FATE OF A PESTICIDE

pesticide and the particular environmental conditions to which it is sub-

jected.  Various metabolic and physical factors will influence the fate or

rate of degradation of the parent pesticide.  The metabolic factors as

illustrated in Figure vil-l will affect the fate of the pesticide and will

involve either molecular alteration or migration phenomena.  Molecular

changes may be precipitated by chemical or enzymatic reactions such as

oxidation, hydrolysis, etc.  Migration in plants or animals may be con-

sidered to occur either through simple penetration or via more involved

systematic transport mechanisms.  Physical factors affecting the fate and

persistence of pesticides are also shown in Figure VII-1.

          In the soil, several factors have been reported to affect the

behavior of pesticides.  These factors include adsorption and desorption,

volatilization from soil surfaces, movement in soils, uptake by plants and

microorganisms, photochemical decomposition, chemical decomposition,

(catalytic and hydrolytic) and microbial decomposition.  All these factors

contribute singly or in sequence in the processes of residue accumulation

and/or pesticide degradation in the soil.  These factors, particularly the

last two, can equally influence the fate of the pesticide in water systems.

          Photochemical decomposition on surfaces can be effected by the

influence of sunlight    although it has only a practical energy range of

290 to 450 my.  The mode of chemical decomposition can also be catalytic,

(due to presence of nitrogenous constituents, carbonates, sulfates, as

well as iron, manganese, cobalt, and aluminum salts) or hydrolytic (favored

by the high or low pH of soils, i.e., pH 3 - pH 10). Microbial decomposition

or biodegradation is brought about by the action of microorganisms like

                                         F2 3 41
bacteria, streptomyces, fungi, and algae.1 ' '    The process generally

involves the following biochemical reactions—dealkylation, dehalogenation,

hydrolysis, oxidation, reduction, hydroxylation, ring cleavage and conjugation.

          The three types of decomposition discussed  (metabolic,  physical

and photochemical)  are believed to be the major  pathways  for  conversion

of pesticides into  some other forms that  can  continue  to  persist  or be

further adsorbed and metabolized in the natural  environment.  These

factors were taken  into consideration in  searching for and in sorting out

currently available data.  Likewise,  whenever applicable, the extent of

residue accumulation in soils and  in natural  waters was reviewed.


     1.  Decomposition and Degradation of DDT

          Photochemical degradation of DDT (I) by sunlight and heat or UV

irradiation has been reported.   ''^  Both Broker1 J and Fleck1   claim

that in the presence of air, 4,4'-dichlorobenzophenone (DBF)  (II) is formed,

but when air is absent 2,3-dichloro - l,l,4,4-tetrakis-(p-chlorophenyl)

2-butene (III)  is formed.


          The dechlorination of DDT in isopropanol by exposure to cobalt


60 yrays was studied by Sherman.  J  He found that at low and high dose rates

dichlorodiphenylethane  (ODD) is produced.

          In the presence of small amounts of iron and aluminum salts, Fleck

and Haller  '    report that DDT  is converted to dichlorodiphenylethylene

(DDE) (V) .  The dehydrohalogenation of DDT to DDE on homoionic clays was

also reported by Lopez-Gonzales,  et al.   '  '  DDE and ODD were also found

in heavy  clay soil in water sheds treated with DDT.      The active clay

surface probably catalyzed the chemical decomposition.  DDT is also converted

to DDE by ammonia and other simple amines.      The conversion of DDT to DDE

was greater in moist than in dry  soils and was also increased by high


          The biodegradation of DDT by soil and water microorganisms under

aerobic or anaerobic conditions can produce DDE (V)t16~19] or DDD
respectively.  The metabolic route  is a function of the specific microorganism

                                                                   ims ai

and the presence or absence of air.      While several microorganisms  are
capable of metabolizing DDT, a number of others cannot degrade DDT.

          Several authors also reported on other probable microbial meta-

bolites of DDT.  Anderson     found  five unidentified metabolites that were

not identical with DDD, DDE, bis-(p-chlorophenyl)acetic acid DDA (VI),

DBF (II), dicofol  (VII), and l,l-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane  (VIII).  The

extensive studies of Focht and Alexander    '    showed that a Eydrogenomonas

cleaved one of the rings of p,p'-dichlorodiphenylmethane  (IX), a known DDT

metabolite     , and also that of diphenyl methane.  The metabolites obtained

were p-chlorophenyl acetate and phenylacetic acid respectively.

          Wedemeyer^   ^ reported that Aerobaeter aerogen&s metabolized DDT

by two different routes.  By sequential analysis, he showed that one route

takes the metabolic pathway DDT -> DDD -»• DDMU  (X) -*• DDMS  (XI) •*• DDNU  (XII) ->

                                                   r o s "I

DDA (VI) ->• DBF (II).  The further metabolism of DDAL  J  follows the sequence

DDA -> DPM (IX) -> DBH (VIII) -»• DBF (II).  The second route involves direct

conversion of DDT to DDE (VI), Patil, et. alJ28^ claimed that of the twenty

microbial cultures they studied, 10 isolates degraded DDT to a dicofol-like

compound and 14 isolated degraded DDT to DDA.

          Dimond'17^ conducted his study in the associated soils of Maine

forests from the first year of DDT application and for nine years thereafter.

He found that the "total residue" included psp'-DDT (main bulk of the residue),

o,p'-DDT (14 to 20% of the total residue through the 9 years),* and DDE.  The

residue analysis reveals very little breakdown of DDT through the ten year

interval, and the residues were confined to the upper organic soil horizons.

                                             r 38i
Similar results were obtained by Lichtenstein     with DDT treated agri-

cultural loam soils.  The amount of p,p'-DDT plus o.p'DDT recovered 15

years after soil treatment was 10-6% of the combined dosage of 10 Ib. per

acre.   Soils that had been treated with DDT at higher dosages showed relatively

higher  residue levels.  DDE was the major metabolite found, but dicofol (VII)

was also detected.  Although the insecticides had been applied and washed

into the soil to a depth of 5 inches, the 6-9 inch soil layer, 10 years later

contained about 30% of the total DDT residues.

          The studies of Swoboda, et. al.,     on heavy clay soils on three

Blackland Prairie water sheds in Texas showed that less than 16% of the

DDT (total of p.p-DDT, DDE and ODD) applied over a 10-year period was recovered

in the  top 5 feet of the soil.  Between 60 and 75% of the recovered DDT was

found in the top 12 inches of soil.
           Note:  Technical DDT consists of approximately 84% of p,p'-DDT

and 15% o,p'-DDT.

          Deubert and Zuckerman     reported on DDT residues in two cranberry

bog soils in Massachusetts.  They found that residue accumulation appears

to be a function of the irrigation system used.  Other workers have studied

the problem of DDT accumulation in soils and the general consensus is that

DDT tends to persist in contaminated areas to a large or small extent

depending on the particular environment.

          Studies have also been reported on the fate of DDT in the lentic

environment,     in rivers,   * lakes,   ~    sea water,   '  in marine

organisms along costal California,     and forest streams.      The presence

of residual DDT and the metabolites DDE, DDD and DDNS was reported.

          Metcalf, et  al.,    '  ^ and Harrison, et  al.,     reported on

the behavior of radio-labeled DDT in a model ecosystem to trace the various

pathways of translocation  and metabolism.  The major metabolites noted in

the water, snails, mosquitoes, and fish in the ecosystem were DDE and DDD.

Residual and accumulated DDT was also found in all.  Eberhardt     has

recently developed a mathematical model for the rate of loss of DDT in


          The five principal routes of DDT metabolism, reductive dechlorin-

ation to DDD, dehydrochlorination to DDE,     and oxidation to Kelthane,

DBF, or DDA are shown in Figure VII-2 together with the other metabolic routes

that lead to the formation of compounds reported to be products of microbial

degradation in soil and water environment.

          In a recent article, Woodwell, et  al.,      discussed the fate

and persistence of DDT and the implications to life from the buildup of

DDT in the global environment.  They concluded that the concentrations in

the atmosphere and the mixed layer of the ocean logged by only a few years

behind the amount of DDT used annually throughout the world.

                                        FIGURE VII-2




Kelthane or  dicofol


         1   DBH

A        (XIII)
                                                                 r\-cj  \
        C1   DPM

                                                              CIV   7-C-

      2.   The Metabolism and Degradation of Dieldrin

          The metabolites and degradation products of dieldrin are shown in

Figure VII-3.  Although dieldrin is remarkably stable to alkali, it is sus-

ceptible to decomposition under irradiation in the ultra-violet region of


the spectrum.  Photodieldrin, obtained by irradiating dieldrin (2537 A) in

concentrated solution or the solid state is identical with that present in

dieldrin-treated grass after exposure to sunlight  ' and has been assigned

the structure A by most workers'1   '  •* although the structure B_ has also

been proposed.      It is twice as active as dieldrin against Musaa domestica

and Aedes aegypti larvae.      Relative to dieldrin, its acute toxicity

is higher for rats, mice, guinea pigs, and pigeons, less for domestic fowl

                                                     r fift i
and harlequin fish and about equal for beagle hounds.      The amounts of

photodieldrin formed from dieldrin by sunlight does not significantly

increase the overall residues arising from the use of aldrin and dieldrin.

Irradiation of dieldrin  (A-2537 A) in dilute hexane solution yields the

dechlorinated product (C_) .      C. was found to be about five times as active

as dieldrin against mice (oral) but less active than dieldrin against

M. domestica.  A number of aquatic microorganisms from silt and water samples

taken from Lake Michigan converted dieldrin to photodieldrin.

          A number of soil microorganisms have been reported to be active in

the degradation of dieldrin.  The soil fungus Trichoderma viride degraded

dieldrin into 4 major metabolites, but only one was unambiguously identified

                                    f32l                       T71]
as 6.7-trans-dihydroxydihydroaldrin.   J  Aerobaoter aerogenes      and

                                 F72 731
several other soil microorganisms   '    were studied, and it was found that

they hydrolyzed dieldrin to at least nine metabolites including 6.7-trans-


dihydroxydihydroaldrin (D).  Matsumura, et. al.,     reported on the breakdown

of dieldrin by a Pseudomonas species.  Five major metabolites were isolated

and analyzed.  One metabolite was identified as aldrin and the proposed   -

structures for the other four metabolites correspond to E., F_, £, & H of

                   FIGURE VII-3


Figure VII-3.  A larger amount of undegraded dieldrin was also observed with the

metabolites.  The soil fungus Mucor alternans did not degrade dieldrin in pure

culture nor in the soil samples.[33]  Chacko, et  al.,t21] also reported that

some soil organisms were incapable of degrading dieldrin.

          Dieldrin has been classified as a highly residual compound.   '

The various routes of dieldrin transport in and loss from soils were

studied,        and the major pathways of dieldrin loss were volatilization

and sediment  transport.  However, in both the total and local sense, some

residue accumulation can occur and persist.

          In  a Louisiana estuary, the water, bottom sediment, and oysters

were studied  to determine the concentration of dieldrin.      The data

showed that the bottom sediment  and the oysters contain 3-4 ppb while the

water contains less than 1 ppb,  reflecting the insolubility of dieldrin in


       3.   Metabolism and Degradation of Malathion

          The metabolism and degradation of malathion is complicated and

differs in various animal species, insects, fish or by microorganisms.  The

possible metabolic breakdown products of malathion are shown in Figure VII-5.

                                                     r go 1

          Malathion can be degraded by UV irradiation     and gamma radia-

tion     but  no breakdown products were identified.  Kearney    quotes

reported evidence that malathion in soil cultures was degraded.  The reaction

appears to be an initial non-enzymatic hydrolysis that gives what was tenta-

                                                                         f 85]
tively identified as either a or  3 - malathion mono-acid.  Chen, et  al.,

reported that only a-malathion monoacid was biologically produced in rats.

          Catalytic hydrolysis of malathion in soils to thiomalic acid,

dimethylthiophosphoric acid, diethyl thiomalate or diethyl mercaptosuccinate

was also reported.   '  '  Konrad, et. al.,   ^ reported that malathion

degraded in soils occurred by a  chemical mechanism catalyzed by adsorption

and that diethyl mercaptosuccinate is a degradation product.   However,

Bowman, et  al.,^88^ disagreed with these findings and claimed that the

evidence of diethylmercaptosuccinate formation is not valid.   Instead, they

reported minimal degradation of adsorbed malathion on montmorillonite soils

over a 3 to 5 day period.  Walker has recently reported that  malathion is

degraded by soil bacteria to malaoxon, malathion monoacid, malathion diacid,

dimethylphosphorothioate and dimethyl phosphorodithioate.

          The biodegradation of malathion by microorganisms in streams was

studied by Randall & Lauderdale.      They found that although aeration alone

is effective in the degradation of malathion, microbial action is a more

effective way of degrading malathion in an activated sludge system.  Aerobic

microorganisms degraded malathion but no degradation products were identified.

                  f 911
Getzin & Rosefield1  J also reported that the heat labile, and alkali-

extractable fractions from some soils were capable of degrading malathion

within 24 hours.  The identity of the breakdown products are  still being

investigated.  Matsumura & Bousch     reported that the soil  fungus

Tr-ichoderma vivlde and a bacteria of the Pseudomonas degraded malathion to

diethylmalate, demethyl malathion and a carboxyesterase product, the major

metabolite.  Within 24 hours, the Pseudomonas degraded 98% of the malathion

applied while the T. viride degraded 75 to 90%.  These microbial preparations

did not convert malathion to its more toxic analog, malaoxon.   Lichtenstein,

et  al.,     compared the persistence of organophosphorus pesticides in soils

and found that only 5% malathion residues could be recovered  from the

soil 3 days after application.  Malathion was reported to be  less stable

than parathion and methyl parathion.

          The lack of sufficient data on microbial degradation products of

malathion led to the consideration of breakdown of products reported in

Nigerian beetles,     rice brans,     maize and wheat grains.      Dyte

and Rowlands     reported that the formation of 0,0-dimethylphosphorodithioate,

0,0-dimethylphosphorothionate, dimethylphosphate, malathion mono-acid and

                                         f 951
malathion di-acid.  Rowlands and Clemente1  J found that in rice brans of

high oil and fatty acid content, both dimethyl phosphorothionate and dimethyl-

phosphor odithioate were found while in rice brans of low oil content, the

latter was the only metabolite detected.

          From studies in maize and wheat grains, Rowlands     reported that

malathion was degraded to dimethylphosphorodithionic acid (unstable and

degrades to phosphoric acid derivatives), malathion mono-acid, and malathion

di-acid.  These products were formed by chemical and enzymatic hydrolysis.

It was also noted that the oxidations of malathion to malaoxon did not occur.

          Malathion shows a pattern of metabolic selectivity which probably

accounts for the wide differential toxicity between insects and mammals.

It has been reported that the metabolism of malathion probably follows two

enzymatic routes, i.e., carboxyesterase or phosphatase degradation.

The points of degradation and cleavage of malathion are shown in Figure V1I-4

          In the case where the proper oxidative system is present, malathion

is oxidized to malaoxon and then malaoxon can undergo a parallel degradation

route, as indicated in Figure VII-5.

          The phosphorus containing metabolites that can be derived from

malathion are shown schematically in Figure VII-5.

       4.   Metabolism and Degradation of Abate

          Streams and ponds in California and New Jersey, which have been

treated with a total of 1.0 Ib of Abate insecticides per acre, were studied

to determine the rate of disappearance of Abate.  There was no apparent

accumulation of Abate in water or mud samples or at sampling stations down-


                                FIGURE VII-4

                               /       °   J
                              /       II   *
                            P  - S  -  CHC-0-C2H5
Cleavage at point (b)  will give diethyl  mercapto-succinate which can be
hydrolyzed to thiomalic acid.

     thiomalic acid

                                        FIGURE VII-5

     OH CH2COOC2H5
demethyl malathion


                          malathion mono-acid
                          (CH 0)  P-SCHOCOOH
                            malathion di-acid
                                         malaoxon mono-acid
                                         (CH 0) PSCHCOOH
                                        malaoxon di-acid

          There were no reported studies on microbial degradation products,

however, studies were reported on the metabolism of  Abate in bean leaves

and in rats.'-100^  In the literature search on DDT,  dieldrin, and malathion

on which studies have been conducted on pesticide metabolism in animals,

plants, insects, and by microorganisms, there was a  wide overlap on the

metabolic products reported.  The metabolic routes can vary,  but the ultimate

end products formed were the same.  Thus, perhaps, we can use the reported

degradation pathways of Abate in bean leaves and in  rats as  a working model.

          Tritium labelled Abate was used in both studies reported.  In

the bean leaves, intact Abate was the principal constituent  of the residue

(70%) indicating a relatively high resistance to degradation.  The major

degradation products reported were the sulfoxide derivative,  and trace

amounts of the sulfone derivative, its unsymmetrical mono-oxono analog,

and the symmetrical dioxono analog of Abate.  The glucosidic conjugates

4,4'-thiodiphenol, 4,4'-thiosulfinyldiphenol, and 4,4'-thiosulfinyldiphenol

were also found to increase with time.  In rats, where fecal and urinary

routes are the major paths of elimination, the feces contained mainly

unchanged Abate together with the sulfoxide derivative and the phenolic

hydrolysis products while the urine contained mainly sulfate ester conjugates

of the phenolic hydrolysis products and trace amounts of unchanged Abate.

          The metabolic route for Abate is shown in  Figure VII-6.  It appears

to follow two routes.  Route a. is the principal metabolic route.  The

reaction involves initial oxidation of the sulfide linkage,  and subsequent

hydrolysis of the phosphate ester groups and glucosidic conjugation of the

phenolic hydrolysis products.


          In order to improve our understanding of the residue levels  of

insecticides that currently exist on Cape Cod, a limited number  of  samples

of bottom mud, soil, and water were taken for pesticide analysis.   To  do

                                      FIGURE VII-6

         11  /7~    "
        -P-0-/    -S-
                                                                S-     >0-P-(OCH3)2
                                                                 Mono-oxono analog
 (CH30)2-P-0/'_VS-<'  >-0-P-(OCH3)2        (CH30)2-P-0-//

                            0-P-(OCH3)2        (CH30)2-P-0-

this, we chose locations that were near those investigated and described in

the biological impact section of this report.  Based on their use in past

vector control programs on Cape Cod, the insecticides investigated were DDT,

dieldrin, and malathion.  Abate, which had been used on Cape Cod for vector

control up until 1970 at low levels (0.01-0.2 Ibs)  was not included in the

analysis scheme because it was not deemed likely that measureable residues

still existed.  Also, various fuel oil type formulations were sprayed in the

region of interest but these are extremely difficult to distinguish from

background oils and were eliminated from the analytical program.

          In performing this work, we recognized the desirability of looking

for basic chemicals and their degradation products,  but our analyses were

limited to p,p'-DDT, dieldrin, malathion and the degradation products

p,p'-DDE and p,p-TDE for the following reasons:

          •  Many of the possible metabolites have  not been positively

identified and confirmed;

          •  Easy-to-use analytical procedures are  available for only a

few of the known metabolites;

          •  An attempt to establish an approach that would cover all known

metabolites would lead to an unweidly analyses scheme which would have been

impossible to follow within the budget and time limitations of this project.

          The analyses of our samples for pesticide residues were performed

by Dr. Karl Deubert of the University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experi-

ment Station at East Wareham, Massachusetts.  Dr. Deubert has worked

extensively in pesticide residue analysis and some  of his unpublished data

on residue levels for DDT and dieldrin in salt water and mud at selected

sites on Cape Cod has been included in this report  as a valuable reference

point for our study.  Because he already had developed and calibrated the

appropriate methodologies for this program, data was available for comparison

purposes from previous years.  Thus, we were fortunate to be able to take

advantage of the prior experience of Dr. Deubert for this program.

          It is important to recognize that the data obtained during this

program gives a qualitative overview of the current situation but is not

under any circumstances to be considered as being statistically significant.

To do so would have required the analyses of hundreds of samples—a task

which was beyond the present scope of this project.  (The reasons for

requiring large numbers of samples are related to the wide variabilities

and many unknowns when sampling a salt marsh.  Some of these are:  variations

in soil type, whether vegetation roots are included in the sample, and

amount of water in the sample.)

          All of the evidence available to us from the literature indicated

that the levels of organochlorine pesticides and/or organophosphorous com-

pounds should be less than a ppm in the salt marsh areas being studied

during this program.  Thus, literature values for residues of p,p'-DDT

and/or dieldrin in soil samples seldom reach 1 ppm and then only when taken

soon after application of the pesticide.  In fact, many results were well

below 0.1 ppm.    ~      Earlier results on some mud samples from selected

points on Cape Cod had revealed the levels of DDT to be roughly 0.2-0.4 ppm

while the levels for dieldrin were 0.01-0.04 ppm.       Similarly, the

levels of DDT and dieldrin in samples of salt water from marshes on Cape

Cod had been less than 1 ppb.

          As described in other parts of this report, neither DDT nor

dieldrin have been in use for control of mosquitos in salt marshes on Cape

Cod since 1966, whereas malathion and/or Abate, two organophosphate insecti-

cides had been applied until 1970.  Thus, even though relatively stable, the

chlorinated hydrocarbons DDT and dieldrin have not been in use for vector

control the past five years and therefore, would not be present in the marsh

at high levels due to this use.  The organophosphates have been in use for

the last few years but are much more rapidly degraded and thus were not

expected to be found in the marsh.  (It should be noted that as described

earlier both types of insecticides—organophosphorous and organochlorine—

will degrade to other products.  In this study, we attempted to deal only

with the well described metabolites of DDT, namely TDE and DDE.)  Although

not used for vector control purposes, other sources of contamination did

exist for each of these pesticides.  For instance, dieldrin has been used

for pest control in cranberry bogs so that there has been the opportunity

for buildup of this pesticide in the Cape Cod area.  In addition,  many of

these pesticides may have been used by pest control operators for  a number

of different reasons, any of which could have led to a burden on the local


          To learn whether the pesticide levels were as low as anticipated,

a number of soil and water samples were collected from two areas in the Cape

and were analyzed for DDT, TDE, DDE, dieldrin and malathion.  The samples

were collected on the same day (10/22/71) at the locations shown in Figure VI-1.

       1.   Experimental

            a.   Soil Samples

          All soil samples were treated by a modification of Shell Chemical

Company method PMS 911/67 of 1969 as follows:

          A representative sample was placed into an erlenmeyer flask and

enough water added to effect a slurry.  Two ml of extraction solvent  (n-hexane-

2 propanol 2:1) were added per gram of sample.  Sample sizes ranged from

20-90 g.  The samples were shaken vigorously for 20 minutes and then  the

hexane layer decanted into a separatory funnel.  This extraction was repeated

twice more and the hexane layer was subjected to the cleanup procedure of


            b.   Water Samples

          Water samples were treated according to the following procedure:

          One and a half liters were extracted successively with three

50 ml portions of n-hexane.  After clean-up via the procedure of Kadoura,

this was then dried over Na2SOit concentrated by evaporation and analyzed

via gas chromatography.

            c.   Gas  Chromatography

          Gas chromatographic measurements were made on the hexane extracts

using  the following  experimental conditions:

       Chromatograph:  Barber-Coleman Model 5360

       Column:         Pyrex 6' x  4 mm  I.D., 5% QF-1 on 100/120 Varaport 30.

       Temperatures:   Column  190°C

                       Injector 210°C

                       Detector 200°C

       Carrier Gas:    N2,  approx.  100  ml per minute.

       Sensitivity:    1 x 10   amp., att.  2

       Voltage:        DC at which 0.5  mg dieldrin  causes  25 percent FSD

                       at 1 x  10~9,  att.  2

       Recorder:       2 mv

          Recovery experiments whereby  known amounts of pesticides were

 aaded  prior  to  extraction were run at  the same  time as  the samples.  These

 experiments  indicated a  recovery  at 0.1 ppm of  87%  for  p,p'-DDT,  89% for

 dieldrin, and  86% for p.p'-DDE.

            d.   Thin Layer Chromatography

        Plates:         TLC plates were prepared  at  a nominal thickness of

                        0.25 mm using mallincrodt Silic  AR TLC-7-6 as the


        Development:    N-hexane as solvent in Brinkman  sandwich apparatus

                        at 22°C.  Development stopped when solvent front had

                        traveled 12 cm.

        Visualization:  Iodine vapors.

            e.   General

          There are many chemical species which in the analysis  procedures

can act in a similar manner to DDT, dieldrin and  other pesticides.   This is

because the potential interferring species have similar  chemical properties

(solubility, reactivity, boiling point,  etc.,)  and thus  are measured in the

final readout along with the compound of interest.  In developing and

utilizing methods for the determination of pesticide residues, analytical

chemists take great care to minimize this difficult  problem.  However,

because of the complexity of the situation, compromises  must  be  accepted

and a chance for error always exists.  There are  two ways  to  effectively

reduce this chance for error.  One is to build many  crosschecks  and extra

steps into the procedure which makes it too complex  and  lengthy  for routine

use.  The alternative is to utilize more than one procedure for  each sample

and thus make the measurement by two completely different  approaches.  This

too adds cost and time to the analysis.

          Because of the limited time and budget  available for our program,

it was impossible to perform the type of confirmatory experimentation which

would ensure that all of the data reported here is free  from  potential inter-

ferences.  However, reasonable precautions were taken and  we  feel that our

data has the same validity as that found in the published  literature.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that many analyses for organo-

chlorine compounds are currently being challenged due to the discovery of

previously unrecognized interferences and similar possibilities exist for

the results reported in the following tables.

        2.   Results

          The results of these analyses are shown in Table VII-1.   It can be

seen that, as expected, the residue levels were low.  (Malathion could not

be detected either b;, gas chromatography or thin layer chromatography in

any of the samples.  The estimated detection limit for these samples in this

analysis scheme was 0.05-0.1 ppm.)  Efforts were made to compare sample loca-

tion and residue level with regard to DD1, DDE, and dieldrin, but no correla-

tion could be found.  As noted in Table VII-1, the residue values ranged from

             TABLE VII-1

Sample Sample Location
Code Marsh Area Specific
5 Bass Hole Gray's Beach Natural Drain into
Chase Garden Creek
6 " " Chase Garden Creek
Near Above Drain
60 " White's Brook Chase Garden Creek
600 " "
30 Herring River South of Rt #28 Herring River
301 " " "
100 " North of Rt #28 Ditch 100 yds NE
Bridge of River
Bottom Sand
Soil from Bank
2' from Top
Bottom Sand
Soil from Bank
2' from Top
Bottom Mud
Soil from Bank
2' from Top
Bottom Mud
Soil from Bank
18" from Top
Bottom Mud
Soil from Bank
Pesticide Found
                         12" from Top

                                                     TABLE VII-1 (Cont.)

                                            PESTICIDE ANALYSES ON SOIL SAMPLES
Code Marsh
Sample Location
Area Specific
Pesticide Found (ppm)
pp'DDT pp'DDE Dieldrin



Herring River
North Road Near
Bell's Neck Rd.
Herring River, NE      Bottom Mud
Buldge Downstream of
North Road Bridge
                                     Drainage Ditch Near
                                           Soil from Bank
                                           18" from Top

                                           Bottom Mud
                                                            Soil from Bank
                                                            12" from Top



       *  ppm = parts per million
          ND  • not detected
                                                                     AVERAGE             0.026      0.007       0.021

                                                                       RANGE       <0.001-0.09  ND-0.02    <0.001-0.06

          Even though slightly higher, these values do not represent a

major significant difference to those in the salt marsh channels.

        3.   Conclusions

          Our results suggested that the insecticide levels in the two salt

marshes studied were quite low.  Whether they relate to treatment in the

past of a "steady state" level due to other causes (spills, atmosphere

transport, pickup from the ocean, etc.), or are declining, is not known.

          There is some other data available (even though sketchy) which

helps to clarify this point.  Analyses were made of mud samples in the summer

of 1969 and again late in 1971 at four different locations on Cape Cod.

These results are given in Table VII-2.        It will be noted in comparison

with the data in Table VII-1 that the levels of dieldrin in these locations

analyzed in 1969 and 1971 are not appreciably different from the values  found

for 1971 (0.02-0.04 ppm for 1969, and up to 0.06 ppm in 1971).  There might

be a trend to lower levels in 1971 but significance is questionable.

          However, the DDT levels would appear to have decreased by almost

a factor of ten (0.2 to 0.026 ppm between 1969 and 1971).  Whether this  is

a real difference or an artifact of the analysis is not known.  Additional

water samples collected from the same locations in 1969 and 1970 showed

higher dieldrin levels by factors of three to ten over those found in water

collected under this program in October of 1971.  (All levels were extremely

low and it would be hazardous to consider this an important and significant

finding.)  In addition, it is interesting to note that the data for DDT

does indicate some differences with possible signs of a trend (see Tables VII-3

and VII-4).  Once again, these represent only a limited number of samples

so that developing a statistical significance is difficult.  Also, a slight

modification in the analytical procedure was made between 1970 and 1971 (a

QF-1 column was used for the gas chromatography instead of DC-200, and this

       TABLE VII-2


Location of Sample
South Side of Cape - salt pond

Same pond, different location

Same pond, different location

Creek on Upper Arm of Cape

River on Upper Arm of Cape

Creek on Upper Arm of Cape



Pesticide Found (parts per
1969 1971
Average Sample
0.3 0.01 0.02
0.2 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.03 0.02
0.3 0.08 0.03
0.2 0.02 0.02
0.2 0.01 0.03
0.2 0.03
0.2-0.3 0.01-0.08















0. 001-0. C






                       TABLE VII-3

             ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (1971)


Bass Hole Marsh - Drain into Chase Garden Creek

Bass Hole - Main Channel of Chase Garden Creek

Herring River - Main Channel

Side Ditch 100 Yards from Herring River

Herring River - Main Channel

Found (ppb)*
 * ppb  » parts per billion







                                                              TABLE VI1-4

                                            PESTICIDE LEVELS IN SELECTED WATER SAMPLES

Pond on South Side of Cape

Same Pond - Different Local

Same Pond - Different Local

Creek on North Arm

River on North Arm

Creek on North Arm

Pesticide Levels Found (parts

:ion 0.04-0.4
:ion 0.04-0.4
per billion)

1971 1969
0.006 0.01-0.04
0.009 T -0.07
0.005 0.01-0.09
0.005 T -0.05


0.03   0.007
         * T = trace.

may account for the differences.  However, it seems appropriate to recognize

that this trend might be real.  In this regard,  Woodwell,  et.  al.,

recently concluded that DDT levels in the biosphere are slowly decreasing

from their maximum levels which occurred in the  mid-1960's as  a result of

the widespread use of DDT during that period. Our data from work  conducted

in Cape Cod salt marshes suggests that DDT levels have decreased between

1969 and 1971 and tends to support the Woodwell  conclusions.

          In any case, in order to determine whether these interesting

tentative observations are valid would require a much more comprehensive

program whereby more samples could be examined in greater  detail so that

conclusions which were statistically sound could be reached.

     1.   Insecticides
Dieldrin  - 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-
            1,4-endo-exo-5,8-d imethanonaphthalene.

Malathion - 0,0-dimethyl  S-(l,2-dicarbethoxyethyl)phosphorodithioate.

Abate     - 0,0,0",0'-tetramethyl  0,0'thiodi-p-phenylene  phosphorothioate.

     2.   DDT.  Metabolites
DDT       - 1,1,1  trichloro  - 2,2-bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  ethane.

ODD  (TDE) - 1,1-dichloro  - 2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)  ethane.

DDE       - 1,1-dichloro  - 2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)  ethylene.

DDMU     - 1-chloro - 2,2-bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  ethylene.

DDMS     - 1-chloro - 2,2-bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  ethane.

DDNU     -             2,2-bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  ethylene.

DDNS     -             2,2-bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  ethane.

DDA       -                bis  (p-chlorophenyl)  acetic  acid

DBF       - 4,4'-dichlorobenzophenone.

Dicofol  - 1,1,1 trichloro  - 2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)  ethanol.

          _                        bis (p-chlorophenyl)  methane.

          _                        bis (p-chlorophenyl)  methanol.


 1.   Crosby, D.G. Pesticide Reviews, 25_, 1-12 (1969).

 2.   Kearney, P.C.,  & C.S. Helling.  Residue Rev., 25_ 25-44 (1969).

 3.   Pramer, D.  Environment, 13_, 42-46 (1971).

 4.   Stojanovic, B.J. & F. Hutto.  Presented before the "Pesticides and Public
         Health:  Introductory Course,"  EPA, Division of Pesticide Community
         Studies, Atlanta, Georgia, May 11-14, 1971.

 5.   Broker, W.  Westfal. Bienenztg. , 67_, 252 (1954).

 6.   Fleck, E.E., & H.L. Haller.  J. Am. Chem. Soc., 71^, 1034-36  (1949).

 7.   Roburn, J.  Chem & Ind., 1955-56 (1966).

 8.   Sherman, V.W.,  R. Evans, E. Nesyto, & C. Radlowski.  Nature  232,
         118-19  (1971).

 9.   Fleck, E.E. & H.L. Haller.  J. Am. Chem. Soc. 66_ 2095 (1944).

10.   Ibid., 6£, 142-3 (1946).

11.   Lopez-Gonzalez, J.D. & C. Gonzalez-Gomes.  Anales Quin., 66,  271-82  (1970),

12.   Lopez-Gonzalez, J.D. & C. Valenzuela-Calahorro.  J. Agr. Food Chem 18,
         520-23  (1970)

13.   Swoboda, A.R.,  et. al.  Environ. Sci. Technol. _5, 141-5  (1971).

14.   Lord, K.A.  J.  Chem. Soc., 1657-61 (1948).

15.  Nash, R.G., & W.G. Harris.  Symposium American Society of Agronomy,
         New York, August 15, 1971.

16.  Anonymous.  Science News, 94. 642  (1968).

17.  Dimond, J.B., et. al.  Can. Entomologist, 102, 1122-30 (1970).

18.  Focht, D.D. & M. Alexander.  J. Agr. Food Chem. , 19_, 20-2 (1971).

19.  Kokke, R.  Nature, 226. 977-8 (1970).

20.  Burge, W.D.  J. Agr. Food Chem., 19_, 375-8  (1971).

21.  Chacko, C.J., J.L. Lockwood, & M.  Zabic.  Science, 154, 893-5 (1966).

22.  Guenzi, W.D. & W.E. Beard.  Science 156_, 1116-17 (1967).

23.  Ibid.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 32_ 533-4 (1968).

24.  Johnson, B.T., et. al.  Science, 157, 560-61  (1967).

25.  Ko, W.H. & J.L. Lockwood.   Can J.  Microbiol., _14» 1069-73 (1968).

26.  Langlois, B.E.  J. Dairy Science,  5_0, 1168-70  (1967).

27.  Mendel, J.L., A.K. Klein, J.T. Chen & M.S.  Walton.  JOAC, 50, 897-903  (1967)

28.  Patil, K.C., F. Matsumura & G.M. Boush.  Applied Microbiology, 19,
         879-81 (1970).

29.  Plimmer, J.R. , P.C. Kearney, D.W.  Von Endt,   J. Agr. Food Chem., 16^
         594-7 (1968).

30.  Wedemeyer, G.  Science, 152, 647 (1966).

31.  Ware, G.W. & G.C. Roan.  Residue Rev., 33., 15-45 (1970).

32.  Matsumura F. & G.M. Boush.  J. Econ, Entomol., £1. 610-12 (1968).

33.  Anderson, J.P.E., E.P. Lichtenstein, and W.F. Wittingham.  J. Econ.
         Entomol., 6^3, 1595-99 (1970).

34.  Focht, D.D. and M. Alexander.  Science, 170, 91-92 (1970).

35.  Ibid.  Applied Microbiology, 20_, 608-11 (1970).

36.  Wedemeyer, G.  Appl. Microbiol., 15, 1494-5 (1967).

37.  Ibid.  569-74 (1967).

38.  Lichtenstein, E.P., T.W. Fuhremann, and K.R. Schultz.  J. Agr. Food Chem.,
         19_, 718-721  (1971).

39.  Deubert, K.H. & B.M. Zuckermann.  Pesticides Monit. J.,  2^, 172-5  (1969).

40.  Chisholm, R., et. al.  J. Econ. Entomol., 43, 941-2  (1950).

41.  Ginsburg, J.  J. Agr. Food Chem., _3, 322-5 (1955).

42.  Guenzi, W.D. & W.E. Beard.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.,  34, 443-7  (1970).

43.  Harris, C.R.  J. Econ. Entomol., £2_, 1437-41 (1969).

44.  Ko, W.H., & J.L. Lockwood.  Can. J. Microbiol., 14,  1075-8  (1968).

45.  Lichtenstein, E.P. & Schultz, K.R.  J. Econ. Entomol., 52,  124-31 (1959).

46.  Lichtenstein, E.P., L.J. dePew, E.L.  Eshbaug  & J.P. Sleeman.  J. Econ
         Entomol., _5.3,  136-42 (1960).

47.  Mulla, M.S.  J. Econ. Entomol., 53, 650-55  (1960).

48,  Peterson, J.R.  Dissert. Abst, Intern.,  31,  (3): 1010B  (1970).

49.  Sferra, P.R.  J. Econ.  Entomol., 49,  414-15  (1956).

50.  Smith, M.S.  Nature, 161,  246  (1948).

51.  Ware, G.W., B.J. Estesen,  & W.P. Cahill.  Pest. Monit.  J., 2_,
         129-32  (1968).

52.  Hamelink, J.L.  Dissert. Abst. Intern.,  3£,  (12, Ptl) 5312B-3B  (1970).

53.  Johnson, L.G.,  & R.L. Morris.  Pesticides Monit. J., 4_, 216-9 (1971).

54.  Matsumura,  F. ,  K.D. Patil, & G.M.  Boush.  Nature 230. 325-6  (1971).

55.  Miskus, R.P., D.P. Blair,  & J.E. Casida.  J.  Agri.  Food Chem.,
         13, 481 (1965).

56.  O'Connor, R.C.  Symposium  Am.  Soc. Agronomy,  N.Y.,  August  15, 1971.

57.  Seba, D.B., E.F. Corcoran.  Science,  171. 928 (1971).

58.  Burnett, R.  Science, 174. 606-8 (1971).

59.  Yule, W.N.  & A.D.  Tomlin.  Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.,  5_,
         479-88  (1970).

60.  Metcalf, R.L.,  G.K. Sangha, &  I.P. Kapoor.   Environ.  Sci.  &  Technol.,
         5, 709-13 (1971).

61.  Kapoor, I.P., R.L. Metcalf, R.F. Nystrom & G.K. Sangha.  J. Agri. Food
        Chem., 113, 1145-52 (1970).

62.  Harrison, J.E., et. al.  Science, 170, 503-8 (1970).

63.  Eberhardt, L.L., R.L. Meeks, & T.J. Peterlo.  Nature, 230, 60-2  (1971).

64.  Kallman, B.T., & A.K. Andrews.  Science, 141, 1050-1 (1963).

64A. Woodwell, G.M., P.P. Craig, & H.A. Johnson.  Science, 174, 1101-7 (1971).

65.  Parzons, A.M., and D.J. Moore,  J. Chem. Soc., 2026-2031 (1966).

66.  Roseva, J.D., D.J. Sultherland, and G.R. Lumpton.  Bull. Environ. Cont.
        and Toxic., ±, 132-140  (1966).

67.  Harrison, R.B., B.C. Holmes, J. Roburn, and J.O.C. Tatton.  J. Sci. Food
        Agri., 18, 10-15 (1967).

68.  Robinson, J.A., U.K. Brown, and A. Richardson.  Food & Cosmetic Toxicol.,
        5_, 771-79 (1967).

69.  Robinson, J.A., J.A. Richardson, B. Bush, and K.E. Elgar.  Bull Environ.
        Cont. and Toxic., 1^, 127-132 (1966).

70.  Henderson, G.L., and D.G. Crosby.  J. Agr. Food Chem., 15, 888-93 (1967).

71.  Wedemeyer, G.  Appl. Microbiol. , .L6_, 661-2 (1968).

72.  Anonymous.  World Rev. Pest. Cont., ]_, 68-9  (1968).

73.  Matsumura, F and G.M. Boush.  Science, 156, 959-61  (1967).

74.  Matsumura, F., G.M. Boush,  & A.  Tai.   Nature,  219.  965-67  (1968).

75.  Caro, J.H., & A.W. Taylor.  Ibid.,   379-84  (1971).

76.  Eye, J.D.  J. Water Pollut. Cont.  Fed.  Suppl. ,  40_,  R 316-32  (1968).

77.  Lichtenstein, E.P., J.P.  Anderson,  F.W.  Fuherraann,  & K.R.  Schultz.
        Science, 159.  1110-1  (1967).

78.  Saha, J.G. 6.  Y.W.  Lee.   J.  Econ. Entomol.,  i6_3,  670-1 (1970).

79.  Spencer, W.F., M.M. Cliath, &  W.J.  Farmer.   Soil  Sci.  Soc. Am.
        Proceedings, _33_> 509-11  (1969).

80.  Thompson,  A.R., C.A.  Edwards,  M.J.  Edwards, &  K.I.  Beynon.   Pesticide
        Sci., !_, 174-8 (1970).

81.  Winnett, G. & J.P. Reed.   Pest.  Monit.  J. ,  .2,  133-6 (1968).

82.  Rove, D.R., et. al.   Pesticides  Monit.  J.,  4_,  177-83 (1971).

83.  Okado, K., &  K. Nomura.   Nippon  Nogeiku Kaishi, _3£ 240-44  (1964)
         [Ca 6a, 4891  (1964)].

84.  Lippold, P.C., et. al.   J.  Econ. Entomol.,  6£, 1509-10 (1969).

85.  Chen, P.R., W. Tucker, W- Dauterman.  J. Agr.  Food Chem.,  17, 86-90 (1969)

86.  Konrad,  J.G., Gesters,  G. Armstrong, D.E.  Soil Sci. Amer. Proc., 33
        259  (1969).

87.  Konrad,  J.G.   Dissertation Abst. Intern., _30_ (1)  23B-4B (1969).

 88.   Bowman, B.T., R.S. Adams, & S.W. Fenton.  J. Agr. Food Chem,, 18
         723-7 (1970).

 89.   Walker, W.W.  Symposium Am.  Soc. Agronomy, N.Y., August 15, 1971.

 90.   Randall, C.W., M. Asce, & R.A. Lauderdale.  Proceedings Am. Soc. Civil
         Engineers, 6^  145-156 (1967).

 91.   Getzin, L.W., & I. Rosefield.  J. Agr. Food Chem., 16^ 598-601 (1968).

 92.   Matsumura, F. & G.M. Boush.   Science, 153, 1278-80 (1966).

 93.   Lichtenstein, E.P.  J. Econ. Entomol., 57, 618 (1964).

 94.   Dyte, C.E., & D.G. Rowlands.  J. Stored. Prod. Res., 4_, 157-73 (1968).

 95.   Rowlands, D.G., & J.E. Clements.  J. Stored. Prod. Res., 1_ 101-3 (1965).

 96.   Rowlands, D.G.  J. Sci. Fd.  Agric. , 15_, 824-9  (1964).

 97.   O'Brien, R.D.  Insecticides:  Action & Metabolism, Academic Press, N.Y., 1967.

 98.   Bowman, J.S. , & E.J. Orloski.  Mosquito News, 25, 557 (1966).

 99.   Blinn, R.C.  J. Agr. Food Chem., .16, 441-5 (1968).

100.   Blinn, R.C.  Ibid., 17^ 118-22  (1969).

101.   Gish, C.D.  Pesticides Monitoring Journal, _3, No. 4, 241  (1970).

102.   Fahey, J.E., et.  al.  Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 1L, No. 4. 31  (1968).

103.  Trautman, W.L., et. al.  Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 2^ No. 2, 97

104.  Deubert,  K.H.  Unpublished  results.

105.  Kadoum,  A.M.   Bull, Environ.  Contain.  Toxicol., .2,  264  (1967);  .3  65



    1.  Organizations

        a.  Environmental Protection Agency

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has responsibility

for establishing and enforcing pesticide standards, for monitoring and

analyzing the environment, for conducting research and demonstrations re-

lated to the environment and assisting state and local governments in

establishing and carrying out pollution control programs.   It is responsi-

ble for carrying out anti-pollution policies and executing many of the

tasks necessary to effectively control pollution from all  sources.

          The EPA combined the major federal pollution control programs

previously located in five separate federal agencies.  These included the

Federal Water Quality Administration from the Department of the Interior

(Interior); the National Air Pollution Control Administration, The Bureau

of Solid Waste Management, Bureau of Water Hygiene, and Bureau of

Radiological Health from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare

(HEW); pesticides standards and research from HEW and Interior; pesti-

cides registration from the Department of Agriculture; the Federal

Radiation Council from the Executive Office of the President; and environ-

mental radiation standards from the Atomic Energy Commission.

        b.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare

          The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has responsi-

bility under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for monitoring and

enforcing standards for pesticides in or on agricultural commodities and

processed food but EPA establishes these standards.  The Department is

also responsible for protecting the public from occupational and environ-

mental hazards and from other public health problems including diseases

transmitted by vectors.

        c.  Department of Agriculture

          The Department of Agriculture is responsible for research on

the effectiveness of pesticides and for various other research, infor-

mation, education, and regulatory programs to protect human beings, crops,

livestock, forests, stored products, and structures against insects, weeds,

fungi, and other pests.

        d.  Department of the Interior

          The Department of the Interior is responsible for the con-

servation of wild birds, fish, mammals, and their food organisms in the

environment, and it is generally responsible for research on all factors

affecting fish and wildlife.  However, authority for research to deter-

mine the specific effects of pesticides on birds, fish, and other wildlife

rests with EPA.

        e.  Other Organizations

          There are numerous other federal government organizations which

influence the use of pesticides for vector control.  These include the

Federal Working Group on Pest Management, Hazardous Materials Advisory

Committee, Armed Forces Pest Control Board, the Interior Intra-departmental

Pesticides Working Group, and the Agriculture Intra-departmental Pesti-

cides Working Group.

    2.  Federal Legislation

          Federal laws that most directly deal with the use, sale, trans-

portation, and application or effects of pesticides and other hazardous

substances include the following:

        a.  Water Quality Improvement Act, P.L. 91-224, 84

            Stat. 91 (1970).

        b.  Environment Quality Improvement Act, Public Law

            91-224, 84 Stat. 114 (1970).

        c.  Clean Water Restoration Act, P.L. 89-733, 80 Stat.

            1246 (1966).

        d.  Water Quality Act, P.L. 89-234, 79 Stat. 903 (1965).

        e.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 87-88,

            75 Stat. 204 (1961).

        f.  Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 84-660, 70 Stat.

            498  (1956).

        g.  Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 82-579, 66 Stat.

            755  (1952)

        h.  Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 80-845, 62 Stat.

            1155 (1948).

        i.  Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, P.L. 85-624,

            16 USC 661  (1958).

        j.  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,

            7 USC 135,  61 Stat.  163  (1919).

Important executive orders dealing with pesticides  or  their effects  include:

        •   Executive Order 11507-Prevention,  Control,  and  Abatement

            of Air and  Water Pollution at Federal Facilities,

            4 February  1970.


        •   Executive Order 11288-Prevention, Control and Abatement

            of Water Pollution by Federal Activities, 2 July 1966.

These laws and executive orders, when coupled with executive regulations

and procedures, constitute the national framework within which vector

control programs are undertaken in the northeast states.

    3.  Federal Cases

          Several pesticide cases have been heard that involve federal

law or federal agencies or officials in recent years.  To date, these

cases have mostly dealt with procedural issues.  For example, in Nor-Am v.

Hardin, 1 ER 1460 (USCA 7th) the court held that the —

          Manufacturer of mercury fungicide, use of which was ordered
          suspended by Secretary of Agriculture under Federal
          Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC 135, based
          on a single abnormal incident and without a hearing, was
          entitled to federal court review on a claim that the order
          was arbitrary and capricious, since the order was the final
          determination of the matter of imminent hazard to the

Other important cases are Environmental Defense Fund v. HEW, 1 ER 1341

(USCA, DC) and Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 1 ER 1347 (USCA, DC).


    1.  Organizations

        a.  Pesticide Board

          The Commonwealth of Massachusetts established a Pesticide Board

in the Department of Public Health in 1962.  The members of the board are

the Commissioners of Public Health (Chairman), Natural Resources, Agri-

culture, and Public Works, the Director of the Division of Fish and Game

and the Chairman of the State Reclamation Board or their designees, and

five members appointed by the governor.   The appointive members serve for

terras co-terminous with the governor.

          The board may adopt and make provisions  to enforce such rules

and regulations as it determines are necessary to  protect  the public

interests in the soils, waters, wetlands, wildlife,  agriculture, and other

natural resources of the Commonwealth.  It is also to undertake a contin-

uous study of methods of applying and using pesticides, the effects of

such applications and uses, and to publish the results of  this work from

time to time.

          Upon written request from the Pesticides Board,  its financial

needs are included by the Commissioner of Public Health in the budget of

the Department of Public Health.

          The board is required to meet at least four times per year and

may also meet when called by the Chairman or upon  written  request by any

two members.  Board decisions are rendered by a majority vote and imple-

mented by the Commissioner of Public Health.  However, other governmental

agencies, when authorized by the board in writing, can carry out certain

provisions of the law and the rules and regulations promulgated by the


        b.  Reclamation Board

          The Commonwealth of Massachusetts established a State Reclamation

Board under Chapter 252 of its General Laws.  The  members of the board are

one employee of the Department of Public Health, one employee of the

Department of Agriculture, and a third member designated jointly by the

heads of both departments.  These members must be approved by the  governor

and the Governor's Council.  The board is under the administrative control

of the Department of Agriculture.

          The board is to make determinations of the usefulness and

necessity of improving lowland by draining or removal of obstructions in

streams or rivers, and the necessity of eradicating mosquitoes in any

infested area.  The board is to consider the agricultural or industrial

uses made possible on such land, the protection of the public health, the

utilization of any deposits in such land, and other purposes made possible

by any proposed treatments.

        c.  Water Pollution Control Division, Massachusetts Department

            of Natural Resources

          The Commonwealth of Massachusetts established a Water Pollution

Control Division under the control of  the Water Resources Commission in

the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 21 of the General Laws

as amended in 1966, 1967, 1969, and 1970.  The division has a director

appointed by  the commission and its work is supervised by the commission.

The director  employs an  assistant director, division legal counsel, and

other necessary professional, technical, and clerical personnel, subject

to the approval of the commission.

          The division's responsibilities are to establish programs for

the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution and to other-

wise enhance  the quality and value of  the water resources of  the

Commonwealth.  Among its responsibilities, as cited  in  the  law, are  the

establishment of water quality standards, periodic examination  of water

quality, and  the submission of proposed water pollution abatement

districts, with the approval of the commission, to cities and towns.  Such

districts are established after .approval by those in the area proposed

for inclusion in the district and each becomes a body politic and corporate

with a governing district commission.

          Also, under the law, the members of the Water Resources Commission

and the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety sit as a board to

control the handling and disposal of certain chemical and hazardous wastes.

          The board, after public hearing, may adopt rules and regulations

to protect the public and the environment from the effects of handling

and disposal of such chemicals and wastes.  The law states that these

repponsibilities are not to diminish or interfere with the responsibili-

ties of any other agency.

    2.  Massachusetts Laws, Regulations, and Regulatory Processes

        a.  Hazardous Substances Act.  Chapter 94B (1960)

          The Hazardous Substances Act places the responsibility for con-

trol of hazardous substances in the Department of Public Health under

the direction of the commissioner.  The commissioner may formulate reasonable

rules and regulations declaring any substance to be hazardous when he

finds it satisfies the definition set out by the law.

            (1)  Registration.  Every pesticide distributed, sold,

offered for sale  in the Commonwealth, delivered for transportation or

transported in intrastate commerce, or between points within the Commonwealth

through any point outside the Commonwealth, must be registered with the

Director of the Food and Drug Division, and such registration must be

renewed annually.

          The registrant files with the commissioner a statement includ-

ing his name and address, and the name and address of the person whose

name will appear on the label; the name of the pesticide; a complete copy

of the labeling for the pesticide and a statement of all claims to be

made for it, including directions for use.  If requested by the commis-

sioner, a full description of the tests made and their results must also

be filed.

          It is unlawful to distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the

Commonwealth or to deliver or transport any pesticide not registered, or

for which different claims are made or for which the composition differs

from that set out in connection with its  registration.  The commissioner

has the authority to revoke or modify any registration granted under

Chapter 94B if the Pesticide Board finds  that continuation of the regis-

tration would constitute a hazard to the  public health, fish, wildlife,

shellfish, or other natural resources of  the Commonwealth.  When such a

claim is made, the commissioner notifies  the registrant in writing of the

effective date of the revocation of the registration.  An appeals proced-

ure is available to the registrant.

            (2)  Labeling.  Pesticides must be labeled with the name and

address of the manufacturer, registrant,  or person for whom it was

manufactured, the name, brand, or trademark under which the substance is

sold, the net weight, and the measure of  the content.  Any pesticide which

contains a substance highly toxic to man  must be labeled with a skull and

crossbones and the word "poison" prominently in red  on a background of

contrasting color, and the antidote.

          The act prohibits any alteration of the label on a hazardous

substance while any portion of the substance is still in the container and

makes it unlawful to receive or deliver a misbranded package containing a

hazardous substance.  A hazardous substance in a container used for food,

drug, or cosmetics and still bearing its regular label cannot be sold or

given away.  Any such use of containers results in the hazardous substance

being misbranded.  A misbranded package, when manufactured with the intent

that it be distributed or sold, is to be embargoed by a representative of

the Division of Food and Drugs and submitted to the jurisdiction of the

courts, except when intended for export to any foreign country and labeled

according to the laws of the foreign country and to show that it is

intended for export.

            (3)  Enforcement.  The commissioner and his designees are

authorized to make inspections to enforce the provisions of Chapter 94B

and any rules and regulations the commissioner promulgates under that

chapter.  They are to have access at reasonable times to any premises where

they suspect the presence of any hazardous substance that is misbranded.

          Persons manufacturing, storing, receiving, or holding hazardous

substances are to provide the director or his inspectors with access to

all records showing any movement or holding of such substances during or

after movement, and the quantities involved and are to allow these records

to be copied.

          Any person who obstructs the director or his inspectors from

entering premises where hazardous substances are kept or does not comply

with the provisions for providing for records and copying is subject to

punishment by a fine of not more than $2000 or imprisonment of up to six

months or-both.

          The commissioner may authorize formal complaints to appropriate

authorities or the superior court where it appears that any provisions of

the pesticides law were violated.  Except for special provisions in the

case of certain violations of the law, a first offense is punishable by a

fine of not less than $150 or more than $200.  For a second or subsequent

offense, the fine is not less than $200 or more than $1000, or imprisonment

of not more than 90 days, or both.

          (4)  Licenses for Pesticide Sales.  No wholesaler or distributor

other than a person selling at retail level may sell, offer to sell, dis-

tribute, or deliver a pesticide in the Commonwealth unless he has a license

to do so from the Department of Public Health.  Such licensees are to

supply the Pesticide Board with information concerning the quantities of

certain pesticides, the use of which has been regulated by the board or

which are being considered for regulation, that were sold or delivered in

the Commonwealth and the names and addresses or such purchasers or recipients

upon the board's request.

          (5)  Appeals and Administrative Procedures.  The law sets out

procedures for correcting any discrepancies in labeling or claims for a

pesticide and for formally challenging decisions made by the commissioner.

          (6)  Embargo.  Any pesticide which is adulterated or misbranded

or which has not been registered under the provisions of Chapter 94B or

which does not bear on its lable the information required by the pesticide

law, or which is a white powder pesticide, and not colored as required by

the pesticide law can be embargoed.

          (7)  Pesticide Board.  The duties and powers of the Pesticide

Board are defined in the act.

          In general,  the power delegated to the Pesticides Board to con-

trol application and use of pesticides is broad.  The board can adopt and

amend regulations controlling the storage, transportation,  use, and

application of pesticides that it deems necessary for protecting public

health and public interests in the environment.   Before adopting these

regulations, however,  the law requires that the  board consult with the

scientific community,  the pesticide industry,  pesticides applicators and

users, and the general public.

          The board is restricted from requiring farmers or persons apply-

ing pesticides on or under any structure to be licensed but these persons

may be required by the board to design a statement pledging to use pesti-

cides only as authorized by the board.  The law  provides that anyone using

an aircraft to apply pesticides must be licensed.

          Violators of the rules and regulations issued by  the board are

subject to a fine up to $100 for the first offense and a fine of up to

$500 for subsequent offenses.

          The Pesticides Board adopted rules and regulations on March 12,

1964, and amended the same on March 29, 1967;  May 13, 1971; and May 26,

1971.  The rules and regulations require the restriction of all pesticides

used or applied in the Commonwealth to be registered with the Division of

Food and Drugs, Department of Public Health.  Each pesticide is registered

in terms of uses, rates of application, and intervals of use, and the

regulations require that any pesticide will be used only for registered

uses and will not exceed registered dosages and  intervals.

          All uses of pesticides on surface, near subterranean, or in the

watershed area for public water supplies must be approved by the board

upon the recommendation of the Department of Public Health.

          Disposal of pesticides is to occur only in a disposal area

assigned by local boards of health and operated according to relevant

Massachusetts laws, in municipal incinerators, or in other devices approved

by the Department of Public Health.  If the materials are disposed of by

burial, such disposal must insure that contamination of ground or surface

water is held to a minimum and that the materials will not be disturbed by

subsequent activities in the area.

          Burning of certain pesticides is authorized if the local fire

department is contacted and if in compliance with regulations of local

boards of health or the Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District.

          Methods of disposal of pesticides containers are not specified

in the board's regulations, but instead fall under rules and regulations

established by the Department of Public Health.  Treatment of pesticides

containers prior to their use for limited purposes is also regulated by the

Department of Public Health.

          Persons applying or handling pesticides are individually responsi-

ble for their own safety and safety procedures.

          Any application of pesticides to the land of another must be

made in the presence of a person licensed by the board.  Requirements for

licensing include experience at the operational level of pesticides appli-

cation under a person holding a supervisory license or such experience in

combination with specified educational qualifications and successful

completion of an examination conducted under the direction of the board.

Licenses are issued for a two-year period or temporarily, at the discretion

of the board.

          Non-residents may apply pesticides in the Commonwealth if they

are licensed in another state under a law requiring similar qualifications

of the licensee and if the other state grants reciprocity to applicators

licensed in Massachusetts.

          At least one supervisory license is required for each business

and governmental entity that applies pesticides to the land of another.

A supervisory or operational licensee must be present wherever and whenever

pesticide applications are made.

          The board may suspend or revoke any license granted under its

regulations following a hearing before the board if it is demonstrated that

the licensee failed to observe any board rule or regulation or any law

relating to pesticides.

          Pesticide applications by licensed persons from aircraft must

be reported to the board within seven days.   All other applications by

licensed persons must be recorded so that, upon request of the board,  the

following data may be made available:  area treated, pesticide formulation

used, dosage applied, method of application, date(s) of application,

target organisms, persons licensed by the board who planned and executed

the application, and any difficulties encountered which may have produced


          The Pesticide Board has acted to regulate the use and appli-

cation of certain pesticides as follows:

          ...pesticides (1) which are persistent in the environment;
          (2) which accumulate as the pesticide per se or its
          metabolites or degradation products in plant or animal
          tissue or products and which may be transferred to other
          forms in life;  (3) which are translocated from the point of
          application to points where they do not serve a useful

          purpose, and (4) which by virtue of this persistence,
          accumulation or translocation create a risk of harmful
          effects on organisms other than the target organisms,
          or other pesticides with regard to which the board finds
          that regulation is necessary in order to protect the
          public wealth and the public interests in the soils,
          waters, forests, wetlands, wildlife, agriculture and other
          natural resources of the Commonwealth.  It is the inten-
          tion of the Pesticide Board to repeal any use permitted
          herein when feasible non-persistent substitutes for these
          pesticides and uses become available.

          The board has ruled that DDD (IDE), aldrin, endrin, heptachlor,

and marine-fouling paints which contain the substance mercury in any form

or compound cannot be used or applied in Massachusetts.  It has  restricted

the use and application of dieldrin, chlordane, BHC, 2,4,5-T, DDT, and

toxaphene.  Of these pesticides, dieldrin, 2,4,5-T, and DDT cannot be used

or applied without a permit from the board and then only subject to any

restrictions set out in the permit.  Such a permit must be displayed before

these pesticides can be purchased.

          The Chairman of the Pesticide Board may issue a permit allowing

the limited application of restricted pesticides to control dangers to

the public health, a recently introduced pest, or where there is demon-

strated public necessity for their use.

        b.  Mosquito and Greenhead Fly Control, Ch. 252 (1929)

          (1)  The Legal Framework.  The Chapter 252 authorizes  the

Reclamation Board to undertake activities to improve lowlands and to con-

trol mosquitoes and greenhead flies.  The board may authorize improvement

activities only if state or local governmental entities and/or individual

proprietors petition the board to allow improvements that will help attain

the objectives cited in the law.  If the proposed improvements appear

advisable to the board, it must give public notice of the petition and the

date of the hearing before the board.  If there are no individual propri-

etors involved in the petition, and the board determines that the improve-

ments should be undertaken, the construction and maintenance of the

proposed improvements are undertaken without the formation of a reclamation

district.  Instead, all persons and governmental entities benefited by the

project-are notified by the board as to the estimated expenses and main-

tenance costs for the project.  Upon receipt of adequate funds, the board

appoints one or.more commissioners and authorizes them to carry out and

maintain the improvements.

          If the individual proprietors have joined in the petition, the

board, after determining that the proposed improvements should be under-

taken, must decide whether to organize a reclamation district to carry out

and maintain the improvements.  If it decides that a district should be

organized, it appoints commissioners and authorizes them to form a

reclamation district and to carry out and maintain the improvements.

          A reclamation district is formed by the newly sworn commissioners

by calling a meeting of the owners of the land to be improved, indicating

the matters upon which action is to be taken at the meeting.  A majority

of interest in value or area, including valid proxies, is required for

the meeting to act.  If such majority is present, the meeting may vote on

whether to accept Sections 1 through 14B of Chapter 252 of the General

Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the law governing the Reclamation

Board and reclamation districts) and whether to create a reclamation

district.  The structure, officers, and operation of reclamation districts

are set out in the various sections of Chapter 252 of the General Laws.

          Mosquito abatement may be undertaken in any manner approved by

the Reclamation Board by the Board of Health of a city or town not in-

cluded in an improvement program area under the Reclamation Board or by

the commissioners of a mosquito control project established under the

Board.  Prior to undertaking such abatement procedures, the owners of the

area where the procedures will be undertaken must be notified in the news-

paper published in the town where the area is situated.  The notice must

indicate the time and place of a public hearing on the abatement program.

At the hearing, the Board of Health or the commissioners must hear all

interested parties.

          An owner of any part of the area where the abatement program

will be undertaken can appeal the decision to carry out the program to the

county commissioners within 14 days after the hearing  conducted by the

Board of Health or the commissioners.  The commissioners shall hear the

petitioner(s), the Board of Health or commissioners, and the Reclamation

Board or its agent within 14 days after receipt of the appeal.  If the

county commissioners do not decide within two weeks that the abatement is

not required, then it may proceed.  Any person who suffers property damage

by any work undertaken for mosquito abatement purposes may recover his

damages according to law from either the city or town  undertaking the

project or from the county or counties in which any city or town included

in the project is located when such work is undertaken by commissioners

appointed by the board.

          (2)  Development of Vector Control Programs.  The State of

Massachusetts has eight mosquito abatement districts,  six of which  are  set

up under separate legislative acts—the other two  come under Chapter  252

of the General Laws.  The history of vector control in Massachusetts can

be traced back to 1870 or 1880 when the town of Belmont did the first

mosquito program to control malaria before the malaria cycle was actually

worked out.  The next step was taken in Cape Cod where local people

financed a number of private and municipal attempts around 1920 to control

mosquitoes, including the spraying of oil over standing water on the marsh


          In 1928 the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce organized a countrywide

fund-raising drive to raise funds for mosquito control.  In these years,

it was very obvious that the prevalence of mosquitoes on Cape Cod could

prevent the area from becoming one of the leading recreational areas in

the East.  The fund-raising committee obtained $200,000 and helped estab-

lish the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project.

          In 1929, in an amendment to the Chapter 252 through Chapter 288,

mosquito control is mentioned for the first time in the laws of

Massachusetts.  Under this chapter, authority is given to towns and cities

for the improvement of lowlands and swamps and the eradication of mos-

quitoes.  In 1930, legislation was enacted creating the Cape Cod Mosquito

Control Project by Chapter 379.  Upon enactment of this legislation, the

first mosquito control project in the state came under the direction of

the State Reclamation Board within the Department of Agriculture.

          During the middle and early thirties, considerable ditching

throughout the coastal area of the state was performed by the Works

Progress Administration  (WPA) which made personnel available for marsh

work.  Afterwards, the individual cities and towns financed the maintenance

of such works through the State Reclamation Board.

          The second mosquito  control  project was  created by Chapter 456

of the Acts of 1945 in Berkshire  County.   This is  the only district  not

in the eastern part of the state.

          In 1956  the Norfolk  Mosquito Control district  was created  by

Chapter 341.  The  creation of  a number of  other districts immediately

followed.  In the  same year  the Bristol County District  was created  by

Chapter 506, the Duke County by Chapter 371  (although this  project never

materialized because four out  of  the six towns included  in  the district

withdrew shortly after they  were  entitled  to  organize).   Plymouth County

was organized in 1957 and Essex County in  1958.  The  Essex  project did not

begin operating until 1964 because sufficient funds were  not made available.

          There are also two other mosquito control projects in the State

of Massachusetts,  the voluntary projects of East Middlesex  and South Shore.
Although not created by legislative acts,  they have been  in effect for some

time under the general supervision of  the  Reclamation Board.

          In 1948  a law was  enacted establishing greenhead  fly control

projects.  Work was performed  under the direction of  the  Executive Secretary

of the State Reclamation Board.   Essex County and Cape Cod  formed control

districts while the South Shore performed  the works as a  voluntary project.

For those towns and cities that have set up as  a reclamation district, the

state government pays one-third of the total  cost of greenhead fly control

and the remaining  two-thirds is financed by the individual  cities and towns.

If a district is not established  the communities bear the entire cost of

the program.

          The Cape Cod Greenhead  Fly Control  District was administered

under the Mosquito Abatement Project,  and  the Essex County District and

South Shore project were also  turned over  to  the Mosquito Abatement districts

after their creation.


          The mosquito and greenhead fly control projects are all under

the direction of the State Reclamation Board.   The Board appoints the

district commissioners who are in charge of managing the vector control

project.  The commissioners hire a superintendent and all other necessary

personnel for the proper conduct of the project.

          The projects are financed by the individual towns who are mem-

bers of the district.  The appropriations, which are established under

the legislative acts for each district, are based on the assessed value of

the town or area real estate as established by the State Treasurer.  In the

voluntary projects of South Shore and Middlesex, the appropriation is made

annually at a town meeting and is subject to variation from year to year.

The district funds are deposited with the State Treasury Office and as the

districts incur expenses they send the bills to the Reclamation Board for

approval.  The Board in turn sends it for payment to the comptroller's


          In addition to abatement districts,  individual towns take upon

themselves from time to time mosquito control projects which sometimes

overlap with district abatement programs.

        c.  Massachusetts Clean Waters Act—Chapter 21 (1966)

          The Division of Water Pollution Control has the following

responsibilities under the law:

          (1)  To encourage the adoption and execution by cities,

               towns, industries, and other users of waters in the

               Commonwealth and by cooperative groups of municipali-

               ties and industries, of plans for the prevention, con-

               trol, and abatement of water pollution.

(2)   To cooperate with appropriate federal agencies or

     agencies in other states and with interstate agencies

     in matters related to water control quality.  The

     division shall also cooperate with and assist depart-

     ments, boards, officials, and institutions of the

     Commonwealth or its political subdivisions that are

     concerned in any way with the problems of water


(3)   To conduct a program of study, research,  and demon-

     stration by itself or in cooperation with other

     governmental agencies relating to new and improved

     methods of pollution abatement and more efficient

     methods of water quality control.

(4)   To adopt standards of water quality applicable  to

     various waters or portions of waters in the Commonwealth

     and a plan for implementation and enforcement of  those

     standards.  Standards that relate to the  public health

     shall be adopted only with the written approval of the

     Commissioner of Public Health.

(5)   To examine periodically the water quality of various

     coastal waters, rivers, streams, lakes and ponds  in the

     Commonwealth and to publish the results of such exami-

     nations together with the standards of water quality

     established for said waters.

          (6)  To prepare and keep current a comprehensive plan which

               shall be approved by the Water Resources Commission

               for the abatement of existing pollution and the preven-

               tion of further pollution of the waters of the


          (7)  To arrange for personnel engaged in water pollution

               prevention and abatement to take courses designed to

               instruct them in methods of water pollution control.

          (8)  Adopt, amend,  or repeal after hearing and with the

               approval of the Water Resources Commission, rules and

               regulations necessary to properly administrate the

               laws relative to water pollution control and for the

               protection of the quality of water resources.

          (9)  To require submission for approval of reports and plans

               for abatement facilities and to inspect such facilities

               to assure their compliance with the approved plans.

         (10)  Undertake immediately whenever there is spillage,

               seepage, or other discharge of oil into any of the

               waters of the Commonwealth or any offshore waters which

               may result in damage to the water shores or natural

               resources of the Commonwealth, to contain or remove

               such oil.

          The division is authorized under the law with the approval of

the Water Resources Commission to propose water pollution abatement dis-

tricts consisting of more than one city or town for the purposes  set forth

in the law.   The division is to supervise the operations and maintenance

of any facilities of the pollution abatement  district  and  the director may

require the district commission  to take  such  immediate action as  may  be

necessary to maintain the required standards.

          The Director of the Division of Water  Pollution  Control  is  to

provide for the conduct of research and  for demonstration  projects related

to water pollution control.

          The director or his authorized representative may at reasonable

times enter upon any public or private property  to investigate or inspect

any condition related to the pollution or possible pollution  of any waters

and may make such tests as are necessary to determine  the source of pol-

lution.  The director or his authorized  representative may also examine any

records or papers pertaining to  the operation of any disposal system or

treatment works.

          The law provides for a fine of not more than $1000  for anyone

who directly or indirectly throws, drains, runs, or discharges into the

waters of the Commonwealth organic or inorganic matter which  causes or

contributes to conditions in contravention of the water quality standards

adopted by the division.  Each day the violation continues is a separate

offense and punishable by a similar fine.  The director is to notify the

person making or permitting such discharge in writing and order the person

to correct the condition or complaint according  to a schedule included in

the letter.  Such an order is to inform  the alleged violator  of his right

to request a hearing within 30 days.  If a hearing is not requested, the

person is deemed to have consented to the order.  If the person requests

a hearing, the director is to hold a hearing according to the provisions

in the law.  The director may then reissue such orders as are warranted.

          All orders, permits or other determinations of the director ex-

cept those consented to are subject to judicial review.   The Superior Court

of the Commonwealth has jurisdiction in equity to enforce any such order,

permit, determination, rule, or regulation issued under  the law.   The

Superior Court, if the public health, safety,  and interest require it, may

enjoin any pollution prior to the final determination of any proceeding.

          The Members of the Water Resources Commission  individually and

the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety compose a board for

the purpose of insuring that certain chemical and hazardous wastes are

safely and properly handled and disposed of.  The board  is authorized to

investigate the handling and disposal of such wastes and to coordinate the

activity of agencies represented by the members of the board.  The board

can adopt rules and regulations to protect the public and its environment

from the effects of unregulated handling and disposal of these wastes.

The board delegates the responsibility for the administration of its rules

and regulations to the most appropriate agency as represented by a member

of the board.

          After public hearing, the board can adopt rules and regulations:

          (1)  Identifying substances which constitute or may reasonably

               be expected to constitute a danger to the public health,

               safety, or welfare or to the environment  and which

               should be handled and disposed of by licensed waste


          (2)  Specifying in what manner wastes may be handled or dis-

               posed of.

          (3)  Specifying the location in which such substances may

               be disposed of within or without the Commonwealth to

               prevent damage to any resource or to the environment.

          (A)  Establishing reasonable exceptions when scientific

               evidence satisfies the board that certain substances

               and quantities involved do not constitute a threat to

               the public and its environment.

          (5)  Establishing reasonable license and inspection fees.

          (6)  Establishing such other rules and regulations as

               necessary to assure that hazardous wastes are being

               properly handled and disposed of and to assure that

               such hazardous wastes are handled by licensees of the


          Licenses are to be issued by the board to persons to handle

and dispose of hazardous wastes.  The terms and conditions of the license

will be those set out by the board in accordance with its rules and


          A violation of the laws with respect to the safety and proper

handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and the licensing of persons to

handle and dispose of such wastes are punishable by a fine of not more

than $5000 and by imprisonment in jail or the house of correction by not

more than six months, or both.  The Superior Court has jurisdiction in

equity to enforce the provisions of the law.

          Any general or special law reference as to the authority to

administer water pollution abatement or control laws in the Clean Waters

Act is intended to be referred to the Division of Water and Pollution Con-

trol.  Laboratory services of the Department of Public Health are made

available under the law to the Division of Water Pollution Control at cost.

    3.  Relevant Incidents

        a.  Methods of Investigating Complaints

          There is little active effort by the Pesticide Board to control

the sale, use and application of pesticides in the Commonwealth.  Rather,

it depends upon receiving complaints about those who are using or apply-

ing pesticides from citizens, government employees, and others.  Unless

such  complaints are made, the board seldom investigates or makes other

attempts  to control pesticides under existing laws and regulations.

          There have been numerous complaints and incidents regarding

pesticides presented to and investigated by the Massachusetts Pesticide

Board since the board was established.  Complaints are made known to the

board in  a number of ways, but usually through phone calls, letters, or

personal  meetings with the executive officer of the board.  The complaints

handled by the board cover a broad range including accidental spilling of

pesticides, fish kills, bird kills, and hazards such as airplanes flying

over  populated areas after or during pesticide spraying.

          Complaints are all handled in a similar fashion.  The executive

officer of the board, as time and resources permit, attempts to investi-

gate  each complaint and  to determine whether it is justified,  the basis

for  that  justification,  and whether the Pesticide Board or another  state

agency should take any action with respect to  the complaint.  When  com-

plaints are considered by  the personnel of the board,  the  investigation

is  thorough.   In most cases all  people who have had anything to do  with

the  incident  are interviewed and a summary of  the interview information

is  retained.


          Much time, knowledge, and skill is required of the investigator.

He must be aware of technical pesticide used, their names, their proper

application; he must be aware of alternative expalnations for the result

which is being complained about; he must know which people and agencies

to see about the problem; he must be aware of other aspects of the problem

such as medical, social, legal, and environmental.

          The investigator must interview people at length to find out

what really happened or what was observed.  He must be able to document the

results through sampling and testing, through photography, and through

witnesses.  He visits the site of the incident and attempts to explore all

possible explanations at the site with witnesses or complainants and with

others who may be able to contribute alternative theories and support for

them.  The investigator spends a great deal of time in carrying out these

elements of the investigation and must travel a great deal to do so.

          The Massachusetts Pesticide Board has one employee charged with

investigating incidents of pesticide misuse or harm caused to human beings

or environment by pesticides.  The same person is also responsible for

administering all the rules and regulations of the board and for carrying

out the law regarding pesticides when that responsibility falls to the

board.  This person must also handle all correspondence, much planning and

policy, executive actions, record-keeping, and most of the social and

political difficulties that arise from pesticide use and application.

Consequently, because the Pesticide Board executive officer is so busy,

the complainant often must request action by the board more than once if

his complaint is to be followed up.  The result is that too much of the

burden of protecting against harm to human beings or the environment caused

by pesticides is thrown upon citizens who might observe an incident which

deserves the attention of the board.  Moreover, the complainant must be

skillful enough to locate the Pesticide Board within the state government

to even deliver the complaint.

        b.   Synopses of Specific Incidents

          (1)  Mosquito fogging by golf course.  The board received a

request from the local board of health for assistance in dealing with

citizen complaints about mosquito fogging operations carried on by a golf

course.  The executive officer of the board visited the operator of the

course, accompanied by the director of the county mosquito control project

in whose district the golf course was located.

          The method of spray was a swing fogging device with a generator

used to fog a mixture of 6% DDT, 2% chlordane, and 2% thanite in a

petroleum distillate carrier.  Spraying was done at about 8:00 p.m. on

nights when mosquitoes were intense.  The executive officer instructed the

operator to use another more appropriate spray and to fog only when the

fog would not cross the road to reach nearby homes.

          The executive officer visited the complainant who showed him

plants in their front yard that they claimed were damaged by the spray.

Also, one complainant had been under treatment for a respiratory ailment

which he indicated was aggravated by the spraying.  They further complained

that the kerosene smell got into their clothes and house and that the road

was literally blocked because the fog was so thick.

          The executive officer visited the Chief of Police in the town

who reported the road was not blocked by fog at the time the cruiser


          As a result of his investigations, the executive officer con-

cluded that there was some justification for the complaints, but that the

course did require a mosquito control program.  He set out an improved

program in detail which, in his judgment, would reduce the problem of

drift and which took advantage of better mosquito control spray materials.

           (2)  Aerial spray to control mosquitoes in three towns.  A series

of complaints about dead and dying small birds was found throughout three

towns which had just previously undertaken a helicopter spray program to

control mosquitoes using Baytex at a rate of one ounce of 93% ULV per acre

mixed with a petroleum solvent.

          Fish and Game, Audubon Society, and Chemagro (the manufacturer of

Baytex) personnel collected samples of the birds for laboratory analysis.

The executive officer of the board received letters and phone calls indi-

cating citizen outrage or concern, with estimates of the bird kill including

"thousands" and "10% of the bird population."  He determined that the

Baytex was used properly and that it was loaded under the supervision of

the superintendent of the area mosquito control district.

          The results of some laboratory tests were presented to town

meetings by the Audubon Society as not indicating that the spray program

caused the bird kill.  However, many citizens and public officials remained

skeptical  and scientific evidence was at best inconclusive.  No results

were ever made available from Chemagro's laboratory work.

           (3)  Aerial spray to control mosquitoes.'  A complaint was

received by the board of slight fish kill in swampy areas and two specific

ponds.  A helicopter spray program was reportedly being  carried out in

the area using Baytex at a rate of 1/2 gallon per 60 gallons of water

(about one fluid ounce per acre).

          The board executive officer contacted the helicopter company

who reported the use of Abate, not Baytex, at the same rate.  Company

personnel also indicated that the area being sprayed was heavily polluted

from industrial, town dump, and other sources.

          Investigation at the site did not result in observing any dead

fish.  Heavy pollution from other sources, however, was apparent.  The

executive officer concluded that any slight fish kill which existed was

likely the result of this other pollution and reported this, with a summary

of his field notes, in a letter to the complainant.

          (A)  Greenhead fly spraying program.  A complaint was received

by the board that the Cape Cod Mosquito Control District spray program for

greenhead flies v/as causing plankton and clam kill in a nearby fisheries

research facility.

          Greenhead fly treatments of malathion in oil applied as a fog

and ULV malathion were used in the general area on two occasions and

plankton pools at the research facility stopped producing immediately after

both treatments.  When drained, cleaned, and refilled at high tide, the

pools began producing again.  Quahog clam kills in laboratory trays were

also complained about.

          The board executive officer visited the research facility, col-

lected samples of water, mud, clams, and plankton and took them to the

nearby Cranberry Experiment Station to be analyzed for chlorinated hydro-

carbons.  He also thoroughly checked out any pesticide use by the town and

cranberry growers in the area and found that almost none had been used.

          The laboratory results were inconclusive.   The  executive  officer

suggested a program of wider monitoring  and  additional  testing,  and the

fisheries research facility agreed  to contact appropriate laboratories who

might be equipped to carry out such work.

          (5)  Mosquito larviciding program.  The board received a  complaint

from a town conservation committee  about a large fish kill in several local

ponds.  Several people had reported the  incident to other local and state

government agencies.

          The executive officer of  the board visited  the  sites and found

many dead fish and some dead eels and arranged to have samples taken and

analyzed.  He discovered that a mosquito larviciding treatment had been

made in the upland areas around the ponds in the morning using Baytex at

one fluid ounce per acre in one quart of kerosene.  In the afternoon,

people swam in the pond, noting both fish kill and algae bloom.   Two days

later other persons noted fish kill.  It rained that day, and diazinon

was applied to cranberry bogs upstream from the ponds on that day.   The

next day another complainant noted  fish kill and algae bloom.

          The executive officer discovered a history of problems with these

ponds, including past fish kills, silting, and so on.  He concluded that

the fish kill he was investigating  could have been caused by oxygen

deficiency, mosquito spraying, cranberry spraying, or a combination of all


          (6)  Aerial spray to control mosquitoes.  The board received a

complaint from a bee keeper that he had lost three hives due to aerial

spraying to control mosquitoes in the swampland where the bees were located.

The county bee keeper association also registered a ccrenplaint because of

the incident and asked to be notified prior to any spraying so that they

could protect their hives.

          The executive officer visited the complainant who had lost the

bees and explained the existing rules and regulations regarding aerial

spraying.  Basically, these regulations require local law enforcement

officers to be notified prior to spraying.

          At a subsequent air sprayer meeting, the incident was discus-

sed, the regulations of the Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission and the

Federal Aviation Administration were discussed, and there was a concensus

that all areas should be surveyed for beehives prior to spraying.

          (7)  Pesticide spillage at a public beach.  The board received

a complaint that a pesticide spray truck taking on water for spraying

purposes at a public boat landing and beach area had discharged a large

amount of milky liquid into the water.  The complainant had called the

local police.

          The executive officer visited the local police chief about the

incident and observed the site.  No fish kill or other indications of the

spill were 'evident, but other people had reported foam at the waters edge

from the incident.  He visited with the complainant who had observed the

incident and reported it to the police.  The complainant had observed a

spill causing a milky liquid area in shallow water about 20 feet in

diameter.  The operator of the truck told.the complainant that such dis-

charges often occurred but that the mixture in the water was harmless

because there was no pesticide in it.  The owner of the truck indicated

the mixture discharged was only spreader-sticker because 'the zineb-carbaryl

pesticide had not yet been put into the tank.

          The executive officer concluded that no apparent harm had resul-

ted from the discharge, but he was very concerned about the site chosen

to take on water and the careless manner in which the water loading was

done.  A letter was sent to the owner of the truck indicating that if any

further violations of the rules or regulations occurred, appropriate action

would be taken.

          (8)  Discharge of pesticide into a stream.  A licensed appli-

cator reported to the board that excess 2,4,D-urea 45 mixture had been

dumped by mistake into a stream by a crew for which he was responsible.

No attempt by the board was made to investigate the results of this dump-

ing.  However, a hearing was held to consider the incident by the board.

          The applicator explained that the crew had violated his in-

structions, dumping the excess pesticide into the stream where they usually

took on water instead of into a gravel pit as instructed.  He argued that

the incident was not a reflection on his competence, but a case of a sub-

ordinate not following instructions.

          The board, in executive session, decided to send a letter to

the applicator and did so, stating that disposal of pesticides was an

important aspect of the proper use of pesticides and that further violations

of the rules and regulations of the board  could lead to the loss of the

applicator's license.

          (9)  Application of pesticides without Massachusetts license.

An applicator licensed in Connecticut applied to the board to be licensed

in Massachusetts.  His application was denied, but no reason  for the denial

was given.  The applicator asked for a hearing before the board, the

request was granted and the hearing date set, but was postponed because

the applicator's attorney could not be available.

          A complaint was then received by the board from a Massachusetts

citizen that the spraying of a crop by this same applicator in Massachusetts

had damaged cucumbers not located in the spray target area.

          The next day the executive officer of the board investigated the

applicator in Connecticut and found him to be licensed there.   On that same

day the complainant made another complaint to the board regarding a second

spraying by the same applicator.  This time, the complainant called the

state police.  The applicator told the police he was working under the

license of a Massachusetts firm which had licensed personnel.

          Three days later, an officer of the applicator's firm in

Connecticut called the executive officer and stated that the applicator

had made an honest mistake because the Massachusetts firm had told him

that he was working under their license.  However, the Massachusetts firm

denied they had ever implied that the applicator could work under their

license.  On the same day, the applicator sprayed again in Massachusetts

and the complainant called a local constable to have the spraying stopped.

          Two days later, the board was informed that the same applicator

had been hired to spray the Suffolk Downs Racetrack property.   The

executive officer indicated that he was not licensed and thus could not

carry out the program.  As a result, the management of Suffolk Downs ob-

tained another contractor to do the spraying.

          After discussion with the Chairman of the Board, the case was

referred to legal counsel for the Department of Public Health for prese-

cution.  Subsequently, the applicator again made formal application for a

Massachusetts license.  Apparently, no action has ever been taken on

either matter.

          (10)  Aerial spraying of potatoes and disposal of pesticide

                containers.   Several citizens complained to the board by

letter and phone about drifting spray materials and the nuisance of a low-

flying airplane being used to spray potato fields near their homes.

          The executive officer visited the site and noted herbicidal

effects at the field edges and well onto property of adjacent landowners.

He found the pesticide storage area used by the potato grower unlocked.   Many

pesticide containers were on the ground, including three parathion bottles

with significant amounts of concentrated parathion remaining in each one.

Water in a nearby ditch leading to other streams and ponds was a deep

yellow color, having been contaminated with dinitrophenol, a potato-top


          The executive officer write a strong letter to the potato grower

regarding these findings and requested a meeting to discuss them personally.

          (11)  Fire in a pesticide storage area.  A barn at a country

club in which pesticides were stored burned, and water hosed over the burn-

ing building ran into a nearby private pond killing all or nearly all the

fish in the pond.  A series of wells serving as a public water supply was

located about 3/4ths of a mile downstream from the pond.

          The executive officer helped arrange for a laboratory analysis

of the water which showed that  the pesticides in the barn were amanate,

thiram, actidione, and one other that could not be named by the laboratory.

          (12)  Truck accident  causing pesticide spillage.  The board

received a report of a pesticide spill as a result of a truck accident.

The executive officer contacted the witness and  found the accident had

occurred at 8:30 p.m., causing  one drum  to break open.  He  then contacted

the trucking company.  The company said  the accident  involved one  drum of

parathion, 98%, for manufacturing use.  The drum fell from the truck onto

its top and came to rest leaking.  Only one pound of material was lost as

determined by weighing the drum.  The spill on the pavement was wet down

with a bleach solution, adsorbed into chlorinated lime, and swept up.  The

spill on the highway median was covered with chlorinated lime.  The truck

was not contaminated.

          The executive officer visited the site of the accident and

found no odor nor any remaining evidence of parathion.   The area was still

liberally sprinkled with lime at the time of his visit.

          (13)  Cranberry spray program.  Fish kill in two ponds was re-

ported by town officials to the Division of Fish and Game.  Investigation

by the division indicated that DDT and Guthion had been used in cranberry

bogs on tributaries of the ponds and that accelerated runoff had resulted

from substantial rainfall at the time of the fish kill.
          The next day and on subsequent days, water and fish samples were

taken for analysis.  About 500-600 pounds of dead fish were observed

(bluegills, brown bullheads, yellow perch, white perch), and fish were ob-

served in shallow areas exhibiting nervous spasms.  They could easily be

caught by hand.  The duration of the kill was about two days.

          Laboratory analysis showed negative results at 1 ppb sensitivity

for chlorinated hydrocarbons including DDT in water samples.  However,

Guthion, an organophosphate showed concentrations of as high  as  12.57 ppb

in water samples.  The 96-hour  TL, of Guthion for bluegill is 5.2  ppb,

and two of four samples from one pond and two of three samples from the

other showed concentrations higher than these.  Consequently, the  Division

of Fisheries and Game concluded that Guthion  caused the fish  kills in both




      a.  Connecticut

            Connecticut has a State Board of Pesticide Control with the

following members:


            Commissioner of Agriculture and Natural Resources

            Cor tnissioner of Health

            Director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station


            Chairman of the State Board of Fisheries and Game

            Chairman of the State Park and Forest Commissions

            Chairman of the Water Resources Commission

            Chairman of the Shellfish Commission

            Highway Commissioner

            Three members appointed by the governor

One of  the members is appointed by the governor as chairman of the board.

      b.  Maine

            Maine has established a Board of Pesticides Control with the

following members:

            Commissioner of Agriculture

            Commissioner of Health and Welfare

            Commissioner of Forests

            Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Game

            Commissioner of Seas and Shore Fisheries

            Chairman of the Public Utility Commission

            Highways Commissioner

            Water Improvement Commissioner

            The board elects a chairman from its own membership each year.

Commissioners of the state departments may appoint agents to serve in

their absence.

      c.  New Hampshire

            New Hampshire has established a Pesticide Control Board with the

following members:

            Commissioner of Agriculture

            Director of the Division of Public Health Services

            Director of the Division of Resources Development

            Director of the Fish and Game Department

            State Entomologist

            Executive Director of the Water Pollution Commission

            Four (A) members appointed by the Governor.

            The Governor makes his appointments as follows:  one member from

the general public, one member from the slate of three persons presented by

the New Hampshire Horticultural Society, one member from a slate of three

persons presented by the Hew Hampshire Arborists Association, and one member

who is a recognized ecologist, preferably holding a doctorate in ecology.

      The board selects its own chairman.  However, the Executive Director

of the Water Pollution Commission is the Executive Secretary of the board

and coordinates the information and data developed by the Water Pollution

Commission and the Department of Agriculture under the statute.

      d.  Rhode Island

            Rhode Island established a Technical Pesticide Advisory Board

with seven members:

            The Director of Natural Resources (ex-officio and chairman)

            The Director of Health (ex-officio)

            Two members representing the public and appointed by the Governor

            Two members representing the disciplines of ecology and acquatic
              biology appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents

            One member from the Agricultural Experiment Station appointed
              by the administrative head of the station

            The board is responsible for advising the Director of Natural

Resources concerning policies, plans and goals to be attained in administering

pesticides control legislation, and to make recommendations to the Director

at least annually.  The board is also to review, comment and present recom-

mendations on all regulations proposed by the Department of Natural Resources

before public hearings are held on such regulations or before they go into

effect, whichever is earlier.

      e.  Vermont

            Vermont has established a Pesticides Advisory Council, the

membership of which is constituted by representatives with knowledge of

pesticides from the following:

            Fish and Game Department

            Department of Water Resources

            Department of Agriculture

            Department of Forests and Parks

            Department of Health

            Aeronautics Board

            Physician from College of Medicine, University of Vermont

            Person engaged in Pesticide Research from Vermont Agricultural
              Experiment Station

            Person engaged in entomology from Vermont Agricultural
              Experiment Station

The Chairman of the Council is designated by the Governor, serves as his

personal representative, and coordinates the activities of the council.


            As indicated in the section above, all northeast states (Con-

necticut, ;i,-n a     •„• :.',,,apshire , Rhode Island, Vermont) including Massachusetts

have some type 01 pesticide control board.  The purpose of the pesticide

control boards is similar in all states.  Basically, it is to safeguard

the public health, welfare, and environment from harmful effects caused by

hazardous pesticides.

            The substance of the legislation establishing these pesticide

control boards is also similar.  Included are the registration of licensing

of commercial applicators and of other personnel who deal with pesticides.

In most states the board can require an examination before a person is

licensed as a pesticide applicator.  Such licenses may have restrictions

or may be limited to certain uses.  The licenses may be suspended by the

boards either before or after hearing and the boards are all authorized to

revoke or modify the licenses if the licensee has violated the rules,

regulations, or laws governing pesticides or for other reasons.  Recip-

rocity is given by all states to other states who have similar licensing

procedures and vivo also grant reciprocity.  Exemptions from the licensing

procedure usually include experimental uses of pesticides by universities

and other scientific personnel and property owners when applying pesticides

in or immediate around buildings which they own.  Exemptions are sometimes

given for bona fide farmers and arborists.  Arborists in most states,

however, are licensed to care for trees, shrubs, and other similar plants

under a separate statute, often with separate rules and regulations.   In

most states the arborist is  required  to  have  a license  from the  Pesticide

Control Board before he can  apply  pesticides  in the course  of  his work.

            Many states require  a  proof  of  financial responsibility  from

commercial applicators in  the  form of a  certain amount  of liability  insurance,

            In all states  members  or  personnel of  the board  may  inspect

equipment and techniques used  to apply pesticides  and are permitted  to

go onto property at reasonable times  to  do  so.   In some states they  may

require repairs before equipment can  be  used  for pesticide applications.

            In nearly all  states the  board  requires  records  to be kept by

commercial and other applicators and  to  be  made available to the board upon

request.  In some states,  such as  New Hampshire, such records  are mandatory

under the law and not discretionary with the  board.   In fact,  the New

Hampshire law requires the board to keep the  list  of licensed  applicators,

permit holders, and of the quantities of pesticides  used in  the  state.

            All states require that one  licensed member must be with each

applicator crew during spraying.

            All pesticides boards  are authorized to  adopt regulations, and

rules as necessary in order  to control the  sale, use and application of


            The enforcement  of the law and  the rules and regulations of

the pesticides boards varies from  state  to  state.   In New Hampshire  the

board is authorized to enforce its rules and  regulations and the law which

created and gave the board its powers.   In  other states, such  as Maine,

the personnel of the state agencies represented on the pesticide control

board are authorized to enforce  the laws, rules and  regulations  of the board

as seen to be most appropriate by  the members of the board.

            Most boards can suspend the regulations in order to better or

more effectively combat an emergency.

            The law in some states provides a mechanism for persons ag-

grieved by any board action to appeal the action.   In Maine, a person

may appeal a board action directly to the courts.

            The penalties for violation of the laws, rules, and regulations

governing pesticide sale, transportation, use, and application of pesticides

vary from $100 per violation for the first violation, to $500 for such

first violation but do not go higher that $500 for each violation except in

the case of aerial applications of pesticides for which, in some states,

the fine is as high as $1,000 per violation.

            The responsibilities of the pesticide boards vary from state

to state.  In the case of Vermont, there is a pesticide advisory council

whose responsibilities include advising the executive branch on legislation

and suggesting programs, policies, and legislations to the executive branch.

In addition, the council prepares a summary of hazardous pesticides needing

control.  It also reviews control programs using pesticides for safety and

efficiency and serves as an advisory board to the aeronautics board on

aerial applications of pesticides.  These duties are more general and more

policy oriented than are the duties of most other boards.  Usually, the

boards regulate the sale, transportation, use, and application of pesticides

through means of registration, labeling, and licensing, by promulgating

rules and regulations, and by making provisions for enforcing these regulations,

In Maine, for example, the board regulates all applications of pesticides

and charged by law with designating critical pesticide use situations,  limit-

ations on the use of pesticides, and spelling out what constitutes unsafe

practices in using and applying pesticides.

            In the Vermont statute  the Commissioner  of Agriculture is

charged with the responsibility of  regulating  the  sale and use of pesticides,

He only acts upon the advice of the pesticide  advisory council and with the

approval of the Governor.  The powers spelled  out  in the act are the powers

of the Commissioner  and not of the  board.  However,  powers are very similar

to those given to pesticide boards  in other states.

            The regulations promulgated by the pesticide boards in the

northeastern states  are similar in  many respects.  Applicators under most

regulations are charged with cooperating with  the board and its personnel

who are investigating, sampling, and otherwise observing pesticide applica-

tion techniques used by applicators.

            Safety is handled under most board regulations by a statement

indicating that the  licensee will instruct himself and all personnel as to

the dangers and problems of pesticide use and will supply the safety equip-

ment required to safeguard personnel against hazards  from the use of

application of pesticides.

            Reports  of pesticide use are only  required in states of Maine

and New Hampshire.   In other states such reports can be requested by the

board but they are not required as  a part of the normal course of events

in utilizing or applying pesticides.

            Most regulations indicate that the use of any pesticide not

registered by the state and sometimes also by  the Environmental Protection

Agency or the U.S. Department of Agriculture are prohibited in the state.

            A significant number of circumstances is set out in board regula-

tions in the northeast states requiring the approval of the boards before

specific pesticides can be used in certain ways or applied in certain areas

within the states.

            In Maine, for example, there is no pesticide application allowed

on or in any water or water supplies within the state without approval

of the board.  Application for such approval must be made in writing with

ample detail for the board to justify a decision to allow such pesticide

applications to proceed.  There can be no machine applications, overflow,

spilling, or washing from any machine used to apply pesticides into any

water supply in the state without approval by the board.

            The disposal of empty containers and surplus pesticides is not

covered by rules and regulations in all northeast states.  In Maine a recent

revision of the pesticide control regulations indicates that empty containers

should be returned to the manufacturer or to a reconditioning company and

that empty containers which cannot be returned or reconditioned should be

stored in a safe place or buried or returned to the manufacturer.

            In Vermont, pesticide drift is to be minimized, and pesticide

operators should buy marerials and conduct operations under conditions

known to minimize the contamination of other than target land and target

organisms.  A statement on standard operating procedures is also included,

indicating in a general way that all persons engaged in the business of

pesticide uses should use only methods and equipment which insure proper

application of the materials, should operate in a careful manner, and only

when pest and crop conditions are proper for controlling pests in the locality.

            Only in Vermont is the protection of bees and other pollinators

specifically provided for in the regulations.

            In New Hampshire,  board  regulations  state  that no pesticide  can

be applied on water, public watershed  areas,  or  on marsh  land for mosquito

control without board  approval.   No  surface water application for any reason

is allowed without board  approval in New Hampshire, nor is any application

by plane.


1.  Introduction

            The existing  laws  and regulations governing the sale and use of

pesticides in the study area  are  generally adequate.   They provide broad powers

for establishing regulations  and  authority to monitor  and otherwise control

activities dealing with pesticides.  However, the powers  created by law are

not excercised because of lack of money, facilities, and personnel.  The

result is that the requirements of the law are not well known by those who

use pesticides, there  is  virtually no  knowledge  of how well the sale and

use of pesticides conforms to  the laws and regulations, there is little done

to monitor or control  pesticide activities under the laws and regulations,

and little effort is devoted  to monitoring developments in the pesticides

field and to the integration  of these  developments into state programs

and practices.  Consequently,  the degree of environmental protection that

could be provided by existing  laws and regulations is  not attained because

an insufficient level  of  effort is devloted to assuring that procedures

and practices conform  to  these laws  and regulations.   The Massachusetts

Pesticide Reclamation  Boards each have one executive person to carry out

monitoring, investigation, and other control  activities,  correspondence,

and other actions under the laws  governing pesticides.  The executive officer

working for the Pesticide Board is the official source of pesticide control

information in the state and must maintain all records, files, and carry

out nearly all other administrative duties of the Pesticide Board.  He has

no lavoratory facilities, technicians, or other skilled personnel to assist

him.  The person working for the Reclamation Board is in a similar situation.

In addition, he faces directors in the mosquito control districts who are

used to operating without supervision or control.  As a result, the public

interest in the sale, transportation, use, application, or effects of pesticides

is not adequately protected.

            There are two basic approaches that could be used to solve this

problem.  First, the law governing pesticides could be made very specific

so as to require certain activities on the part of the executive agencies of

state and local government.  Second, the present broad and flexible legal

authority could be utilized better by more adequately financing and staffing

the executive arms charges with responsibility for pesticide and vector control.

            The second option would be preferable because it can meet public

and individual needs more precisely and speedily.  It is not clear what exact

confluence of events is necessary to attain it.  However, it will likely

require a clear presentation of the needs for additional funds, the request

of such funds as a part of the executive budget request, a sympathetic

legislature, and perhaps a higher degree of public awareness and reaction to

the pesticides control issue so as to alter its priority among other public

interests requiring funds.

2.  Regulation of Sales

            The sale of pesticides at the wholesale and retail levels in Mass-

achusetts is virtually unregulated.  Massachusetts legislation provides that

no wholesaler or distributor other  than  a person selling at retail can sell,

offer to sell, distribute, or deliver  a  pesticide within the Commonwealth

unless he has a license to do so  from  the Department of Public Health.

            In addition,  the licensee  shall, at the request of the pesticide

board but not more often  than once  a year, supply the board with information

concerning the quantities of pesticide sold which are being regulated by

the board or which are being considered  for regulation by the board, including

the names and addresses of purchasers  or recipients.  The Department is

charged under the law with issuing  a license  once it has determined that rules

and regulations promulgated under its  authority to regulate sales have been met.

However, these regulations have not yet  been drafted, and no licenses are being


            Thus, in practice no  attempt is made in the Commonwealth to control

sales, to monitor them, or to determine  the nature of the problems at the whole-

sale and retail sales levels.  Little  information is made available to retailers

about the kind of sales that can  be made and about details of handling special

permit sales, experimental use sales,  and other similar sales.  No records are

required of the retail sale of pesticides under the law.

            Certain acts  are, however, unlawful.  These include to distribute,

sell, or offer for sale in the Commonwealth or to deliver for transportation

or transport in interstate commerence  or between points within the Commonwealth

throughout any point outside the  Commonwealth any of the following:

            1.  Pesticides not registered or not the same when sold as when


            2.  Pesticides, unless  they  are in the registrant's or manufacturer's

immediate container and properly  labeled.

            3.  Pesticides highly toxic  to man and not properly labeled.

            4.  Pesticides not discolored which are required to be discolored.

            5.  Pesticides which are adulterated or disbranded, or any device

which is misbranded.

However, only a few of these acts come to the attention of the Department or

the Board unless reported by a citizen or member of another governmental agency.

3.  Regulations of Uses and Application Techniques

            By regulation, the Massachusetts Pesticide Board has prohibited

the use of DDD (TDE), aldrine, endrine, heptachlor, and marine anti-fouling

paints which contains mercury in any form or compound.

            In addition the board has restricted the use and applications of

dieldrin, chlordane, BHC, 2, 4, 5-T and its esters and salts, DDT, and toxa-

phene.  Activities dealing with marine anti-fouling paint containing mercury

which is already applied are restricted also.

            The regulations of the board state that no person shall apply or

use a limited or prohibited pesticide except in accordance with the permit

issued by the board and subject to such restrictions as are imposed by the

board in the permit.  All such permits are revocable and may be revoked with-

out a hearing by the board at any time.

            The permit or proof that such a permit is held by a person must be

exhibited or furnished when purchasing such prohibited or restricted pesticides.

No one can sell or distribute any pesticide listed as a prohibited or restricted

pesticide except to a person holding such a permit and then only in accordance

with the conditions which are contained in the permit.

            Despite these regulations, the board is not effectively regulating

the sale, use, or application of these pesticides.  The board makes few efforts

to provide information about and to enforce these regulations.  As a result,

the degree of voluntary compliance with the regulations is not clear and the


deliverate violator is pretty much free to proceed as he desires.

4.  Regulation of Containers

            Regulations governing the disposal of pesticide containers are the

responsibility of the Department of Public Health, and no regulations have

been promulgated.  Re-use of containers is subject to the regulations of the

Pesticide Board.  No nlanned efforts are made by the board r.o control the

disposal of pesticide containers.  In fact, even when a significant incident

involving container disposal has arisen (see the section above on pesticide

incidents), the board has not taken action to enforce the penalties available

under existing laws.  As a  result, the environmental protection afforded by

existing laws, regulations, and practices cannot be considered to be adequate.

5.  Regulation of Surplus Pesticides

            The disposal procedures of surplus pesticides is set out in detail

in  the  regulations of the Pesticide Board.  However, no attempts have been made

by  the  board  to monitor such disposal and to enforce the regulations.  An example

is  the  pesticide incident cited above in which a surplus pesticide was dumped

into a  stream.  In dealing  with this serious violation, the board, judging

from the available record,  did not consider the fact that the applicator's

original instructions to the crew to dump the surplus pesticide in a nearby

gravel  pit also violated the regulations.

6.  Regulation of Pesticide Accidents and Treatements

            The board has not promulgated specific regulations dealing with

pesticide accidents and their treatment.  However, Massachusetts does partici-

pate in the Pesticide Safety Team Network sponsored by 12 members of the

National Agricultural Chemical Association, and it is the board's policy that

the procedures necessary to utilize the emergency system be used in  the case  of

pesticide accidents.  Participation in the program is voluntary, however, and

the board has no authority to make parties follow its established procedures.

As a result, adequate environmental protection is not assured in the area of

pesticide accidents and treatments.

7.  Factors Influencing the Use of Available Regulations

            a.  Financial

            Lack of adequate funds, personnel, and facilities is the most

important factor influencing the degree of environmental protection presently

attained under existing laws and regulations.

            b.  Institutional

            Lack of coordination between governmental units involved with or

affected by pesticides is another factor diminishing the degree of environmental

control that could be attained under existing pesticide laws and regulations

A lack of awareness of their potential for identifying pesticide related problems

and solutions appears to be a common characteristics of local government

agencies and of state government agencies whose primary objective is not to

effectively utilize or to control the sale, transportation, use, or applica-

tion of pesticides.

            c.  Social

            An increasing public awareness about the use and effects of pest-

icides has prompted increased inquiries and complaints by citizens about all

aspects of pesticide sales, transportation, use, and application.  Although

often based on fear and incomplete understanding, these inquiries and complaints

are a prominent factor in influencing state and local governments to more

fully use available control mechanisms to deal with pesticides problems.

Various citizen conservation groups have been especially effective in monitor-

ing the activities of state agencies, private firms, and individuals who sell,

transport, use, or apply pesticides, and they are often well informed about the

rules and regulations and  technical aspects of pesticides.

            However, the major socio-economic element influencing the use of

available controls for pesticides in the Commonwealth is the relatively low

priority given to the pesticides control issue by the general public.  The

concern of the general public about pesticides and critical incidents with

respect to pesticide sales,  use, transportation, and application is low.  As

a result, political decisions about funding pesticide control efforts turn

on the more highly charged matter of taxes and the level of overall govern-

mental expenditures.  The  generally low visibility of the pesticide control

issue allows the executive and legislative branches, in attempting to balance

funding requirements with  all ogvernmental priorities, to give the control

of pesticide sales, transportation, use, and application a fairly low level

of priority.  The lack of  crisis type pesticide  incidents has allowed this

situation to continue.

            d.  Legal

            There is not sufficient legal  talent and energy at the state and

local governmental levels  to effectively utilize existing control mechanisms.

New regulations, administrative hearings,  court  cases, brief writing, and

enforcement actions often  require legal inputs.  With these inputs in short

supply, decisions of the executive officers of regulatory boards such as the

Pesticide and Reclamation  Boards may be faulty or may not be made at all.


1.  Regulation of Sales

            The most effective mechanism for regulating the sales of pesticides

would be to provide complete information about the rules and regulations to

all who sell or distribute pesticides, to make a significant number of

observations and spot inspection visits, to back this control procedure up

with adequate technical  facilities, and to objectively and strictly enforce

the laws and regulations.  This is not occuring at the present time in the

Commonwealth because of lack of finances and personnel.

            Moreover, recent legislation has established a licensing system

for pesticide wholesalers and distributors in Massachusetts.  Licenses are to

be granted to those who meet requirements under rules and regulations to be

promulgated by the Department of Public Health.  At the time of its passage,

pesticide retailers were exempted from licensing because the administrative

burden of licensing so many retail outlets was thought to be too great.  Since

this passage in 1970 no rules and regulations governing the licensing have

been promulagated by the department.  It is the feeling of some in the depart-

ment that the licensing procedure would be a complex and energy absorbing,

but sterile, process because there have never been sufficient personnel in

the department to monitor any of the standards set out for pesticides

registration, labeling, sale, transportation, use, and application.  As a

result, the approach for  regulating sales has shifted somewhat in the, department

from an emphasis on licensing to an emphasis on monitoring sales activities.

To that end, the department has had legislation filed for consideration in

the next legislative session that would authorize them to use local boards

of public health for monitoring pesticide sales in certain circumstances.

2.  Regulation of Uses and Application Techniques

            The Pesticide Control Board is attempting to promulgate regulations

that, if followed, will properly control the use and application of pesticides.

However, it requires a core of personnel to disseminate information, to

monitor and spot check pesticide  use,  and  to  instigate pesticide enforcement

proceedings.  The Board  also  needs personnel  who  can  take samples and carry

out other technical  tasks.  It  requires  ready access  to laboratory personnel

and facilities for testing  samples and for the technical analysis of pesticide

related problems.  Without  these,  the  pesticides  control law and regulations

dealing with uses and application  techniques  are  empty except in so far as

investigation of reported incidents  and  voluntary compliance combine to make

the laws and regulations effective.

3.  Regulations of Containers

            The disposal of used  pesticide containers is virtually uncontrolled

in the Commonwealth  because there  are  no laws or  regulations that govern it.'

The Department of Public Health is authorized to  promulgate regulations in

this area.  Such regulations  should  be written because of their value in

educating persons using  pesticides as  to the  appropriate methods of disposal.

Also, a significant  amount  of voluntary  compliance with such regulations is


            Additional resources,  as in  the case  of pesticides use and appli-

cations, are required, however, before the degree and precision of control

desired in this area will be  forthcoming.   Especially important would be the

designation of state approved sites  and  methods for disposing of used pesticide

containers, to include sites  for  treating  such containers to render them

harmless before disposal.

            The regulation  of containers filled with  pesticide material is

limited under existing law.  Additional  standards as  to  the  type and speci-

fications of pesticide containers  would  help  assure safe  transport, handling

and marketing.                                                              i

4.  Regulation of Surplus Pesticides

            The regulations governing the storage or disposal of surplus

pesticides appear adequate.  The gap between the regulations on paper and

actual practices, however, it unknown.  Additional efforts must be made to

monitor this area under the existing regulations to assure that the storage

and disposal procedures that are actually being used will not endanger people

or the environment.  Again, these efforts hinge upon sufficient personnel,

finances, and facilities for strengthening information inflows and outflows

in this area and for instigating any necessary investigation and enforcement


5.  Regulation of Pesticide Accident and Treatments

            More emphasis by the state government, especially the Pesticide

Board, on individuals or firms that manufacture, transport, distribute, sell,

use, and apply pesticides as to the importance of appropriate pesticide accident

reporting and treatment procedures is necessary.  Fire Departments must be

trained in how to respond when dealing with pesticide fires.  Common carriers

should know how to report and treat pesticide accident cases.  Individuals

dealing with pesticides in any way should be more cognizant of the dangers

involved in a pesticide accident and of the way in which such accidents

should be handled.  Regulations to the effect that mandatory reporting of such

accidents to the Pesticide Board be required, might be appropriate for accidents

involving common carriers.  Other types of accidents, such as those which

cause waterways, food supplies, or similar items to be contaminated could be

included as accidents for which mandatory reporting would be required^

6.  Control Mechanisms,

            Control mechanisms written into the laws or regulations governing

pesticides include the following:

            1.  Labeling

            2.  Registration

            3.  Inspection  of  records,  equipment, and pesticide use and
                application activities

            4.  Licensing

            5.  Detention,  embargo,  and condemnation

            6.  Equity proceedings

            7.  Fines and prison sentences

            8.  Bonding

            9.  Public notice  and hearings

           10.  Appeals procedures

           11.  Civil or equity proceedings

           Items one through eight are  mechanisms operated by state or local

government in an attempt to attain the  objective of protecting the public and

environment from harm caused by pesticides.  Items nine and ten are mechanisms

operated by the government, but with the intent of providing all who have

standing with an opportunity to be heard and to challenge decisions made

by the various levels of government  dealing with pesticides.  Item 11 is a

mechanism for dealing with  disputes between parties, often between two indi-

viduals or private firms, but  sometimes between a public servant or institution

and a private individual or firm.  In 1971, an act was passed an signed in

Massachusetts authorizing 10 or more persons to petition the Superior Court

it they have reason to believe that  a person has damaged or is about to

damage the environment.  This  new liberalized policy granting any interested

parties standing to bring a cause of action on environmental matters should

increase the public visibility of pesticide incidents and force a clearer

resolution of some of the specific issues that have been handled only by the

executive personnel of the  Pesticides Control and Reclamation Boards and by

other state and local government agencies.  These resolutions arrived at in

the glare of the public limelight, should have a credibility  in the eyes of

the media and the public that has never been given to the less visible decisions

of the Pesticide Board.  It is likely that this mechanism will become an

important means of controlling pesticide uses and application if more active

state and local monitoring and enforcement does not occur.

            In the Commonwealth, these available control mechanisms are not

well used.  Some, such as a labeling, registration, and licensing are formally

exercised, but their accomplishment tends to give an aura of "everything is

all right now," when, in fact, the process of receiving and logging labels,

registrations, and licenses creates a mere shell.  The nature of the labels

and content of pesticides that are actually being sold in the Commonwealth

and the actual practices used by licensees in applying pesticides is not

monitored.  As a result, there is little knowledge about what is really

happening with respect to pesticide sales, transportation, use, and application.

            Although it is likely that there is a substantial amount of

voluntary compliance with the laws and regulations, there are circumstances

where it is in the individuals' or firms' best economic interest to violate

the laws and regulations governing pesticides activities.  Where there is

little likelihood of ever being apprehended by state authorities, these

situation are likely to result in violations.  Thus, the lack of knowledge

and effective control of pesticides in Massachusetts leaves the door wide

open for one or more critical pesticide incidents that might have otherwise

been avoided and for significant, but untraceable to a certain pesticide use

or incident, effects in both the short and long run on people and their


            State and local  governments need to expand their use of control

mechanisms and to combine it with a larger program for providing information

to those who use pesticides  and those who are affected in some way by pest-

icides.  This would probably cause more use of other control mechanisms such

as detention, embargo,  and condemnation proceedings, equity proceedings, and

fines.  To date in Massachusetts these control mechanisms have not been used

for purposes authorized by the act regulating pesticides.

7.  Coordination

            There should be  a significant increase in coordination between all

state and all local government agencies and individuals concerned with the

effect of pesticides on the  public and the environment.  For example, an

inter-departmental group including all the personnel who actually carry out

the execution and technical  aspects of pesticide  control policy, could be

designated at the state level.  The group could meet v.'hen necessary to coord-

inate activities and to adjust practices and procedures so as to more effec-

tively attain the state's objectives in controlling pesticides.  This group

should develop and implement plans to coordinate  their activities and programs

with counties, cities,  towns, and local agencies, such plans to be approved

by the Pesticide and Reclamation Boards.

            The activities of state governmental  agencies and local governments

or governmental agencies should be better coordinated.  The state Reclamation

Board, for example, does not have control of or complete knowledge of the

program of mosquito control  districts in practice, although it  is supposed

to have such control and knowledge under the law.  Board appointed commissioners

select the director of  the mosquito control districts without  guidelines as  to

their qualifications.   Moreover, the directors do not  feel  directly  responsible

to the board.  Several directors have held their positions for some time, and

find it difficult now to openly submit their procedures for review by personne

of the board.

            Cities and towns have also conducted mosquito control efforts on

an individual basis for a long time without submitting their programs to the

board for approval as required by law.  Early in December 1971,  the board

sent a letter to each city and town in Massachusetts explaining the existing

laws and pointing out the obligation to obtain board approval of any mosquito

abatement efforts before they are undertaken.  Strong follow-up efforts are

necessary to assure that all mosquito control programs are consistent with

pesticide control policies.   Such efforts, however,  are unlikely because

the board has only one person to deal with all the programs and problems of

existing mosquito control districts and the activities of the individual towns.



          All species  of mosquitoes  undergo complete metamorphosis with four

stages of development:  egg,  larva,  pupa and adult  (imago).  The large number

of species and  their diversity, however, allow for great differences in the

conditions necessary for development.

     1.  Development Stages  of  the Mosquito^1'2'3'*

         •   Egg

             The adult  female mosquito  selects the habitat required for the

aquatic stages  of the  mosquito.   Some  species place the eggs in permanent

bodies of fresh water,  others utilize  salt water, and still others lay eggs

in small temporary  pools or  in  dry grass which will eventually be subject to

flooding.  Eggs which  are  laid  in moist areas but which do not have sufficient

water may remain dormant for months  and may not hatch until the following year.

         •   Larva

             Under the  proper conditions of moisture and temperature, the eggs

hatch and the larva cuts its way  out of the egg.  The larva molts (sheds its

skin) four times during its  growth period and the stages between molts are

called instars.  Except for  larvae of  the genus Mansonia, all mosquito larvae

must come to the water surface  co obtain oxygen.  Mansonia  larvae and pupae

attach themselves to the submerged roots and  stems  of plants  and obtain oxygen

from the plant  tissue.  Most larvae  eat small plants and animals by sweeping

them into the mouth with mouth  brushes or by  nibbling on the  material;  A few

larvae are predacious  and  feed  on other species  of  mosquito larvae.  The time

spent in the larval stage  may be  as  short as  A  to  6 days or as  long as several

months, but  typically  is approximately a week to 10 days.

         •  Pupa

            After the fourth molt, the pupal stage appears.   The pupa normally

r<;sts at the water surface.  When frightened, the pupa can dive with a tumbling

motion but it must return to the surface for air.  Typically the pupal stage

lasts for 3 or 4 days but in some species may be 2 weeks or more.

         •  Adult

            The adult breaks the pupal skin and emerges slowly, using the

cast-off skin as a float until its body dries and hardens.  Female mosquitoes

are able to suck blood from an appropriate host organism.   Male mosquitoes are

not equipped to suck blood.  Many species of mosquitoes attack man but others

attack wild and domestic animals, and some attack nonmammalian species,  such

as birds, amphibia and reptiles.  Depending on the species of mosquito,  mating

between males and females may take place at rest on some object, such as a

shrub or grass, or while flying.  Females of several species may pass the winter

in hibernation in a protected place whereas others overwinter in the egg stage

or even in the larval stage.

     2.   Effect of Life Cycle on Mosquito Control

          The life cycle of the mosquito is illustrated in Figure IX-1.

Depending on the species of mosquito and the temperature,  the total time for a

complete life cycle may typically vary from 16 days to 45 days if environmental

conditions are reasonably satisfactory for all stages of the life cycle.  On

the other hand, lack of suitable conditions may lengthen the life cycle dramati-

cally.  For example, Aedes species may lay eggs in places which are above the

existing water line and which may not be flooded until the following year.

Thus, instead of hatching in a few days, the fertilized egg will remain dormant

for several months until it is covered with water.  Water temperature has an

effect on the time required for hatching of eggs and development of the larvae.

      EGG     (Approximately 3 days to hatch.)
      LARVA   (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th INSTAR stages.  Larval stages
              usually last a total of 4 to 10 days.)
      PUPA    (Pupal stage usually lasts 3 or 4 days but may be two
              weeks in some species.)

      ADULT   (Male and female mating; fertilized female takes blood
meal and in a few days is ready to lay eggs.)
FIGURE IX-1.  LIFE CYCLE  OF  THE MOSQUITO.   (Typical life cycle
              requires  16 to 30 days but cold weather may extend
              it to 45  days  or even over winter  in some species.)

Low temperatures inhibit the development of larvae, sometimes to such an

extent that some species overwinter in this stage.  Extremes of temperature

both high and low can kill the mosquito in the egg, larval or adult stage.

          While mosquitoes are subject to attack by predators, parasites

and diseases both in the aquatic stages and as adults, control by natural

enemies or by artificial means is extremely difficult.  In an area such

as Cape Cod there may be 25 or more species of mosquitoes all with different

life cycles, breeding places, and seasonal preference.  In addition, the rate

of hatching and growth of various species may be dependent on uncontrollable

conditions, such as temperature and rainfall.


       •  Plants

          Certain aquatic carnivorous plants will trap mosquitoes and other

plants may inhibit mosquitoes by covering the surface of the water and blocking

access to air or by producing toxic by-products.  Sometimes the inhibition may

simply be due to an excess liberation of oxygen which can change the microflora

of the water and may also bring in predacious fish.

          Two algal species  (Chara elegans and Cladophora glomerata) have

recently been described    which produce inhibitory substances that prevent the

growth of mosquito larvae, possibly by attacking the lining of the larva's

alimentary canal.  While Dr. Reeves indicated    that the algae apparently control

mosquitoes in streams in xrtiich they grew, much additional research is required

to elucidate the structures of the inhibitory substances, their mode of action

and the feasibility of making and using the substances in practical mosquito


          Garlic extracts have been shown to be larvicidal    and two substances,

diallyl disulfide and diallyl trisulfide, have been isolated and identified as

the larvicidal principles    .

       •  Lower Forms of Animal Life

          Hydra may destroy larvae and Vorticella may cause the death of

larvae by excessive growth on their bodies.[2]  Water snails may feed

on mosquito eggs and water fleas  (Daphne) may destroy larvae.[2]

       •  Arthropod Predators

          Arthropod    predators  such as Limnesia have been reported to attack

young mosquito larvae.  In the order of Coleoptera (beetles) larvae of

Hydrophilidae and Gyrinidae. as well as both adults and larvae of

Dytiscidae,  '   '    are natural  predators.  Dragonf lies'  •* (Odonata) are

well-known predators on adult mosquitoes but their larvae also attack certain

mosquito larvae.  Various bugs1   '  ^ (Heroiptera) are also active in destroying

mosquito larvae.

       •  Cannibal Mosquito Larvae

          The larvae of a number  of mosquito species,    such as Psorophora,

Lestiocampa, Corethra, Eucorethra, Mochlonyx, and Chaoborus, have cannibalistic

habits and eat larvae of other mosquito species.

       •  Fish

          Among  the most effective of all natural enemies of mosquitoes are

small larvivorous fish.  The tropical or semitropical mosquito fish (Gambusia)

has received the most attention.  However, other fresh water and brackish water

fish are also instrumental in the natural control of mosquito populations.

Because fish have been used fairly successfully in the control of mosquito

populations in certain areas, the subject will be discussed at greater length

in a following section.

       •  Other Vertebrates
          Frogs and toads and  their  tadpoles are not usually  larvivorous but


some species have been known to destroy mosquito larvae.     Ducks and other
aquatic birds also destroy larvae.

          Spiders capture the adult mosquito by catching them in their webs.
Dragonflies     and certain wasps are able to capture flying mosquitoes on the
     f 21
wing.     Among the vertebrates, frogs and lizards have been observed to feed
                    [ 2]
on adult mosquitoes.     Bats and many species of birds such as swallows and
martins can capture mosquitoes in flight.
          Because the eggs,  larvae and pupae of most species develop in highly
contaminated water which contains a rich flora and fauna,  mosquitoes are usually
exposed to a variety of natural parasites at the various life stages.  These
parasites include microorganisms such as molds and bacteria, gregarines,
flagellates, microsporidia,  ciliates, trematodes, nematodes, and even mites
and diptera.     While the effects of these organisms are a definite burden to
the mosquito, they usually are not sufficient to eliminate mosquitoes except
in a very highly localized condition.  However, their major effect is to prevent
population explosions, and well-conceived control programs will promote their
     1.  Fish
         Prior to the development of effective chemical pesticides,  (and more
recently in atvampting to avoid their ecological effects), attempts have been
made to employ various natural enemies of the mosquito in managed mosquito
control programs.  To date,  fish have been the most successfully employed natural
enemy of the mosquito.      Gerberich     prepared an annotated bibliography of
papers relating to the control of mosquitoes by the use of fish, and it con-
tained 298 references that had appeared in the literature up to 1942.  The
1966 revision by Gerberich and Laird     contained 686 references.  According

to Bay,      41% of the papers deal largely or exclusively with Gambusia,

8.6% with the Southeast Asian fish, Panchax. 6.5% with the common guppy and

"after that few of the remaining 200 to 300 species occupy more than 2%."

          The mosquitofish, Gambusia. is a natural inhabitant of fresh water

in southern areas of the United States.  (The taxonomy of the mosquitofish

is somewhat confused but is well-discussed by George.)^17]  Species of

Gambusia have been transferred from the South and introduced into other areas

of the country.  A cold-adapted variety of G_. affinis has been successfully

introduced into northern regions including Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.

Under proper conditions, Gambusia may give almost complete control of mosquito

population.      However,  in its native habitat in southern U.S., large numbers

of Gambusia have been observed to live together with also large numbers of

mosquito larvae, indicating that a natural balance has been reached.  In the

appendix to his thesis, George     also describes the dissemination of the

mosquitofish in North America and its utilization in mosquito control.

          In New England and other northern areas where the winters are too

cold for Gambusia to survive, certain native fish are also effective in reducing

mosquito populations.  In  brackish water (including some areas on Cape Cod in

this study), the salt water killifish or mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, is

used to destroy mosquito larvae.  The effectiveness of mummichogs in controlling

mosquitoes can be greatly  increased by the presence of natural or artificially

produced holes several feet in diameter and a few feet deep which can  retain

water and offer sanctuary  to the population of mummichogs as  the tide  recedes

from the salt marshes.  When the tide returns,  the fish  are in good position  to

resume activity.

     2.   Plants

          While the use of plants in mosquito control has been  studied for

many years,   J the subject is a complicated one because some species are

themselves pests and others can increase production of mosquitoes instead of

decreasing them.  However, Bay'  ^ believes that "next to fish,  aquatic

plants, where applicable, probably hold the most important practical potential

for naturalistic mosquito control."

     3.   Other Predators, Parasites and Pathogens

          The release of large numbers of bats or predacious  arthropods also

does not seem practical at this time and much additional research is required.
Likewise most naturally occurring pathogens of mosquitoes  usually  attack

                                                 [ 191
relatively small proportions of wild populations.    J  Despite  these problems

research is proceeding and promising laboratory results  are  being  obtained

with microsporidia     and nematodes by USDA researchers at  Gainesville, Florida,

and Lake Charles, Louisiana.  Additional laboratory and  field  work is  required

before these potential control measures can be practically evaluated.


     1.   Sterile Male Release

          The release of sterile males has been successful with a  limited number

of other insect pests, such as the screwworm and tropical  fruit flies.   However,

the control of mosquitoes by this method is complicated  by the large numbers of

species, the variation in length of life cycle, and the  effects of temperature

and rainfall on the time of emergence.  Much more research will be needed in

order to raise a large number of mosquito species economically and separate

the sexes.   Large numbers of sterile males have to be released to  overwhelm

the natural populations even when that population has been reduced by prior

use of pesticides.  The released males must be competitive with the males

in the natural populations.  At the present time it does not appear practical

to control  all species of mosquitoes in a given area by  sterile male release

but one or  two  especially  troublesome species might be controlled in this


     2_._   Sterilization of  Males  or Females in Natural Habitat

           While  chemical or radiation sterilization in the  natural habitat

is theoretically possible,  we do  not yet have safe and innocuous methods that

would not  endanger other species.  Also, safe and specific  attractants will

be necessary  to  attract the wild  species to the place at which  they would be


           Chromosomal translocations have been studied as a method of intro-

ducing  sterility into a natural population. L   J   Double translocations appear

to be much more  effective than single translocations  and have approximately

the same theoretical effectiveness  in reducing mosquito populations as the

sterile male  technique.      Again  much laboratory and field work remains to

be done.

     3.    Hormones

           Synthetic materials which mimic hormone activity have recently

been reported.    ''     These products may  stop the growth of mosquitoes in

the larval stage or in the pupal  stage and thus break the life cycle.  While

these materials  show great promise, they are  still in an experimental stage,

some are easily  destroyed by sunlight and it  will take time to assess their

true value.

     A.    Attractants

           Sex attractants or oviposition attractants  may possibly be useful

in attracting adult mosquitoes to traps.  Again these materials have only

been partially investigated and to  date no commercially available products

are known  which  are useful with mosquitoes.


     1.   Drainage and Flooding

          One of the most effective ways of controlling mosquito populations

has been the selective and partial drainage of swampy areas  to remove standing

pools of water J2?]  Often the number of breeding places for mosquitoes can

be drastically curtailed while still not interfering with other wild life,

such as ducks, fish, etc., that inhabit marshes and swamps.   Conversely,

where a large flow of water is obtained, either fresh water  or that from

tides, mosquito larvae may be swept out of the area by rapid flooding of

the breeding area.

     2.   Traps

          Traps for female mosquitoes have not been well-developed, probably

because of a lack of information on the specific attractants required in order

to entice them into traps.

     3.   Screening

          While screening is usually thought of as keeping female mosquitoes

away from their human victims, screening can keep the female of house-dwelling

mosquitoes away, from areas for egg-laying.

     4.   Insoluble Monolayers

          Biodegradable lipids or lecithin spread at the extremely low

concentration of approximately .1/2 ounce per acre of water has been shown  to

                                          r 28i
smother pupae of several mosquito species.      Larvae are not asphyxiated

because the lipid film is easily penetrated by the small larval spiracle,

but pupae cannot pierce the film.  If a cheaper source of lecithin, such as

cottonseed lecithin, can be used, the method may be attractive since the

material would be nontoxic and does not interfere with the transfer of

oxygen from the air to water.  Its use seems most appropriate  for  small,

protected still water sites,  and not for  open bodies  of water where wave

action or tidal flow would  tend  to destroy  the film.


          In New England, control programs  using natural means are already

well-developed, and have reduced mosquito populations  in many areas.  Care-

fully planned and maintained  ditches are  used to reduce the number of pools

and puddles where female mosquitoes lay their eggs.   In salt marshes, holes

are dug for predacious  fish to provide sanctuary far from normal water

channels during low tide and  to  insure their presence  at high tide.  Nesting

boxes are provided for  birds  which prey on  mosquitoes, in areas of high popula-

tion probability, and encourage  them to stay in the area.

          Even with the use of all these  methods,  it is still necessary to

use pesticides to gain  acceptable control of mosquitoes that will prevent

spread of EEE.  In the  critical  areas of  Southeastern Massachusetts, weather

patterns in some seasons minimize the effects of natural controls and require

frequent application of pesticides.   In extreme cases wide areas need to be

treated, but in normal  situations only spot treatment  of selected swamps and

marshes is necessary.   We believe that a  good larvaciding program, properly

conducted, will control most  mosquito populations  and  preclude the need for

adulticiding programs.

          A significant feature  of developing good larvaciding programs is

the potential for use of nonchemical, degradable mineral oils (such as Flit MLO)

which have only minor acute effects  on nontargel  species and minimum residual

effects.  Larvaciding with  such  products  will kill or  prevent larvae from

developing properly by  sealing off their  oxygen supply.  By thus breaking the

life cycle, control of  several generations  can be effected and the control of

several species potentially can  be realized with one application.  The major

drawback of mineral oils is their tendency to disappear in 2-3 days, making

retreatment necessary in periods of rainy weather.

          In more difficult cases, it may be necessary to use rapidly de-

gradable, nonresidual chemical insecticides (such as Abate,  malathion,

naled, carbamates) in larvaciding programs.  Slow-release formulations of

these materials will provide extended control for longer periods during rainy

weather and reduce the number of applications necessary for  acceptable control.

The slow-release feature means that only small quantities are solubilized at

any given time, reducing the danger of harming other organisms and not over-

loading the degradation system.


 1.   Carpenter, S.J., LaCasse, W.J., "Mosquitoes of North America,"
         Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1955.

 2.   Christophers, S.R., "Agdes Aegypti  (L.)," University Press,
         Cambridge, 1960.

 3.   Bates, M., "The Natural History of Mosquitoes," The Macmillan
         Company, New York, 1949.

 4.   Reeves, E.L., Amonkar, S.V., Sci. News, 100, 63 July (1971).

 5.   Reeves, E.L., private communication.

 6.   Amonkar,  S.V., Reeves, E.L., J. Econ. Entomol., 63, 1172 (1970).

 7.   Amonkar,  S.V., Banerji, A., Science, 174, 1343 (1971).

 8.   Laird, M., Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 7^L> 453 (1947).

 9.   Twinn, C.R., Can. Entomol., 63^ 51  (1931).

10.   Baldwin, W.F., James, H.G., Welch, H.E., Can. Entomol., £17, 350 (1955).

11.   James, H.G., Can. J. Zool., 43, 155  (1965).

12.   Corbet, P.S., "A Biology of Dragonflies," Witherby, London, 1962.

13.   Hinman, E.H., J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 37, 129 (1934).

14.   Bay, E.C., Calif. Mosq. Cont. Assoc. Proc., 35., 34  (1967).

15.   Gerberich, J.B., Amer. Midi. Natur., _36, 87 (1946).

16.   Gerberich, J.B., Laird, M., An annotated  bibliography of papers
         relating to the control of mosquitoes by  the use of fish
         (revised and enlarged  to 1965).  WHO/EBL/66.71,  WHO/Mal/ 66.562.

17.   George, C.J.W., Ph.D. Thesis, "Behavioral Interaction of the Pickerel
         and the Mosquitofish,"  Harvard University,  Cambridge,  Mass., 1960.

18.   Matheson, R. , Arner. Natur., 64,  56  (1930).

19.   Kellen, W.R., Calif. Mosq. Cont. Assoc. Proc.,  3,1,  23 (1963).

20.   Weidhaas, D.E., personal interview, USDA,  A.R.S., Gainesville, Florida,
         January, 1972.

21.   Hazard, E.I., Lofgren, C.S., J.  Invertebr.  Pathol.,  1£, 16  (1971).

22.   Patterson, R.S., Weidhaas, D.E., Ford, H.R.,  Lofgren,  C.S.,
         Science, 168,  1368  (1970).

23.   Laven, H., Nature, 221, 958  (1969).

24.   McElheny, V.K., Technol. Rev., July/August,  12  (1971).

25.   Anon., Chem. &  Eng. News, Nov.  29, 9  (1971).

26.   Anon., Chem. &  Eng. News, Nov.  29, 33  (1971).

27.   Springier, P.F., Mosq. News, 24, 50  (1964).

28.   McMullen, A.I., Hill, M.N., Nature, 234,  51 (1971).
U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 484-487/3511-3        202