Home: CCE Logo Slogan: Empowering Communities, Advocating Solutions.
About CCE/ContactWhat's New/CalendarNewsletterMedia/News CenterJobsContribute Now
Subscribe For Email Updates
Take Action!
Campaign Information, by Category:
Water ProtectionPublic Health and Toxic Chemical ContaminationOpen Space and Wildlife HabitatClimate Change and Energy PolicyLegislative Campaigns
 

HEADER SECTION

Comments on the draft New York State West Nile Virus Response Plan
March, 2001

Comments by Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Submitted to the New York State Department of Health
March 9, 2001

Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) is pleased to have this opportunity to review and comment on the draft 2001 New York State West Nile Virus Response Plan (Plan). CCE would also like to thank the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) for making so many of their people available to work with and provide assistance in our efforts to understand and solve the complex issues surrounding West Nile Virus (WNV).

CCE has continued to participate in the NYSDOH led effort to prepare a sensible response to WNV, with the goal of reducing the risk of WNV in humans, without causing adverse impacts on human health and the natural environment. In general, CCE believes the draft 2001 plan improves upon the 2000 plan, and we would like to commend the NYSDOH for the resources and expertise provided in this extensive planning process. In order to more fully realize our mutually stated goals, CCE offers the following comments:

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. The widespread blanket public health threat declaration in all counties with historical evidence of WNV and in counties that confirm the presence of WNV in as few as one positive mosquito pool is troubling and inappropriate. CCE understands that the declaration of a public health threat allows for greater financial reimbursement to counties for WNV related activities. However, the health threat declaration has implications beyond reimbursement, such as the waiving of certain regulations with respect to the protection of wetlands from pesticide applications, which the current situation does not warrant. In addition, the declaration of a public health threat may unnecessarily frighten the public. This may continue to foster the crisis mode atmosphere that existed during the initial outbreak in 1999, instead of encouraging a more long-term, measured response to WNV.

CCE believes that a public health threat should not be declared in the absence of confirmed human cases of WNV. The state should provide for appropriate reimbursement to counties without the declaration of a public health threat.

2. The 2001 reimbursement schedule (Appendix B) is an improvement over the 2000 schedule, however it still does not accurately reflect the stated priorities of the plan. Adult mosquito control activities still receive the highest rate of reimbursement (50%), while education receives the lowest (36%).

CCE recommends a reimbursement schedule which provides real financial incentives for Local Health Units (LHUs) to prioritize activities in accordance with the Plan beginning with 50% or more reimbursement for education, prevention and monitoring, descending to 20% for the use of adulticides.

3. The 1982 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is outdated and should no longer be used to justify the widespread use of pesticides associated with a WNV response. A new EIS should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the increase use of pesticides in response to WNV.

4. CCE would like to acknowledge the efforts of the NYSDOH to inform the public about information as it develops over the course of the year through its web site. The site has been very helpful and should be continued. NYSDOH should encourage counties to use the web for information exchange in a similar manner.

PREVENTION, RESPONSE AND CONTROL COMMENTS:

5. The decision matrix (Appendix A) for the 2001 plan is much improved over the 2000 matrix.

6. Efficacy:

Presently, the NYSDOH has no data to demonstrate efficacy in any of the pesticide applications undertaken in 1999 or 2000. Indeed, the evidence shows conclusively that despite unparalleled use of larvacides and adulticides, WNV spread across the entire state of New York and into other Atlantic coastal states as well. Thus, it appears that the evidence supports the hypothesis that pesticide use is ineffectual in preventing the spread, and thus reducing the risk, of WNV.

Bullet 4, on page 12, under the section entitled Use of Mosquito Surveillance System Data states:

"Larval and adult mosquito surveillance can be used to document control efficacy."

When determining efficacy, it is important to consider the objective of the Plan, which is to minimize the chance of human disease due to WNV. This is not the equivalent of reducing the mosquito population. We already know that pesticide applications temporarily reduce mosquito populations. Any plan that attempts to equate temporary reductions in certain mosquito populations with efficacy fails to meet the objective and is an imprudent use of public resources. What we don't know is whether the application of mosquito adulticides, as proposed in the Plan under certain conditions, actually reduces the chance of a human WNV outbreak. The fact that pesticides kill mosquitoes in no way demonstrates efficacy as it pertains to human health protection.

CCE believes that specific objectives and criteria should be established to measure efficacy and explicitly stated in the plan including:

  • Efficacy should be defined more specifically with respect to reducing the chance of a human outbreak of WNV;
  • Efficacy plans should meet academic and scientific criteria so that the data collected is useful now and in the future.

To demonstrate efficacy, CCE recommends:

  • Linking specific mosquito control strategies to the mosquito species found to be the bridge vector between infected birds and humans;
  • Undertaking pilot programs that use alternative technologies, which target the bridge vector to demonstrate and compare performance of alternatives to specific performance data from conventional control activities such as pesticide spraying.

In conjunction with efficacy data regarding mosquito control, the NYSDEC should be assembling information about non-target impacts associated with mosquito control activities for WNV.

7. In addition to the items listed under Mosquito Control by Non-insecticide Methods (pages 12-14), non-toxic alternative technologies such as the use of mosquito traps to reduce mosquito populations should be encouraged.

8. The use of the terms municipal and municipalities is vague and should be clarified. For example in the second bullet, under #2, on page 13, which municipality is responsible for advising the towns and villages? Is it the responsibility of the county?

9. Recommendation #3 on page 13 should apply only to the high-risk groups, not the general public.

10. Does the recommendation found on page 13-Minimize time spent outdoors between dusk and dawn-still make sense given the fact that culex is thought to primarily feed on birds? What is the rationale behind this recommendation?

11. Because the relative risk of contracting a severe case of WNV versus suffering health impacts from chemical pesticide exposure is still not known, monitoring for pesticide exposure should be given the same importance as human surveillance for WNV. Relegating this critical information to an appendix sends an inappropriate message to users of the plan.

12. Counties should not be reimbursed for the use of adulticides without a plan in place subject to NYSDOH approval, which monitors for human pesticide exposure.

13. The private property of individuals that do not wish to be sprayed should be added to the list of non-target areas that municipalities should delineate in advance of pesticide spaying (bullet 1, page 16).

14. Under Roles and Responsibilities (pages16-17) the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) should be responsible for providing technical assistance to municipalities regarding the development and implementation of monitoring protocols to determine impacts of control activities on non-target species and the environment.

BIRD/MAMMAL SURVEILLANCE COMMENTS:

15. CCE strongly agrees with the first objective (page 27) that WNV surveillance activities should be prioritized for predicting risk of a human outbreak.

16. Objective 2 (page 28) is contradictory to the first objective. Emphasizing and prioritizing testing for early identification of WNV activity in a county in comparison to testing for WNV later in the season when it is more of a threat to humans is motivated by funding needs and is not science based. Counties should be provided the appropriate funding for education, surveillance, and monitoring without the declaration of a public health threat (see comment #1).

17. Bullet 5, on page 31, under Testing/Submission Priorities contradicts the fist objective (see comments 15 & 16). Birds from geographic areas without confirmation of WNV activity in 2001 should receive a lower priority than birds from areas with confirmed activity in 2001.

18. Bullet 11, on page 31 (Although dead crow sightings….) is unclear and should be clarified or eliminated.

19. Bullets 6 & 7, on page 32, under Modifications of Surveillance and Numbers Submitted for Testing by Season, are contradictory to the first objective (see comments 15 & 16). The greatest submissions for testing should occur during the season of greatest risk of human outbreak, in areas with confirmed WNV activity.

20. According to the NYSDEC more birds died from chemical pesticide poisoning in 2000 than WNV. All birds submitted for WNV testing should be tested for pesticide poisoning. The NYSDEC in conjunction with the NYSDOH should publish a report based on the 2-year findings for the purpose of educating the public about the impacts of chemical pesticides on avian fauna.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION COMMENTS:

21. The Fight the Bite logo should be changed to reflect the movement away from crisis management towards the social marketing approach, which encourages behavior change. Specifically, the exaggerated features of the mosquito image invoke trepidation and may needlessly frighten schoolchildren who are receiving the brochures. The mosquito should appear more realistic and smaller on the cover of the educational materials. Also the word "Bite" should be reduced in size relative to the word "Fight".

22. School superintendents and officials in the list of target audiences (pages 54-55) should be notified specifically about children being removed from the high-risk category.

23. The second sentence of the 3rd bullet on page 57 should read:

Consider use of a mosquito repellent containing DEET or an alternative repellent since repeated daily applications of DEET should be avoided.

24. All New York State WNV public education literature should prominently display the NYSDOH 800 number and the recommendation to call in and log any incidences of pesticide exposure.

We hope the NYSDOH takes these comments in the spirit in which they are offered-to assist in a cooperative effort to improve upon the program to understand and respond to WNV. Thank you again for the opportunity for input into this critical WNV planning process.


Respectfully Submitted:

Sarah Meyland, Executive Director and General Counsel
Adrienne Esposito, Associate Executive Director
Robert Foster, Legislative Director