A Who's Who of WDIs

Recently I received an inquiry from a Texas pest control company wanting to know if there was a list of official wood destroying insects (WDIs) in Texas. Since there are some specific instructions in state regulations governing WDI inspections, you would be excused for thinking that there might be an official list. But if there is, I can't find it.  If you go to the relevant section of the Texas Administrative Code, the rules say "The purpose of the [WDI] inspection is to provide a report regarding the absence or presence of wood destroying insects and conditions conducive to wood destroying insect infestation."  However, the rules don't specifically define what consists of a WDI.

So in lieu of any official list, here is my list of the important WDIs in Texas.  If you're from another state, the list is likely to be similar, although the relative importance of each of these pests varies from region to region.

Termite wings provide good diagnostic clues to the type of
termites infesting a home. Reticulitermes wings are smooth,
without hairs, and have two heavier veins along the leading
edge of the forewing.

• Subterranean termites (Reticulitermes species. Note: when the word "species" is written after the genus name, it refers to multiple different species within the genus). Knowing the exact species is not important for a professional doing an inspection, but keep in mind that there may be some differences (e.g., swarming times or potential for destruction) among the different termite species.  The most economically important termite species in Texas, and the U.S., is Reticulitermes flavipes, the eastern subterranean termite. These termites are called "subterranean" because they need contact with the soil, and almost always maintain their nest underground while foraging on both underground and above-ground wood.  Inspections should focus on looking for alates (swarmers) and the presence of mud tubes extending from the soil into the structure.  Alates can be confirmed as Reticulitermes by their forewings, which bear two strong, dark veins along the leading edge.  Wood damage from this and other Reticulitermes species consists of galleries chewed into the spring wood, following the growth rings. Also, because they are subterranean, gallery walls will be covered with specks of "mud", a combination of feces, saliva and soil.  



Formosan alate wings are covered with fine hairs, visible
under magnification.



Drywood termite wings are often dusky and have at least
three strong veins along the leading edge of the forewing.

• Formosan subterranean termites Coptotermes formosanus. This is an exotic termite species that has established in parts of Texas, but is also found in other parts of the South and in parts of California. One of the principal means of its spread appears to be via recycled railroad ties.  The Formosan termite belongs to the same family as Reticulitermes termites, and shares some of the same characteristics, including subterranean nests and mud spattered galleries; hence, it is also technically a "subterranean" termite. Identify Coptotermes by its nighttime swarming habits and its large, yellowish-colored alate.  The wing veination is similar to Reticulitermes, but the wing membranes are covered with fine hairs.  Workers are not easily distinguished from our other subterranean species, but soldiers have a teardrop-shaped head, contrasted with the rectangular head of Reticulitermes workers.  Galleries are similar to other subterranean termites, but Formosan termites produce "carton", a dense, honeycombed structure made from mud and wood pulp cemented together with saliva and feces.  
• Drywood termites (Cryptotermes and Incistitermes species) The so-called drywood termites are distinguished from subterranean termites by their above-ground nests and lack of contact with the soil. Because they live in wood, which usually has lower moisture content than soil, drywood termites are very efficient conservers of water. The most obvious sign of this skill are the fecal pellets they produce. Unlike the wet, smeared feces of subterranean termites, drywood feces are hard, dry pellets.  In the drywood termite rectum all water is squeezed from the feces by six rectal pads, leaving small (1/32 inch-long), six-sided pellets. Finding these pellets is hard proof of a drywood termite infestation. In addition, drywood termite galleries do not follow the grain of the wood, but may extend across multiple annual rings. Alates fly at night and have three strong, dark veins at the leading edge of the forewing. Drywood termites are most common in warm, high-humidity regions, such as the Gulf coastal areas, and parts of southern California.  They may be found in other parts of the country, however, when brought in on furniture or infested lumber. 

  

  Lyctid powderpost beetle adults (left) are distinguished from
  the common pantry pest, red flour beetle (right), by their
  round eyes and two-segmented antennae.  

• Lyctid powderpost beetles (family Bostrichidae, subfamily Lyctinae). These small, cylindrical beetles are usually brought into homes in infested hardwood trim or flooring, or in infested furniture. They are one of the most important WDIs in Texas. If you're not in the habit of looking carefully for signs of these beetles during a WDI inspection, you're opening your business up to a potential legal mess. The presence of these beetles in new homes has become highly litigious, as the owners look for someone to blame for their new, beetle-infested home. It's critical to look carefully at all hardwood trim, including wainscoting, baseboards, windowsills, cabinetry and wood flooring.  On horizontal floors or trim, sawdust usually accumulates in volcano-like piles surrounding the adult beetle emergence hole.  On vertical wood, small piles of very fine, almost silky, frass will accumulate on cabinets, edges or floors underneath the emergence hole. Adults can be distinguished from the similar-appearing red flour beetle by their darker color; globular, protruding eyes; 2-segmented antennal club and enlarged hind coxae.   



Carpenter ants are easily identified by their large size, single
node between abdomen and thorax, and smoothly rounded
thoracic profile.  Many Texas species are bi-colored, like this
specimen; but color alone can be misleading.

• Carpenter ants (Campanotus species). This insect is usually listed as a WDI; however in Texas carpenter ants are not very likely to do structural damage. They are more likely to occur in small colonies in wall voids and in insulation, but rarely as destroyers of sound wood. Some species of carpenter ant, like C. modoc and C. pennsylvanicus, are well-known wood destroyers, especially in the Pacific Northwest and in the northeastern states. They have given all carpenter ants a reputation as wood destroyers. For this reason, and because they are not difficult to report, I would recommend including carpenter ant evidence on a WDI inspection report.  The similarly-colored (but physically very different) acrobat ant, is not reported to eat or damage wood, therefore I would not report it as a WDI.  Carpenter ants are relatively easily identified by their large size, polymorphism (different sized workers in the same colony), single node and smooth curved thoracic profile. Inspectors should also be on the lookout for carpenter ant frass, which is the colony's trash dump.  Frass piles may include wood, insulation, dead insects, and sometimes pupal cases.  Any unusual debris piles that contain insect fragments are likely carpenter ants.



The old house borer is a medium-sized beetle (0.6 to 1 inch)
with two raised bumps and a mustache-shaped ridge on
the pronotum (shield behind head).

• Old House borer (Hylotrupes bajulus). The round-headed borer family, to which the old house borer (OHB) belongs, consists mostly of larger beetles with long antennae.  Most infest only dying or recently killed trees, so pose little long-term threat to a structure (although they may emerge from infested wood in the first year or so of a new home).  The OHB is an exception to the low-threat rule because of its ability to re-infest homes after its first emergence. Most infestations occur in homes up to 10 years old, but they can also infest and re-infest older homes.  According to Dr. Harry Moore, retired WDI expert from North Carolina State University, the OHB prefers wood with moisture content between 15 and 25%.  This moisture level is higher than normal in all but the more humid parts of the country.  Adult beetles are distinctive, emergence holes are oval in shape and 1/4 to 1/3 inch maximum diameter. Frass consists of very fine powder and tiny, elongate, blunt-ended pellets.  Infestations of OHB are most common in the humid Piedmont areas of the mid-Atlantic seaboard; however they can be found in homes throughout the eastern U.S.  Infestations are relatively rare in Texas.



Bostrichid beetles are mostly a minor WDI pest.  The rasp-like
pronotum and cylindrical body with abruptly angled wing
tips are characteristic of this family.

• Anobiid and other Bostrichid beetles.  Any emergence holes in structural wood or trim, of course, should be reported on a WDI report.  However, when the other pests listed above are ruled out, most of the remaining culprits will belong to miscellaneous species of anobiid (ANN oh BEE id) and bostrichid (boss STRICK id) beetles. Nationwide, anobiid beetles are the more important group.  These beetles feed on sapwood of both hard- and soft-woods.  They leave circular exit holes 1/16 to 1/8 inch in diameter, and produce a fine powdery frass with conspicuous pellets.  Adults of these beetles are relatives of the cigarette beetle and have a similar with a oval to cylindrical shape and downward pointing head, hidden from above.  Anobiid beetles thrive in wood with higher moisture content (15-30%) and probably for this reason, infestations in Texas are uncommon except in damp crawl spaces.  Some of the smaller holes bored by anobiid beetles may be confused with Lyctid powderpost beetles, but the frass is distinguished by the presence of rough pellets.
       Bostrichid beetles (with the exception of the Lyctid powderpost beetles) are generally incapable of re-infesting wood. Holes made by emerging adults are round and 3/32 to 9/32 inch in diameter.  Frass is tightly packed inside tunnels and tends to stick together.  Most bostrichid beetles have several rasp-like teeth on the front of the pronotum, presumably to aid in collecting and packing frass in the galleries.  One of the most common ways bostrichid beetles are introduced into homes is via wicker baskets and furniture.

Advisory Committee Gets Updates, Homework

The Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met in Austin last week. I have served on the committee for two plus years, and have written about the advisory committee in the past (search this site for the term "advisory committee").  The committee represents the public and the pest control industry, and meets quarterly to get updates, and offer suggestions and feedback to TDA, on rules and regulations pertaining to pest control in Texas.

Budget Update & Department news

This quarter's meeting included an update on TDA's budget status in the legislature.  House Bill 1(HB 1) (in this session the House takes the lead in drafting the state budget, next session the Senate takes the lead) proposes a 45% cut in the TDA budget.  This seemed incredibly high to me for an agency budget cut, but I wasn't detecting any feeling of panic among Assistant Commissioner Jimmy Bush or other TDA staffers at the meeting.  According to Bush, while such cuts will likely mean a major restructuring of the Agency, TDA does not see any major impacts on the operation of the Structural Pest Control Service (the division of TDA that oversees and regulates the pest control industry in the state).  Much of the cuts being proposed would come from programs at TDA that do not bring in revenue through licenses or fees, namely marketing and the rural economic development divisions of the agency.

The committee was introduced to two TDA attorneys that have recently been assigned to the Structural Pest Control Service.  Mary Luedeker and Lisa Hoyt will take over all new structural pest control cases, working with the agency and with industry to interpret and enforce laws and rules relating to pest control in Texas.   

Legislative Updates

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dr. Ambrose Charles reported that the Texas Council on Environmental Quality has drafted a discharge permit plan for pesticide applications near water which has been accepted by the U.S. EPA.  He noted that the deadline for implementing this program was recently delayed until October 31, but that there is some question whether this new permitting program will ever go into effect.  He reported that H.R. 872 was recently passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives by a wide margin.  This bill would exempt pesticides labeled under FIFRA from being subject to the Clean Water Act permit system. A companion bill, S. 718, was also introduced into the Senate.  If that passes and both houses agree on a joint version of the bill (there are differences), Congress could effectively bypass the recent court decision that would require permits for pesticide applications for aquatic weed control, forest pest control, mosquito control and other pest control around water. The paperwork and manpower requirements, supporters say, will be expensive to communities and agencies, and will not result in improved water quality.  Environmental groups oppose HR 872, saying it would be a vote for dirty water.  If you have question about how the Texas water permit system works, Dr. Charles is familiar with the provisions of the Texas permitting system.

Katherine Wright-Steele gave a legislative update on four bills relating to the pest control industry that are currently in the Texas state legislative process.  Senate Bill 3, containing language that would repeal all school IPM regulations in the state, has been previously discussed here.  HB 2741, HB 2742, and HB 2743 were introduced by Representative Tim Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington.  All appear to have been introduced with the support of the Texas Pest Control Association.  House bills 2741 and 2742 serve to give TDA more leverage in regulating advertising, restoring some of the authority lost in the last legislative session.  The house bill 2743 seeks to restructure the Advisory committee, eliminating the university (yo!) and department of State Health Services representatives and making six of the nine positions filled by pest control professionals (three would be public members). Status of these bills is still uncertain and there are currently no companion Senate bills.

Wood Destroying Insect Reports

The committee received some homework from Jimmy Bush. Members were asked to review and provide input into the Wood Destroying Insect (WDI) Report (Form No. SPCS/T-4), WDI report inspection procedures (Rule 7.175), and the chapter on WDI inspections in the AgriLife Extension Study manual (B-5075).  This follows discussion from other meetings on ways to reduce the numbers of complaints received each year from the public about WDI reports and inspections.  In 2010 the TDA received 20 complaints related to WDI inspections, approximately 10% of all complaints received.  While some felt that this number of complaints is very low compared to the number of inspections conducted each year, there does seem to be room for improvement.  Improvements to the form itself, as well as the need for improved training and certification for WDI inspectors was discussed. 

A group of industry members (Eric Melass, Mike Dickens and Debbie Aguirre) appointed by the committee late last year  recommended that enforcement of existing rules rather than new regulations was what was most needed. They also suggested that all WDI inspectors be required to carry a certified applicator's license and that CA tests have a section devoted to WDI issues.  If this change did not result in fewer problems, only then should TDA consider creating a special license subcategory for WDI inspectors.

CEU courses

The committee was also charged with reviewing staff recommendations on restructuring CEU course offerings.  A group of SPCS staff reviewed the two existing rules (Section 7.134 and Section 7.135) and offered a draft version of the rules with suggestions for improvement.  One of the most significant concessions in the new version is to allow the use of an online course to meet someone's entire annual recertification requirement.  The only limitation under this proposal would be that online courses could not be used in any two consecutive years to meet CEU requirements.  This is because there is concern that, despite recent improvements in technology, the department is still unconvinced that online courses can fully substitute for face to face training. 

Other changes in Section 7.135 would include eliminating speaker qualification forms, and doing away with a requirement that online course takers pass an exam with at least a 70% to get their CEU credit and be proctored by a certified applicator.  It's not clear under the draft rule how sponsors will guard against abuse of online courses without the proctor requirement.  In public testimony time, Don Ward, Executive Director of the Texas Pest Control Association, expressed the association's general support of online courses if abuse issues can be addressed.  He also expressed a preference for certifying speakers over courses, seemingly the opposite of the new rules.

If you have suggestions for improvements to the CEU or WDI report process, you should contact one of the Advisory Committee members before July 28, or plan to attend the next committee meeting on that date.

Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee Meets

Yesterday I traveled to Austin to meet again with the Advisory Committee for the Texas Structural Pest Control Service (SPCS). As usual, I am posting some of the highlights. This committee was set up as a way to continue to have public and professional input into the SPCS after the dissolution (Sunsetting) of the former Structural Pest Control Board in 2008.

Unlike the former Board, we don't have any authority--our purpose is merely advisory--but the meeting does provide a window into the issues and concerns facing the SPCS.

Maron Finley with SPCS started off the meeting by updating the committee on HB4159 that was introduced last fall into the U.S. House of Representatives. I blogged earlier this month about this bill, which would have the effect of undoing all the work done to date on Texas school IPM laws and regulations. It seems that the TDA, though they can't hold an official stance, is also concerned about the impact of the bill, and their staff is keeping an eye on its progress. The committee decided to draft a letter that would be sent to legislators, offering our take on the probable impact of legislation. A letter will be brought to the next committee meeting in April for committee approval.

Jimmy Bush, Assistant Commissioner for Pesticide Programs at Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), spoke about the ongoing process of assimilating the SPCS into TDA. He noted that at the beginning they had basically "forklifted" the old agency (the Board) into TDA, knowing that eventually the system and processes of the old board would have to be fitted into the agency's existing system. Although he envisions leaving the old Board business model basically the same, his office is working hard to streamline paperwork for pest control licensees and the agency. Part of this is being accomplished by developing a website where licensees could view and even update their licensing information online. This would save paperwork and manpower for simple administrative changes, such as a technician moving from one company to another. Under the new system each licensed technician will have an account that would show their license information, including their CEU count, etc. The SPCS is seeking ideas on what PMPs would like to see in this system. I'm reminded of the new Windows 7 ads: "Windows 7 was my idea!" Now's your chance to write TDA a letter and make the SPCS site "your idea".

Bush said that fee increases are not currently on the table, but there may be some fee restructuring, especially for apprentice and technician licenses. Many of the operational changes, such as migrating licenses to the TDA database system, will be invisible to license holders. The website is one change that should be immediately apparent. Currently Bush hopes that the new system will be operational in 2-3 months.

One of the other behind the scenes activities at TDA is preparation of a 5% agency cut, due to the Legislative Budget Board by mid-February. Most Texas state agencies, including Texas AgriLife Extension, have been directed by the state to plan a 5% cut. The committee then discussed the fate of license fees collected by TDA. Like most fee-collecting agencies in Texas, all fees and fines collected by the TDA must go into the state General Fund. Traditionally, the SPCS and the former board bring more into state coffers than they spend in enforcement and administration.

The committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing how TDA should administer new rules requiring school IPM coordinators (IPMCs) to get 6 hours of continuing education every three years. This was our second time to discuss the issue. At last month's meeting most of the committee elected to allow IPMCs to obtain any CEUs that might be relevant to school pest control count toward the 6 hour requirement. I was uncomfortable with that decision and requested that the committee consider an alternative proposal. Actually there were two alternative proposals discussed: (1) to create a new CEU category for school IPM and require some or all 6 hours to come from that category; or (2) to require all 6 hours to come from an approved refresher course, similar to the courses now offered for new IPMCs. Disappointingly, the committee could not reach consensus on any of the choices, but I think the sometimes lively discussion did serve a purpose. It brought out all the points of view, with pros and cons for the different options. Now it appears it will be up to TDA to sort out the different views and come up with a plan that can be open to public hearings.

Mike Kelly and Jimmy Bush briefed the committee on the department's concerns about WDI reports. Wood Destroying Insect reports remain a low-level, chronic concern to the department--something the SPCS would like to see improved. Last year, Kelly reported, 139 consumer complaints were received by the SPCS for investigation. Twenty-one of the 139 complaints related to WDI reports. I was interested to learn that no one knows how many WDI reports are done in a year, and therefore what the actual complaint rate is. We learned that copies of WDIs are not required to be submitted to the department or any state agency. Also, the number of complaints may be an underestimate, since many disgruntled consumers do not contact the SPCS, but go directly to litigation.

Allison Cuellar, of the SPCS, provided a review of six other state WDI systems. Many states (e.g., Florida, Georgia, New Mexico and Louisiana) have separate license categories for WDI inspectors--Texas only requires WDI inspectors to have a termite license. Arkansas and Florida require the companies who conduct an inspection to provide some form of warranty for their work. Mike Kelly pointed out the need for making more PMPs aware of the existence of the instruction sheet for the Texas official WDI inspection forms. The need for more and better training in WDI inspections was discussed, but no specific recommendations were made. This poses a challenge for agencies like mine to make WDI training available--especially hands-on training. But without a mandate to attend I wonder how many inspectors would voluntarily take it?

Insurance for WDI inspectors also provoked some lively discussion. As I understand it, insurance companies are increasingly requiring their insured to carry both "general liability" policies and something called an "errors and omissions" policy. General liability is insurance coverage for damage a PMP might directly cause to a premise. It is sometimes unclear as to whether GL insurance covers damage that might result from something a PMP misdiagnosed or missed during an inspection. If not, then this sort of loss would be covered by an E&O policy. We were told by home inspector Bob Smith that E&O insurance typically costs a company $600 to $1000 more each year.

Some inspectors blame ambiguous rules, and the SPCS in particular, for not providing more clarity in stating exactly what kind of insurance is required. Personally I can't decide whether this is more of an insurance industry (free market) issue, a problem with the statutory language, or simply a lack of clear communication about what PMPs need by the SPCS. The TDA/SPCS appears to be leaning toward requiring termite companies (and home inspectors) to carry E&O insurance to meet the requirement of the law. The reasoning is that the Texas Occupations Code (part of state law) requires pest control businesses to have insurance that covers "liability for damage to persons or property occurring as a result of operations performed in the course of the business of structural pest control..." (Section 1951.312). If someone misses a pest infestation and damage or loss of value occurs to the home as a result (something that could happen in the course of doing business) many insurance companies require E&O insurance to cover such losses.

I'm a simple entomologist and have trouble keeping track of my home and auto insurance policies. But it seems to me that all PMPs with businesses should have a good heart-to-heart with their insurance agents. Make sure your business is adequately covered.

As the late Ken Myers pointed out in testimony to the committee last year, many PMPs appear to be confused right now as to what sort of coverage they really need. I agree that we need more clarity on this issue.