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.

Brown widow spiders spreading in California

Brown widow spider with her spiky egg cases.
Photo by Martyn Hafley.

The black widow spider is well known to most pest management professionals. Less familiar is the brown widow, Latrodectes geometricus.  The brown widow is more common in areas where it occurs, though it is reported to be more shy and less prone to bite than its black cousin. Nevertheless, the venom of this species is thought to be at least as toxic as the black widow.

Rick Vetter at the University of California - Riverside reports that the brown widow is showing up at more locations in southern California, and is soliciting samples from that state to document the spread.  In Texas, the brown widow is reported from the Gulf coastal areas from Houston to Corpus Christi.

One of the most distinctive features of the brown widow is its spiky egg case.  The black widow spider makes a tough, spherical egg case without any ornamentation.  The brown widow egg sac is covered with spiky projections.  The spider itself is brown with a yellow or orange hourglass marking on the underside of the abdomen.  The Latin name for the species, geometricus, comes from the geometrically shaped patterns on the sides of the abdomen, patterns that are mostly lacking on the black widow.

The current range of the brown widow is thought to extend in the southeast from Florida to Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas. It has also been reported from southern California, Nevada and Colorado.

The brown widow is a spider to be respected, if not feared. Vetter calls them "not very dangerous". Dr. G.B. Edwards, an arachnologist with the Florida State Collection of Arthropods in Gainesville, says that the brown widow venom is twice as potent as black widow venom; however, he notes they do not inject as much venom as a black widow, are very timid, and do not defend their web. On the other hand, where they become established, they are likely to be more common than the black widow spider.

I am a hardy promoter of vacuums when it comes to spider control.  Because of their large size and tendency to remain on their cobwebs, Latrodectus spiders may be difficult to control with residual insecticides.  Residual and contact sprays may still be useful in control; but use of vacuums or "Webster" mops to physically remove the spiders and their egg cases is likely to be superior to insecticide use alone. 

If you encounter brown widow spiders in Texas, I would be happy to receive specimens or images of your find.  This will help us have a better understanding of the spread and frequency of occurrence in this state.  Images can be emailed to m-merchant at tamu dot edu.  Or specimens can be mailed in a small amount of alcohol to Extension Urban Entomologist, Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center, 17360 Coit Road, Dallas, TX  75252-6599. 

The cuddly alfalfa weevil

Note the proboscis and dark median stripes characteristic
of the alfalfa weevil.

Each year in pest control brings a few surprises.  This year's early surprise is a small outdoor insect known as the alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica. The alfalfa weevil is a small, 3/16-inch (5 mm) long, brownish-grey weevil with a darker brown band down the back. It normally spends the winter as an adult at the base of clover or alfalfa plants, or under leaves or other debris outdoors.

Now weevils are pretty interesting insects, with some of the, if not beautiful, most bizarre-looking faces and life styles among the beetles. Only a few weevils ever become pests--at least indoors. The rice and granary weevils are probably two of the most common, and can be found associated with stored rice and whole grains.

In the twenty years that I've been answering phone calls from county extension agents and citizens I don't recall receiving any complaints about alfalfa weevils invading homes or structures.  This year must be different.  Over the past few weeks I've had several calls and emails about alfalfa weevils (1) being found indoors, (2) being found in large numbers on the outside of homes, and (3) being found in beds (three complaints!). 

OK. There is no good reason why alfalfa weevils should be interested in a bed--unless they just like to cuddle.  Alfalfa weevils do not bite and certainly are not blood suckers.  I can only guess that these insects must be good at climbing up folds of fabric hanging down from a bed. Also, bedrooms and beds tend to be located at the exterior perimeter walls of home.  And certainly one of the easiest places to spot these small gray weevils would be on white bed linens.

Although I can't confirm that alfalfa weevils fly, it's possible that these insects are being drawn to external lighting, and subsequently indoors.  If you are servicing a home that is under siege from alfalfa weevils, standard recommendations for control of occasional invaders should apply: (1) reduce or eliminate outdoor lighting, especially lights that shine or doorways or shine directly on the sides of the home; (2) seal doors, windows, and cracks or gaps in walls, soffits or foundations; and (3) apply a residual insecticide to foundation perimeters and around potential entry points into the structure.  Indoor pesticide applications, including aerosol bombs, are not recommended.

Texas school IPM's fate still up in the air

I reported almost two months ago about a bill in the Texas Senate that would repeal our state's school IPM law and associated regulations. Since that time my colleague Janet Hurley and I have talked with many of you about the possible impacts of the repeal.  We also had the chance to travel to Austin and share information about school IPM with the Senate Finance committee.

There have been several legislative developments in the past few weeks.  First, the original Senate bill, SB 12 (changed from the original SB 468, then SB 3) has eliminated any reference to school IPM repeal. Concerns shared with the committee by a citizen and several environmental groups apparently persuaded the bill's sponsor to remove the school IPM repeal from the larger bill, which was written to reduce regulatory burdens on school districts.

Meanwhile, SB 1252 was introduced by Senator Tommy Williams (R-Woodlands).  This bill also called for repeal of school IPM (Texas Occupations Code Section 1951.212).  About the same time, an identical sister bill (HB 3684) was introduced into the Texas House by Representative Bill Callegari (R- Houston).  Both House and Senate Bills were identical in language and called for repeal of Texas's school IPM law.

The Texas Pest Management Association and several environmental organizations (and a number of school IPM coordinators) have contacted the bill's authors to request removal of the school IPM repeal (allowing school IPM regulations to remain as they are now).  They report that both Senator Williams and Representative Callegari have said that they intend to remove school IPM from their bills in response to public input.  However, school IPM language has not disappeared from the online copies of either SB 1252 or HB 3684.  According to David Oefinger, Executive Director of the Texas Pest Management Association, he believes that the repeal of school IPM in both bills will be dealt with as the bills' authors have promised.  However, he notes that "most anything can happen in the waning days of a Texas legislative session." 

Are your customers' kitchens...kosher?

An article in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye last week.  The story follows Rabbi Naftali Marrus, in his duties as a certifying rabbi for OK Kosher Certification, a Brooklyn agency that certifies restaurants, caterers, cafés, industrial kitchens and food manufacturers.OK Kosher Certification is one of a number of agencies that certify foods and food servers follow strict Jewish food laws.

One of Rabbi Marrus' tools is THE INFERNO, a three-and-a-half-foot-long propane torch that produces a flame at least half as long, according to the article photo above.  Rabbi Marrus and his fellow rabbis use the Inferno to burn off the smallest impurities, yeast, leaven and other crumbs, to ensure a kosher Passover meal in certified restaurants.

To restaurant owner Doris Schecter, it's a renewal, "a chance to start over again."  To me it looks like pretty decent pest control. Imagine using one of these babies to rid stainless steel kitchen furniture of cockroaches. Of course one wouldn't want to get too close to a grease-covered wall.

Wildlife conference in Austin next month

Just passing on an announcement about a wildlife management conference being sponsored by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department May 22-25. Keynote speakers include Dr. Timothy Beatley (Biophilic Cities), Dr. Marina Alberti (Ecological Resilience in Urbanizing Landscapes), Kieran Lindsey (The Road Less Traveled: Subarus, Squirrels, and the Search for Stakeholders), and John Davis (Where Do We Go From Here? A Vision of the Future for Urban Wildlife).

Blog readers may remember one of the keynote speakers, Dr. Kieran Lindsey, from a recent post about Car Talk.

I am not a wildlifer, but this conference looks great.  For more information, including a list of speakers and topics, check out the conference website at www.urbanwildlife2011.org An international conference of this caliber doesn't come to Texas every year, so take advantage of it if you can.

Texas included in EPA bed bug grant awards

Yesterday the U.S. EPA announced the successful applicants for grants totaling $550,000 for bed bug education, outreach and environmental justice projects. I'm pleased to announce that our office is one of the five recipients that will receive these EPA bed bug funds this year.

Looking over the successful projects, a theme was research and extension efforts that benefit high-risk and under served communities disproportionately exposed to environmental risks:

• The University of Missouri St. Louis will develop training materials for immediate use in working with building inspectors and social service agencies that serve low-income minority and immigrant neighborhoods in the metropolitan St. Louis area ($89K for one year).
• Texas AgriLife Extension Service (that's us!) will develop a pilot IPM program and train workers at a minimum of three homeless shelters in Texas ($76K for two years).
• The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene will develop and provide training as well as technical and material support to residents, service providers and retail operators in the 12 poorest zip codes of Baltimore City and county health offices throughout Maryland ($142K for two years).
• Rutgers University will implement a state-wide bed bug educational outreach program for low-income communities in New Jersey ($100K for 19 months).
• Michigan Department of Community Health will promote the Michigan Bed Bug Working Group as a model for the creation of local bed bug task forces of governmental and community agencies ($142K for two years).

In its news release, the EPA correctly noted that because of increasingly scarce resources, it's more critical than ever that all facets of government, industry, and academia work together efficiently. This includes Extension and the pest control industry.

If you are a Texas PMP working with a shelter of any kind, and bed bugs are an issue, we would like to know.  Over the next couple of months my teammates and I will be looking for sites to serve as test sites for the project. In addition, as part of this project, Dr. Grady Glenn will be developing what he's calling an "S of P 100" (Survey of Pests 100) list.  This will be a list of 100 Texas pest control companies willing to periodically provide information about the number of calls and contracts that you have with bed bugs and other key pests. Participants will remain anonymous, but the data received will be used to track the incidence and severity of various pests throughout the state.

If you are interested in either aspect of this project, please contact me at "m-merchant at tamu.edu".