Comment on the USFWS Proposed Listing
Comment! You can comment on the proposed rule.
AMCA will Comment! But we also encourage all programs that may be affected by this rule to provide comments.
There is specific information the USFWS is asking for. Of particular concern for mosquito control operations, they are seeking comments about the proposed 4(d) rule to assist in applying or issuing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, including:
- Whether the provisions related to the maintenance, enhancement, removal, or establishment of milkweed should be revised to include spatial or temporal restrictions or deferments.
- Whether they should include an exception for take of monarch associated with the use of pesticides and, if so, what measures are reasonable, feasible, and adequate to reduce or offset pesticide exposure to monarchs, including measures for specific classes of pesticides, pesticide uses, and application methods.
- Whether they should include an exception for take of monarch from transportation and energy infrastructure, including mortality from collisions with wind turbines; and
- Whether they could improve or modify our approach to the 4(d) rule in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
The highlighted section is an important point of information being requested. We need to justify in the public record how this listing would impact your operations and why mosquito control needs an exception for "take".
Additionally, they are asking for specific information related to the critical habitat in California. If your District works in any of these locations, you can provide valuable information regarding how mosquito control is currently working with land managers to conserve monarchs.
You can read the December 2024 announcement from the USFWS here.
A detailed history of the history of the Monarch Butterfly listing can be found at the Monarch Joint Venture site. This is a great history of how the proposal began and why we are here today.
You can also visit the USFWS and get more information about their proposed listing decision.
Suggested Discussion Points for Your COMMENTS:
Listing this species without regulatory clarity via 4(d) would be disastrous for public health and utterly counterproductive for the protection of the monarch. This point is important! Not having regulatory clarity is counterproductive. Frame your argument so that a 4(d) rule would be better for the monarch because clarity via the 4(d) rule will provide consistent care for the species nationwide. And providing this clarity through exemption language will protect the public’s health from rapidly expanding arboviruses.
A good start to any comment/letter is to describe your program’s surveillance and control operations and define your program’s mission. Presenting clear data and information regarding the various activities you engage in each year is helpful. If possible, detail how this listing would impact your operations. In particular if no exceptions to the ruling are granted that would allow you to continue conducting surveillance (walking through a field with monarchs present could be considered take), larvicide operations, or adulticide applications, could you continue to perform your duties?
Use data and cite sources to support your statements.
There are ample peer-reviewed journal articles that have concluded mosquito control applications are not causing take. Furthermore, the literature USFWS has cited is incomplete and/or inappropriate. If you have any familiarity with any of the papers that they cited about mosquito control in the Species Status Assessment, comment on them. Try to make the case that the science on this is ambiguous. We have a 75+ year history of safe and effective use of wide-area adult mosquito control with very few documented cases of monarch populations being affected.
For example, in the Species Status Assessment Report from December 2024, they rely heavily (cited over 100 times) on Oberhauser et. al., 2009 (Impacts of Ultra-Low Volume Resmethrin Applications on Non-Target Insects; JAMCA 25(1):83–93, 20090). In this paper, the researchers look at the effects of applying resmethrin, primarily at distances of 75 feet or less from the application path. Resmethrin is no longer registered for ULV applications.
In contrast, we could cite two peer reviewed articles from the University of Florida:
- Giordano, B.V., McGregor, B.L., Runkel IV, A.E. and Burkett-Cadena, N.D., 2020. Distance diminishes the effect of deltamethrin exposure on the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 36(3), pp.181-188.
- Kim, D., Burkett-Cadena, N.D. and Reeves, L.E., 2022. Pollinator biological traits and ecological interactions mediate the impacts of mosquito-targeting malathion application. Scientific Reports, 12(1), p.17039.
Both studies lend a view on organophosphates and pyrethroids versus non targets.
Provide Details about your current operations.
Consider listing or discussing the current mosquito control practices, being sure to list mitigations or practices your program already uses to protect monarchs, and other non-target organisms. When we follow our best management practices, we routinely perform “mitigations” that are protective of the species:
- We have the ability to identify and avoid “no spray” areas
- We currently reduce the frequency of treatments with proper surveillance data and setting rational action thresholds
- We use the lowest application rate that is effective
- We routinely reduce the areas that need treatment and treat smaller areas; we only treat what is needed
- Daily timing modification; we don't spray in daylight when monarchs are actively flying
- We actively seek out and identify mosquito-breeding habitat, making larvicide efforts our first response to mosquito problems. However, we must preserve the ability to apply adulticides when the situation is needed.
- We identify likely habitats and avoid them; as scientists and biologists we always seek to preserve non target species and enhance biological diversity
- Do you engage in compensatory mitigations: Does your District have a pollinator garden?
For example on page 42 of the Species Status Assessment Report from December 2024, they state: “Use of insecticides in vector control, especially pyrethroids and organophosphates, may be significant in areas of the country where mosquitoes pose a public health threat or reach nuisance levels. The most widely used classes of insecticides include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. The most widely used classes of insecticides include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. Studies looking specifically at dose-response of monarchs to neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and pyrethroids have demonstrated monarch toxicity at product label application rates and field concentration levels (e.g., Krischik et al. 2015, entire; James 2019, entire; Krishnan et al. 2020, entire; Bargar et al. 2020, entire).”
However, these cited sources do not reference mosquito control applications. They reference agricultural applications and related means of exposure or pesticides not used for ULV mosquito control applications. How do your operations differ from these references? It could be informative to explain why your use of insecticides for vector control is needed, but is not a significant (application rate, frequency of applications) amount of pesticide being applied even when mosquitoes pose a public health threat.
Offer a path forward.
This is the tricky part. Although we, as mosquito control professionals, may not be concerned about population level take, what can we do to minimize take? What do we already do? Some amount of exemption or even a full blanket exemption could be argued for because (based on the data from journal articles mentioned above), properly performed ULV applications do not cause population level take.
Ultimately, we need to argue for exceptions to the prohibitions listed in the 4(d) rule that can be placed on the label through Bulletins Live! Two, similar to the mosquito control mitigations currently proposed in EPA’s Vulnerable Species Action Plan and in the malathion biological opinion. This would provide regulatory clarity for our profession.
For example, have you recently, or would you be amenable to seeking input from your local FWS Ecological Field Services Office on current monarch population locations and abundance? How could you work with them to avoid take and ensure your operations would not affect the overall species decline.
End any comment with AMCA’s PRIMARY ASK:
It is common for monarchs to exist in a wide range of locations and habitat where they may be subject to insecticide use, especially in agricultural areas and reports suggests there may be incidental mortality, especially during periods of migration. However, the best available research shows that mortality due to mosquito control applications is not one of the primary drivers of changes in monarch populations. And mosquito control applications were not identified as a primary driver by monarch experts at the USFWS according to Species Status Assessment Report. At this time the impacts from monarch deaths due to infrequent ULV mosquitocide applications should be considered minimal and not affecting the monarch butterfly at the population or species level. Furthermore, there is precedent that vector management programs can seek technical assistance from local FWS offices and conduct wide area mosquito control applications with minimal impact on a listed species. In fact, these discussions can lead to increased knowledge of life histories and monarch habitat that can provide a net benefit to the species, despite minimal losses that have historically been attributed to direct insecticide applications.
We offer that all available evidence indicates that the overall impact of mosquito control applications should not be expected to negatively affect conservation and species recovery efforts for the monarch butterfly. Therefore, we propose that take due to routine mosquito control insecticide applications that are carried out in accordance with existing or revised label language along with established best management practices be listed as an exception to the prohibitions under this 4(d) rule.
How to Comment:
Commenting on the USFWS' proposed rule is easy. First prepare your comment - You should prepare a written letter on your program's letterhead, detailing each of the points above, especially the last section with our primary ask. Then, follow this link to the Regulations.gov docket and click on the blue comment button.
On the following page, enter the appropriate information. In the "Comment" field, you can keep it brief and ask that they refer to your full comment (if you put a comment on letterhead) in the attached file. Be sure to ATTACH and UPLOAD YOU COMMENT LETTER. Then click "Submit Comment" at the bottom of the page. Its that easy!
If for any reason, this link is broken, just go to Regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID: FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137.
