Category Archives: Animals

Beam signed

Last night before the selectmen met Chief Kingsbury brought a beam from the public safety building clock tower on a trailer by the Town House for the selectmen to sign. I had imagined signing with a white pen, but it turned out that the beam was white. Very cool.

Mark signed remotely.

Good thing Mark was not there last night as the meeting went to 9:45 – beavers at Fork Factory took most of the time. TTOR actually have a last revised in 2005 beaver policy, which is basically hands off unless beavers cause a nuisance. Killing trees is not a nuisance in their eyes, but erosion of Hartford Street would be. TTOR will follow up with DPW, and may add another beaver deceiver water bypass pipe into the beaver dam. Alec Stevens was concerned about sudden water releases at Fork Factory overwhelming his Jewels Pond, and that seemed to be heard by TTOR.

Good update by Board of Health – new sharps disposal container is located at DPW Garage, and they increase age to buy tobacco to age 21 effective January 1.

North & Green Sts. status

I queried Ken Feeney at the BoS meeting last night about what will happen when on North Street and Green Street, while he was in to discuss his budgets, and this is his expected time frame:

  • 2013 – water main will be replaced in Green Street, and North Street paving will be improved, similar to the gas line trench on the East side of North Street.
  • The final upgrades to both streets is uncertain, as it depends on when Mass Highway gives Medfield both its approval and its money.  Ken said that the project is 85% planned out, and that the DPW consultant, HNTB, is good at getting Mass Highway to move on projects, but I was left with a general impression that we both (1) just do not know the timing, but (2) that it is not likely to be soon, and we should not be holding our breath as to when that final reconstruction will happen.
  • Most beaver activity near the swim pond is farther up stream, but Mike said he will ask the town trapper to investigate the area, as there are reports of high water levels in the area of Green and Brook Streets.

I also asked Ken to give the BoS a primer after the annual town meeting (ATM) on “best road repair practices,” so that the town can make sure that we are getting the longest street longevity for the least money.  Ken is a designated “Roads Scholar” from his attendance at Mass Highway programs.

TTOR problem beaver program

The Trustees of the Reservation will hold a 12/4/12 program on how to deal with beaver issues –

From: Charles River Valley

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:52 PM
To:
Subject: Beaver Management Workshop — December 4, 2012

The Trustees of Reservations is sponsoring a free Beaver Management Workshop (subtitled: Long Term Solutions to Flooding) on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, at 10AM, at the Rocky Woods Reservation, Medfield, MA. See the attached flyers for more information.

Join Mike Callahan, Beaver Solutions LLC, national expert on beaver management issues, who will present new and existing methods of effective, long-term beaver and water control, including the construction of water flow devices.  Presentation followed by Q&A. Refreshments provided.  FREE!  Space is limited.  Pre-registration required. Please register at  http://www.thetrustees.org/things-to-do/greater-boston/beaver-management.htmlcall 508.733.6271 with other questions.

Mike Francis
Superintendent, Charles River Valley Management Unit
The Trustees of Reservations
37 Powisset Street
Dover, MA  02030
508-785-0339

Mass regs on trapping beavers

These are the state’s regulations related to when a town can allow trapping by people to remove beavers.
==========================
Code of Massachusetts Regulations

Title 321: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Chapter 2.00: Miscellaneous Regulations Relating to Fisheries and Wildlife (Refs & Annos)

321 CMR 2.08
2.08: Use of Certain Traps for the Taking of Fur-bearing Mammals

(1) Definitions: for the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:

Agriculture or Agricultural Use means farming or agriculture as defined in M.G.L. c. 111, § 1.

Cage or Box Type Trap means a trap that confines the whole animal without grasping any part of the animal.

Conibear Type Trap means “Conibear” model traps and similar body-gripping traps and devices, whether or not enclosed in or comprising part of a box, tube, or other enclosing device.

Department of Environmental Protection means the Department of Environmental Protection within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21A, § 7.

Department of Public Health means the Department of Public Health within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 6A, § 7G.

Director means the Director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21, § 7G.

Division means the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife within the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21A, § 8.

Federal Department of Public Health means the United States Public Health Service.

Fur-bearing Mammals means all mammals in the Class Mammalia, as defined in M.G.L. c. 131, § 1.

Municipal Board of Health means a board of health as defined in M.G.L. c. 111, § 1.

Municipal Conservation Commission means a conservation commission as provided for in M.G.L. c. 40, § 8C, provided that, if a town or city does not have a conservation commission, the authority thereof shall be exercised by the board of selectmen in a town or the mayor in a city.

Permissible Traps means cage or box type traps, common type mouse and rat traps, and net traps.

Prohibited Traps means all traps used for the capture of fur-bearing mammals except cage or box type traps, common type mouse and rat traps, and net traps.

Restricted Traps means conibear type traps.

(2) Use of Certain Traps Prohibited. Except as provided in M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A, and 321 CMR 2.08, a person shall not use, set, place, maintain, or possess for the purpose of capturing fur-bearing mammals, any prohibited trap in any wood, field, or waters of Massachusetts or in any other place where fur-bearing mammals may be found.

(3) Health and Safety Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(2), the Department of Public Health, the federal department of public health, or a municipal board of health may use prohibited traps for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety.

(4) Criteria for Determining Threats to Human Health and Safety. A threat to human health and safety may include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following situations:
(a) beaver or muskrat occupancy of a public water supply;

(b) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of drinking water wells, wellfields, or water pumping stations;

(c) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of sewage beds, septic systems, or sewage pumping stations;

(d) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of a public or private way, driveway, railway, or airport runway or taxiway;

(e) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of electrical or gas generation plants or transmission or distribution structures or facilities, telephone or other communications facilities, or other public utilities;

(f) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting the public use of hospitals, emergency clinics, nursing homes, homes for the elderly, or fire stations;

(g) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting hazardous waste sites or facilities, incineration or resource recovery plants, or other structures or facilities whereby flooding may result in the release or escape of hazardous or noxious materials or substances;

(h) the gnawing, chewing, entering, or damage to electrical or gas generating or transmission equipment, cables, alarm systems, or facilities by any beaver or muskrat;

(i) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding or structural instability on property owned by the applicant if such animal problem poses an imminent threat of substantial property damage or income loss, which shall be limited to:

1. flooding of residential, commercial, industrial or commercial buildings or facilities;

2. flooding of or access to commercial agricultural lands which prevents normal agricultural practices from being conducted on such lands;

3. reduction in the production of an agricultural crop caused by flooding or compromised structural stability of commercial agricultural lands;

4. flooding of residential lands in which the municipal board of health; its chair or agent or the state or federal department of health has determined a threat to human health and safety exists.

(5) Special Permits to Use Restricted Traps or Other Means of Relief. A person or his duly authorized agent may apply for a permit to use restricted traps or other means of relief, as follows:
(a) to the municipal board of health, in situations involving a threat to human health and safety, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(6) through (14);

(b) to the director, in situations not involving a threat to human health and safety, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(16) through (18).

(6) Emergency Permit to Use Restricted Traps, Breaching of Water Impedance Structures, or Water Flow Control Devices. An applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply to the municipal board of health for an emergency permit to immediately alleviate a threat to human health and safety pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(4), on property owned, leased, or lawfully occupied by the applicant, provided, that in the case of a tenant or lessee, such applicant shall secure the authorization of the property owner prior to making such application.

(7) Authorizations Under an Emergency Permit. Such emergency permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to immediately remedy the threat to human health and safety, by one or more of the following options, for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days:
(a) the use of restricted traps or permissible traps, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(21);

(b) the breaching of dams, dikes, bogs or berms, so-called, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40;

(c) the employment of any non-lethal management control devices or water flow control devices, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.

(8) Determination of Threat to Human Health and Safety and Issuance of Emergency Permit. The municipal board of health shall, after receipt of an application for an emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(6), and after making a determination that such threat exists, and subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(9) Exception to Determination of Threat to Human Health and Safety. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(8), the department of environmental protection shall make any determination of a threat to a public water supply, pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(4)(a). The municipal board of health and the department of public health shall receive such determination from the department of environmental protection prior to issuing an emergency permit for such public water supply.

(10) Denial of Application for an Emergency Permit to Use Restricted Traps. If an application for such emergency permit is denied, an applicant may:
(a) appeal to the department of public health, if the denial involves a determination as to the existence of a bona-fide threat to human health and safety. If such alleged threat involves a public water supply, the department of public health shall consult with the department of environmental protection prior to rending a decision on the appeal.

(b) if the department of public health determines that a bona-fide threat to public health and safety exists, it shall render such decision to the municipal board of health, which shall, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(c) appeal to the director, if the municipal board of health determines that a bona-fide threat to human health and safety exists, but the board’s denial involves a question as to whether the threat is caused by the activities of beaver or muskrat.

(d) if the director determines that such threat to human health and safety is caused by the activities of beaver or muskrat, he shall render such decision to the municipal board of health, which shall, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(11) Extension of Existing Emergency Permit. In the event that a threat to human health and safety, as specified in an emergency permit issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(8), has not been abated or alleviated within the authorized ten day period, the applicant or his duly authorized agent, with the concurrence of the municipal board of health, shall apply to the director for an extension to such permit for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive days. If the director determines that a bona-fide threat to human health and safety exists, as advised by the municipal board of health, the department of public health, or the department of environmental protection, as the case may be, he shall immediately issue such extension permit for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days.

(12) Development of Abatement Plans. If the director determines that an extension to an emergency permit should be issued, he shall, within 30 days of such decision, develop a plan using alternative, non-lethal management techniques to address the beaver or muskrat problem which instigated the issuance of the permit. Such plan shall:
(a) be developed with the participation and assistance of the applicant or his duly authorized agent, the municipal board of health, and the municipal conservation commission as required pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 40; and

(b) describe measures which may be employed to address said beaver or muskrat problem, using barriers, fencing, or other alternative non-lethal management techniques, water flow control devices, if appropriate to the situation, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, and, if necessary, continued use of permissible traps to provide a long-term solution.

(c) The director shall, after development of such a plan, provide such reasonable technical advice, assistance, and support as shall be necessary for the applicant or his agent to implement the abatement plan.

(13) Additional Emergency Permits. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(6) through (12), an applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply to the municipal board of health for additional emergency permits, provided:
(a) the applicant states in writing that there exists on property owned, leased or lawfully occupied by him a beaver or muskrat problem which the applicant or his authorized agent has:

1. attempted to address using alternative, non-lethal management techniques or permissible traps, and the problem cannot reasonably be abated by the continued use of such alternative, non-lethal management techniques or permissible traps; or

2. the applicant has applied for and is awaiting an extension emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(11).

(b) an applicant or his duly authorized agent, in the case of application for an additional emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(13)(a), shall be eligible for only two such additional emergency permits, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(14).

(14) Authorizations Under an Additional Emergency Permit. An additional emergency permit shall be authorized and valid as follows:
(a) application shall be made in the same manner as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(6), (8) and (9);

(b) the first such permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use any or all of the measures specified in 321 CMR 2.08(7). Said additional emergency permit shall be valid for a period of ten consecutive days;

(c) if the director has not approved an extension emergency permit within the ten day period provided in 321 CMR 2.08(14)(b), the applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply for a second additional emergency permit. Such second additional emergency permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use only those measures proved for in 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c). Such additional emergency permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days, or until the date on which the director renders his decision regarding the applicant’s extension emergency permit, whichever period is shorter.

(15) Recommended Subregulatory Guidelines and Standards. For the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08(5) through (14), the director, in consultation with the departments of environmental protection and public health, may recommend guidelines and standards for permits, applications, reports, site inspections, dam or dike breaching periods, and water flow control structure installation. Such guidelines and standards may be set forth or distributed to boards of health, municipal conservation commissions, applicants or their agents, by postal mail or agency websites, or otherwise, and may include reference to published or unpublished agency documents, brochures, or handouts relevant to such activities. Such standards and guidelines may be issued jointly with the departments of environmental protection and public health. Such standards and guidelines, where not repugnant to law, shall be construed consistently with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08 and M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A. Nothing in 321 CMR 2.08(15) shall be construed to limit the powers and authorities of the departments of environmental protection and public health.

(16) Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps in Situations Not Involving Threats to Human Health and Safety. The director may authorize an applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use restricted traps to abate animal problems on property owned by the applicant, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(16) through (18).

(17) Application Procedure for Obtaining Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps. The applicant shall apply to the director in writing and the application shall contain the following information:
(a) name, address, and telephone number of the applicant where the applicant may be reached between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and name of corporation or business represented by the applicant, if any;

(b) name, address, and telephone number of the property owner or lessee, if different;

(c) a statement by the applicant that there exists on property owned or leased by him, or on which the applicant intends to act as agent for the owner or lessee, a problem caused by fur-bearing mammals which cannot reasonably be abated by the use of permissible traps;

(d) a statement by the applicant that he, or the owner or lessee, has attempted to abate the problem using permissible traps and has failed to make such abatement;

(e) description of the type of damage caused by fur-bearing mammals, and the kind of mammal;

(f) street address or geographical location where the mammal damage is occurring;

(g) trap registration number of the applicant, if required pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 80;

(h) the date the application was executed;

(i) the applicant’s signature, executed under the pains and penalties of perjury; and

(j) the signature of the property owner or lessee, if different, executed under the pains and penalties of perjury.

(18) Review and Approval Procedure for Obtaining Non-emergency Special Permit. When the director receives an application for a non-emergency special permit to use a restricted trap, as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(17), he shall:
(a) review the application and the type and circumstances of the mammal problem described therein and may, at his discretion, additionally cause a field inspection to be made of the situation; and shall further, if he determines that the circumstances warrant issuance of such permit,

(b) cause the applicant to demonstrate that he has used permissible traps for a period of at least 15 consecutive days, and that usage of such traps has failed to abate the mammal problem, and a signed statement by the applicant, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, shall be accepted by the director as sufficient evidence of such permissible trap usage; and shall further, if he determines that the circumstances warrant issuance of such permit,

(c) cause the applicant to demonstrate that he has attempted to resolve the mammal problem with alternative, non-lethal management techniques, including, where appropriate, flow devices, exclosures, barriers, or harassment, and that usage of such alternative, non-lethal techniques has failed to abate the problem, and a signed statement by the applicant, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, shall be accepted by the director as sufficient evidence of such usage of alternative, non-lethal techniques; and

(d) when the applicant has complied with 321 CMR 2.08(18)(a) through (c), to the satisfaction of the director, the director may authorize in writing the use, setting, placing, tending, and maintenance of restricted traps, of such number and type as he shall determine, and subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(21), for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive days at the address or location specified in the application by the named applicant.

(e) At the conclusion of the 30 day period, the applicant shall make a report in writing to the director, and shall state the number of days and/or trap-nights during which restricted traps were used, the success or failure of trap usage, and the number and kind of fur-bearing mammals trapped, if any, their disposition, and any other information as shall have been required by the director in the permit.

(f) If the applicant was unsuccessful in abating the mammal problem in accordance with such non-emergency special permit, the applicant may reapply and shall again comply with provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(18)(a) through (c).

(19) Procedure for Reviewing Complaints of Damage by Fur-bearing Mammals. If a report is received by the division of damage by or problems with beaver, muskrat, or other fur-bearing mammals:
(a) the circumstances of the complaint shall ascertained; and

(b) if the complaint or problem is alleged to pose a threat to human health and safety as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(4), the complainant shall be referred to the municipal board of health in the city or town in which the problem occurs, or, if on federal property, to the federal department of public health; or

(c) if the complaint or problem is alleged not to pose a threat to human health and safety, as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(4), the division may record the complaint data and may thereafter provide technical information, conduct a site visit, issue a dam breaching permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.02(6) subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, refer the complainant to a licensed hunter or trapper for harvest using firearms or permissible traps during the lawful open season, refer the complainant to a licensed problem animal control agent for taking with firearms or permissible traps, issue a permit to the applicant or a duly authorized agent to control the animal out of season using firearms, advise the complainant of the process for obtaining a non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(17) and (18), or take such other actions or provide such advice as is deemed appropriate to the situation.

(20) Denial of Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps. Where not repugnant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 30A, the procedure for appealing the denial of a non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps shall be as provided in 321 CMR 2.02(11).

(21) Use of Traps and Firearms. Traps and firearms may be used, set, placed, maintained, tended, or possessed for the capture of fur-bearing mammals in accordance with M.G.L. c. 131, §§ 4, 5, and 37, and 321 CMR 2.14 and 321 CMR 3.02(5), provided that a person lawfully using traps pursuant to permits issued under provisions of 321 CMR 2.08 shall:
(a) register all traps used, placed, set, maintained, possessed or tended on land of another, in accordance with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 80.

(b) use restricted traps with a jaw spread not less than four inches and not greater than seven inches, provided such traps are used only when completely submerged in water or when set inside a dwelling or other building with the permission of the owner or occupant thereof. When set inside a building, such traps must have two functioning springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, restricted traps with a maximum jaw spread not greater than ten inches may be used for the trapping of beaver only, provided that such traps are used only when completely submerged in water.

(c) use permissible traps only when in conformance with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24) and 321 CMR 3.02(5)(c), unless otherwise allowed by law.

(d) for the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08, determine the jaw spread of a trap by measuring midway across the open jaws at right angles to the hinges between the extreme outside edges; and all persons subject to M.G.L. c. 131 shall

(e) use firearms only when in conformance with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24)(f) and 321 CMR 3.00, and M.G.L. c. 140, unless otherwise allowed by law.

(22) Use of Certain Alternative Management Techniques. Notwithstanding the provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A and 321 CMR 2.08, a person not wishing to obtain an emergency permit or non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall not otherwise be required to obtain a permit to use certain alternative, non-lethal management techniques for the abatement or alleviation of problems caused by fur-bearing mammals, including, but not restricted to, barriers, exclosures, repellents registered and applied consistent with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 43, and c. 132B, harassment, and similar techniques not otherwise repugnant to law, and subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, and the determinations and conditions of the division pursuant to 321 CMR 2.02(6).

(23) Agents. Licensed trappers, including licensed problem animal control agents, may act as agent for an applicant pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08, provided that such agent shall comply with the trapper training provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24)(b) and (26), and 321 CMR 3.02(5)(c) and (f), and such other provisions of 321 CMR as shall be applicable.

(24) Incidental Capture. Any person taking a fur-bearing mammal or any other vertebrate animal under provisions of a permit issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall, if the animal is killed in the trap, surrender the entire carcass of such animal within 48 hours to the Division, provided that if the animal is a beaver or a muskrat, or such other fur-bearing mammal as shall be specifically named in the permit as causing a threat to human health and safety, the permittee may retain the animal subject to relevant provisions of 321 CMR and M.G.L. c. 131. If an animal other than a beaver, a muskrat, or other fur-bearing mammal as shall be specifically named in the permit is taken alive in a trap, such animal shall immediately be released at the site of capture.

(25) Validity of Permits. Except where a shorter time period is specified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A and 321 CMR 2.08, all permits issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall be issued and may be reapplied for consistent with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 32.

Current through August 31, 2012, Register #1216

Beaver dam at Causeway St. bridge

Mike Sullivan reported yesterday that “I went down with Ken Feeney on Wednesday and it looks like the beavers have started to build a dam in the Causeway bridge culverts. Ken will have the DPW guys clean it out.”

Beavers reportedly defeated, for now

Emails from Mike Sullivan and Caroline Haviland of Norfolk County Mosquito Control about the latter’s battle against the beavers, which appears to have been won –

=======================

8/28/2012  2:39PM
RE: About Beaver Solutions – beaver mitigation, northeast, massachusetts, new england
Sullivan, Michael J.
===========================================================
Caroline, Many thanks to you and your crew for all you’ve accomplished. It’s made a huge difference and the residents of that area really appreciate your efforts. I now know more about beavers than I ever thought possible. I’ll pass your email on to Leslee and to the DPW guys. Hope your mosquito season is short, even though I’m not looking forward to an early frost. Take care. Mike Sullivan

—————————————-

From: “Caroline E. Haviland” <@norfolkcountymosquito.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Mike Sullivan

Subject: RE: About Beaver Solutions – beaver mitigation, northeast, massachusetts, new england

Hi Mike,

I hope this finds you well.  I just wanted to update you.  As of yesterday we did not observe any new beaver activity.  The crew canoed from South Street to Noon Hill and noted a few blockages/blown downs trees between Pilgrim and the Noon Hill culvert.  I am assigning that clearing to take place tomorrow morning and perhaps into Thursday, as they are not beaver related blockages (13 Pilgrim is a blown down pine tree).  We will then wrap up our activities for the time being.  It’s unbelievable how effective beavers are in ponding a serious amount of water!  I did not have Leslee’s email address for some reason.  If possible, could you forward this to her as well?

Sincerely,

Caroline E. Haviland
Field Operations Manager
Norfolk County Mosquito Control District

phone: (781) 762-3681
fax: (781) 769-6436

http://www.norfolkcountymosquito.org

Find us on Facebook!
Add us on Google+!
Follow us on Twitter!

From: Mike Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:27 PM
To: @norfolkcountymosquito.org
Subject: re: About Beaver Solutions – beaver mitigation, northeast, massachusetts, new england

Caroline, Thanks for the info on Beaver Solutions. Would be glad to work with you in the fall and see if any of these devices work. When you can get to it, let me know. Also, I spoke to Bobby Kennedy from DPW and he will make sure the crew at the transfer station know you will be bringing brush there tomorrow and will have the gate open earler so you crew can access the brush pile. he will also drop by South St tomorrow morning and see if you need any help. He may have some summer help, who can give your folks a hand loading. Mike Sullivan

From: “Caroline E. Haviland” <@norfolkcountymosquito.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Mike Sullivan
Subject: About Beaver Solutions – beaver mitigation, northeast, massachusetts, new england

Hi Mike,

I hadn’t been on the Beaver Solutions website in quite some time. I see
they are now offering a self help DVD that I’m going to purchase. Perhaps we could conduct some trials cooperatively with Medfield DPW this fall?  Just a thought. I’m unsure about materials and cost and procurement, but am always willing to try.

Beaver SolutionsT is proud to offer a widely acclaimed,  roundbreaking DVD designed to teach anyone how to build and install successful flow devices to control beaver related flooding. Learn these proven, innovative technologies from Mike Callahan, founder and President of Beaver SolutionsT who has personally installed more successful flow devices than anyone else in North America.

As an added bonus, the DVD includes downloadable documents with extensive technical and general interest information, as well as sources of additional information and support.

http://www.beaversolutions.com/about_beaver_solutions.asp

Sincerely,

Caroline E. Haviland
Field Operations Manager
Norfolk County Mosquito Control District

phone: (781) 762-3681
fax: (781) 769-6436

http://www.norfolkcountymosquito.org

Find us on Facebook!
Add us on Google+!
Follow us on Twitter!

Beaver update

Emails received from Stagecoach Road residents yesterday –

===========================

Wonderful fast flowing water at the Stop River!!!!!   It looks like the old days.
The Beaver Dam at South Street is gone (at least for now) and the water has drained out of our yards.  Norfolk County Mosquito Control finished this am and actually found another dam between South Street Bridge and Noon Hill Bridge which they also took away.  Let’s hope that the Beavers move away, (don’t plan on it)  I’m sure they are swiming to the sites as we email to start the rebuild.  How dare those humans cause such problems.
A big thank you to everyone who cared about this problem, the Selectman, Town Manager, DPW, Broad of Health & Norfolk Mosquito Control who headed up the removal.  Our next step is to gather our facts again and contact the Board of Health regarding possible trapping before the November hunting season.  We’ll keep you all posted
==============================
Video from lunchtime yesterday — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGMCGXRKn2E

Beaver update

Emailed report from neighbor of the beavers –

=====================

Well our backyard water is down about seven or eight inches, no nice to see.  The beaver dam at South St. was flowing fast on Thursday and Friday.  Sunday, today, a different story,  our little eager beavers have worked overtime this weekend and they have patched up the breech to a trickle and all is back to beaver normal!!!!

Eastern Equine Encephalitis

From the state website http://www.mass.gov/agr/mosquito/geir_docs/GEIR_MOSQUITO_SPECIES.pdf

=================

1. Eastern Equine Encephalitis
MCP’s in Southeastern Massachusetts, i.e., Norfolk, Bristol and Plymouth Counties, face the greatest threat
from this disease. During major epidemic years, virus activity extends northward from this enzootic focus into
southern New Hampshire and westward into Rhode Island, Connecticut and Central Massachusetts. All projects
except Berkshire County give considerable continuing attention to this potential problem. Upon occasion, projects
may submit mosquitoes to the SLI for EEE virus analysis.
The enzootic foci of EEE are red maple/white cedar swamps. The largest adult populations of the enzootic
vector, Cs. melanura, occurs in or near the localized swamps where this species develops. Most human and horse
cases also occur in the immediate vicinity of these same swamp habitats. Still, at times this mosquito may disperse
114
several miles from its larval habitat (Morris et al. 1980. Nasci 1980. Nasci & Edman 1984) and human/horse cases
occasionally occur in upland areas. This mosquito is unusual in that it overwinters in the larval stage (4th or 3rd
instar). Adults from this generation emerge in late spring (i.e., mid to late May). Two to three summer generations
occur about one month apart, e.g., in late June, July and August, depending on water levels and temperature (Nasci
1980). EEE virus is generally not isolated from this mosquito until late summer. During epidemic years it tends to
be isolated earlier, i.e., beginning in early July, but apparently never from the overwintering generation. The
location of the virus from November to July remains a mystery. Culiseta melanura feeds only after dark and the
vast majority of blood meals are obtained from passerine birds (Nasci & Edman 1981a). This sylvan mosquito
feeds equally at ground level and at higher elevations in the tree canopy. Activity is concentrated just after dark and
just before sunrise (Nasci & Edman 1981b). The morning flight activity peak does not seem to involve
blood-feeding but rather the return to suitable daytime resting sites.
The isolation of EEE virus from the cattail mosquito Cq. perturbans during disease outbreaks (Crans,
personal communication) has focused suspicion on this species at the most likely epidemic vector to horses and
humans. Ae. vexans and Ae. canadensis are two other prime suspects for EEE virus transmission to humans and
horses in Massachusetts. Like Cq. perturbans, they are major pests. Their biologies will be described along with
the other pest species.
A new EEE threat may be developing in New England as Ae. sollicitans, long a known vector in New
Jersey (Crans et al. 1991), was, for the first time, found to be EEE-positive in Connecticut in 1996 (Andreadis
1996). Crans (1991) gave a suggested cycle for EEE transmission to Aedes sollicitans in which Cs. melanura
infected night-roosting glossy ibis, which were then fed upon by Ae. sollicitans while feeding in the salt marsh.
Though the link between glossy ibis and Ae. sollicitans is tentative, there can be no question that Ae. sollicitans is a
potent vector in New Jersey and could be an important vector in Massachusetts as well.

Mosquitoes and beaver ponds

Emails from Stagecoach Road resident to Norfolk County Mosquito Control, their reply, and Mike Sullivan’s cover email to selectmen re same, all about the different types of mosquitoes at the beaver’s pond.  There is really detailed information available at the state website link provided  –

=====================

8/16/2012  7:49PM
fw: RE: Mosquitoes that inhabit beaver ponds
Sullivan, Michael J.
===========================================================
Below is a response from Caroline Haviland regarding species of mosquitos and habitats. Norfolk County started breeching the dam today and will continue for as long as it takes. Hope no one misses Lake Beaver. On the other hand, if they’re really “eager beavers” they may put the lake back next week. Mike Sullivan
—————————————-
From: “Caroline E. Haviland”

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:05 PM
To:

Subject: RE: Mosquitoes that inhabit beaver ponds

I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail..  My comments during the site visit revolved around habitat changes.  Different species of mosquitoes have certain habitat preferences, i.e. temporary pools, flood plains, plastic containers, permanent water, etc.  In past seasons we’ve treated the flood plains of the Stop River that now seem to be effected by the beaver activity.  Our target species during those applications would be Aedes vexans & other “temporary” or “flood” water species of mosquitoes.  The area upstream of the dam has been converted to “permanent” water habitat and over time, could support permanent water vegetation (ex. Cattails) and attract permanent water species of mosquitoes such as Coquillettidia perturbans.  I’ve included a link below that may better explain this.

http://www.mass.gov/agr/mosquito/geir_docs/GEIR_MOSQUITO_SPECIES.pdf

I apologize for such a short response and am happy to try to provide you with additional information if you wish, mid week next week.  We are working with the Town of Medfield to attempt to lower the water level through a controlled breach of the dam.  We are unsure how active the beaver are and will soon find out how quickly they may rebuild the dam.  We currently do not install water level control devices through dams, but are very interested in learning more about that and may be able to in the future.  Trapping may be employed during the official trapping season.

Sincerely,

Caroline E. Haviland
Field Operations Manager
Norfolk County Mosquito Control District
phone: (781) 762-3681
fax: (781) 769-6436
http://www.norfolkcountymosquito.org
================
From:

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:16 AM
To:

Subject: Mosquitoes that inhabit beaver ponds

I was out of town last week when the Medfield board of selectman had a meeting about beaver dams in Medfield.  I heard that Caroline Haviland from the Norfolk Country Mosquito Control made a comment about a different species of mosquito inhabiting the beaver pond now that the water level has risen.

I’d like to inquire about document or information about this mosquito, or at least its scientific name so that I may research and learn more about it.

Would you be able to send me any information or at least the name of the species.

Thanks,