Massachusetts Best Management Practices and Guidance 

for Freshwater Mosquito Control 

 

October 24, 2008 

Compiled and edited by: 

University of Massachusetts - Amherst 

Department of Natural Resources Conservation

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources 

State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board 

 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Resource Protection 
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Table of Contents 

1. WHY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)? 

2. PLANNING 

a. Identifying the Need for Mosquito Control Activities 

b. Review of Legal Requirements for Proposed Activities

i. Federal Law

ii. State Law 

 401 Water Quality Certificate 

 Rare and Endangered Species 

 Certified Vernal Pools 

 Water Supply 

 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act 

c. Completing the Site Plan 

d. Notification

3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

a. Vegetation Disturbance 

b. Cut Vegetation 

c. Sediment Disposal 

d. Erosion Control 

 Work Phase 

 Post Work Phase 

e. Stormwater Management 

4. Acknowledgments 

5. Literature Cited 

Appendices 

1. Mosquito Control Complaint and Documentation Form

2. Site Plan 

3. Notification Form 

The design of this manual draws extensively from the Massachusetts Forestry Best Management 

Manual developed by Kittredge and Parker (1995). We wish to thank these authors for their permission

to use materials from this manual. Additionally, this manual draws extensively from the ditch

maintenance procedures and policies developed by the Northeast and Norfolk Mosquito Control 

Districts. 

 

Design Credits: 

This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) under a Section 

104(b) (3) Water Quality and Wetland Grant. The mention of trade names or commercial products 

does not constitute endorsement. 

2
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

1. WHY BMPs (BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES)? 

Mosquito control in Massachusetts is overseen by the State Reclamation and 

Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB) (http://www.mass.gov/agr/mosquito/). Mosquito 

control is conducted in communities that are members of a regional mosquito control 

district. Mosquito Control Districts (MCDs),1

 acting under the authority of the 

SRCMB and MGL Chapter 252, work directly with local communities to control 

mosquito infestations and thereby alleviate a nuisance, protect public health and 

promote quality of life for those communities. Recognizing the various public 

benefits of mosquito control programs, there is also the need to understand and 

minimize unnecessary impacts to wetland resources that may result from these 

activities. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques for mosquito control may 

involve wetlands management, including, but not limited to, physical alterations to 

resource areas. Wetlands management, as an IPM technique, is designed to minimize 

wetland impacts. Mechanical and hand clearing techniques are implemented on a 

site-specific basis and while some techniques may eliminate areas of temporary 

standing water, others may simply improve drainage and ebb flows through the 

surrounding floodplain. These activities may sometimes disturb stream banks and/or 

the surrounding resource areas. 

The purpose of this guidance is two-fold. First, it is designed to provide 

recommended practices for proper planning of freshwater mosquito control activities,

consistent with applicable regulations. Second, it provides MCD personnel with a set 

of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for freshwater mosquito control activities 

involving wetlands management that will help minimize disturbance to stream banks 

and surrounding resource areas and control sediment discharges that may cause 

unnecessary impacts to: 

• Wetland resources and adjacent areas, 

• Drinking water supplies, and 

• Fish and wildlife habitats. 

The need for this manual was identified, in part, from recommendations made in 

the 1998 Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) developed for mosquito 

control by the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board within the Department 

of Agricultural Resources, (DAR). The Final GEIR was required of the SRMCB by 

the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MGL Ch.30A § 61). The Secretary’s 

certificate on the GEIR required that the SRMCB provide periodic updates on issues 

involving source reduction methods, including the results of working with the water 

quality certification program and Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

to improve notice and record keeping practices and minimize potential negative 

impacts from source reduction activities in wetlands and other resource areas. This 

guidance serves as an update on the dialogue between these programs. 

 

1

 The term Mosquito Control District (MCD) includes those entities established as Mosquito Control 

Projects by their enabling legislation e.g. Norfolk County Mosquito Control Project. 

3
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

It also outlines agreed upon steps that can be taken to allow these programs to 

achieve their respective goals and legislative mandates. In addition to providing 

better protection for wetland resources, BMPs for freshwater mosquito control 

activities by MCDs involving wetland management may also reduce the need for 

other kinds of mosquito management activities such as larviciding and adulticiding. 

This document is designed for use by mosquito control personnel to guide them in 

planning and implementing freshwater mosquito control activities. The attached 

appendices provide standardized documents for site plans, notification, and 

documenting complaints and/or evidence of mosquitoes. 

The success and effectiveness of these BMPs depends on mutual cooperation between 

MCD’s, the SRMCB, local governments, and the regulatory community. Timely and 

responsive communication among these groups is important to the success of these 

efforts. 

2. PLANNING 

Comprehensive mosquito control planning is the most important BMP, and the 

first to consider: For any freshwater mosquito control activity that involves 

mechanical wetlands management, the following five steps are recommended to 

MCDs: 

A. Complete the Mosquito Control Complaint and Documentation Form

(Appendix 1) to document the presence or conditions likely to support mosquito 

breeding;

B. Review legal requirements for the proposed work site; 

C. Prepare a Site Plan as described on page 10 (see sample Site Plan in Appendix 

2); 

D. Notify affected property owners and local, state, and federal agencies of the 

planned activity. (See sample Appendix 3); and 

E. Monitor the effectiveness of the activity and environmental impacts of

mosquito control work. 

Following these five steps will help to ensure that all applicable regulatory

requirements are met and that the activity implements the appropriate BMPs to 

minimize impacts to wetland resource areas. Proper notification will promote better 

communication among MCDs and environmental agency staff, as well as the general 

public interested in the benefits of the MCD activity. Monitoring provides a means to 

evaluate the success of the activity and information for how to improve future 

activities. 

4
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

A. Identifying the Need for the Mosquito Control Activity in Freshwater 

Wetlands 

Documentation of the need for mosquito control at a particular activity site should 

include: 

 Description of the causes and effects of the mosquito breeding habitat on site 

(i.e., sediments, blocked culverts); 

 Evidence as recorded in Mosquito Control Complaint and Documentation 

Form (Appendix 1) of mosquito breeding or infestation from one or more of 

the following sources: 

• Previous larviciding site records; 

• Larvae / adult data from field sampling and dip counts; 

• Aspirations of adult mosquitoes or landing counts (at the discretion of the 

field technician); 

• Complaints from residents or public officials; and 

• Observations from mosquito control personnel as recorded including site 

conditions that are conducive to mosquito breeding. 

B. Review of Legal Requirements for Proposed Activities in Freshwater 

Wetlands 

Once the need for the activity has been established, the legal requirements for 

mosquito control activities in wetland resource areas should be evaluated. 

The State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB) was established by 

MGL Ch.252 (Improvement of Lowlands and Swamps statute) and incorporated 

provisions of Ch. 199 and 699 of the Acts of 1960. This state board is housed within 

the MA Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) and has authority under this 

law to: 

1. To drain or flow a meadow, swamp, marsh, beach or other low land held by two or 

more proprietors, 

 2. To remove obstructions in rivers or streams leading thereto or there from, and 

 3. To eradicate mosquitoes in any area infested thereby, including, in respect to each 

such purpose, purposes incidental thereto, such improvements may be made as 

provided in this chapter. 

Many state environmental statutes specifically exempt mosquito control work 

authorized under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 252, including, most notably, M.G.L. c. 

131, § 40 (Wetlands Protection Act) and M.G.L. c. 40, § 8C, (Conservation 

Commission Authority). 

 

5
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

MDCs should also review the applicability of legal and regulatory requirements of 

other programs, such, but not limited to, the following: 

 

1. Federal Law: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates and requires a permit for all 

work in navigable (tidal) waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, with 

almost all work requiring written authorization. Activities subject to Section 10 (33 

U.S.C. 403) include construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or 

under such waters, or any work, which would affect the course, location, condition, or 

capacity of those waters. In addition, the Corps regulates and requires a permit for 

the discharge of fill in waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

which includes fill associated with mosquito ditches in tidal and non-tidal wetlands 

under Corps jurisdiction. Waters of the U.S. include jurisdictional wetlands as 

defined in 33 CFR 328.3(b). (See: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/33cfr328.htm) Fill material is defined in 

33 CFR 323.2 (e) (1). 

(See:http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/laws/Def_of_Fill_Rule.pdf) 

In Massachusetts, the mosquito control activities under jurisdiction of the Corps are 

subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the Massachusetts Programmatic 

General Permit (PGP). (See: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/mapgp.pdf) 

A Corps July 2004 mosquito-ditching letter (See: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/MosquitoDitchingGuidanceLetter.pdf) provides 

guidance on regulated vs. non-regulated activities commonly employed by the 

mosquito control districts. 

For a complete review of specific 404 requirements and additional guidance, contact 

the New England District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers at: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/index.htm 

2. State Law:

a. 401 Water Quality Certificate 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires States to confirm that federally permitted 

projects comply with state water quality standards. Such confirmations are issued in 

the form of “401” Water Quality Certificates. 

Work in freshwater wetlands is exempt from the requirements of a Section 401 Water 

Quality Certificate IF: 

 The activity does not involve fill (e.g. side-casting) OR

 The activity involves fill in “waters of the US” but the activity qualifies as a 

Category 1 (i.e. < 5,000 square feet of fill) activity under the Corps’ 

6
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Massachusetts Programmatic General Permit (the “PGP”). See the PGP 

requirements at: (http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/mapgp.pdf) 

Work in freshwater wetlands is subject to the requirements of Section 401 Water 

Quality Certificate IF: 

 The activities alter or temporarily impact wetland areas that do not qualify for 

Category I (e.g. > 5,000 square feet of fill or in stream activities conducted 

between October 1 and June 30) under the Massachusetts Programmatic 

General permit (Note: some areas < 5,000 square feet may be regulated by 

the USACOE if the wetlands are considered to be historically significant or

constitute federal special aquatic sites) 

 Any activity resulting in any discharge of dredged or fill material to any 

Outstanding Resource Water, isolated vegetated wetland identified as habitat 

for rare and endangered species per 314 CMR 9.04 (see: 

http://www.massgov/dep/water/laws/regulati.htm#wqual) 

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs)

Water Quality Certificates are also required for activities involving the discharge of

dredged or fill materials in water resources classified as Outstanding Resource 

Waters (ORWs) by the MA Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) at 

314 CMR 4.04. ORWs include those waters deemed to comprise outstanding socioeconomic, recreational, ecological and/or aesthetic values. Any new or increased 

discharge into an ORW is prohibited unless a 401 Water Quality Certification is 

obtained from MassDEP. Specific restrictions to work in ORWs include: 

 No discharge of dredge or fill material into wetlands or waters are allowed 

within 400 ft of the high water mark of a Class A surface water that is used as 

a source of public drinking water. 

 No discharge of dredge or fill material is allowed to a Certified vernal pool. 

 Wetlands bordering Class A, B, SB or SA Outstanding Resource Waters are 

designated as ORWs to the boundary of the defined area. 

The locations of designated ORWs (http://www.state.ma.us/mgis/orw.htm) should be 

reviewed by MCD personnel to determine if the site falls within an area designated as 

an ORW. When required, a 401 Water Quality Certification is issued by the 

appropriate regional MassDEP office. The MCD and the appropriate MassDEP 

Regional Office should work cooperatively to effectuate project objectives and 

compliance with permit conditions. For regional office addresses, see: 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region/findyour.htm) 

7
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

b. Rare and Endangered Species 

The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A) and its implementing 

regulations (MESA, 321 CMR 10.00) establish procedures for the listing and 

protection of state-listed plants and animals. The MESA regulations include project 

review filing requirements for projects or activities that are located within a Priority 

Habitat of State-listed Rare Species (“Priority Habitat”). The MESA is administered 

by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the MA 

Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, and prohibits the “take” of state-listed species. The 

“take” of state-listed species is defined as “in reference to animals, means to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, hound, kill, trap, capture, collect, process, disrupt the 

nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct, or to assist such conduct, and in reference to plants, means to collect, pick, 

kill, transplant, cut or process or attempt to engage or to assist in any such conduct. 

Disruption of nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity may result from, but is 

not limited to, the modification, degradation or destruction of Habitat” (321 CMR 

10.02). 

MDCs should consult the most recent edition of the MA Rare & Endangered Species 

Habitat Atlas to determine if a proposed project will occur within Priority Habitat

and the relevant NHESP guidance information to determine if direct filing with 

pursuant to the MESA is required. 

If a filing with the NHESP is required, filing should consider access, egress, spoil/soil 

deposition or spreads or other activities related to the project occur within Priority 

Habitat, and then the MCD should send the required information to the NHESP 

review pursuant to the MESA. In general, the Site Plan should include sufficient 

detail and mapping to clarify the location of all work areas and the form of work (e.g., 

mechanical work or hand work). 

o Within 30 days of receiving a filing, the NHESP will provide a response letter 

indicating whether or not the submission is complete. If the submission is

complete, the NHESP will provide a letter determining if the project will 

result in a “take” within 60 days of the date of posting of the first letter. (321 

CMR 10.18). 

o In this letter, the NHESP will determine whether or not a project, as currently 

proposed, will (a)avoid a “take” as proposed, or with conditions and may 

proceed without further review, or (b) will result in a “take” of State-listed 

Rare Species and cannot proceed as proposed (321 CMR 10.23). 

o If a project is determined to result in a “take” then it may be possible to 

redesign the project to avoid a “take”. If such revisions are not possible, then 

projects resulting in a “take” may only be permitted if they qualify for a 

MESA Conservation & Management Permit (321 CMR 10.23). 

8
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

o The MA Rare &Endangered Species Habitat Atlas is currently available as a 

bound book, a compact disk with electronic viewer technology, as 

downloadable data for Arc View from MassGIS, and online using the 

MassGIS viewer. Details are available at: 

http://www/mass/gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/publications/nhesp_pubs.htm 

o The NHESP’s mailing address for MESA reviews can be found at: 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/reg_review_contat

s.htm

c. Certified Vernal Pools 

A vernal pool is a confined basin depression which, at least in most years, holds water 

for at least two continuous months during the spring and/or summer, and which is 

free of adult fish populations. These areas often provide essential breeding habitat for 

amphibians such as wood frogs and spotted salamanders as well as for certain kinds 

of invertebrates. Certified vernal pools are classified as Outstanding Resource 

Waters, and, as such, require a Water Quality Certification from Mass DEP when 

work resulting in a discharge of dredged or fill material is proposed in them. Certified 

vernal pools are those that have been verified through fieldwork and certified by 

NHESP. For certified vernal pool locations, MCDs should review the most recent 

edition of the “Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas” 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhesp.htm. 

 Typical permit conditions will require that MCDs avoid all work in certified 

vernal pools and establish a 50-foot filter strip around vernal pools in which 

no disturbance to the ground vegetation is allowed. Creation of ruts deeper 

than 6 inches within 200 feet of a vernal pool should also be avoided as they 

represent barriers to amphibian migration. 

d. Water Supplies 

For work within the watersheds of the Quabbin, Ware River, or Wachusett Reservoir 

water supplies, a permit may be required from the Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (DCR) Division of Water Supply Protection (see: 

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/aboutDCR.htm). For watershed locations, see: 

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/waterSupply/watershed/water.htm. 

 

e. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is an area containing 

concentrations of highly significant environmental resources that has been formally 

designated by the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Environmental 

features that these critical areas may include range from wetlands and water supply 

areas to rare species habitats and agricultural areas. The designation directs state 

9
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

environmental agencies to take actions to preserve, restore and enhance the resources 

of an ACEC, and is intended to encourage and facilitate stewardship. 

As required by the ACEC regulations, state environmental agencies are directed to 

administer programs, revise regulations, and review Project Sites subject to their 

jurisdiction in order to preserve, restore, and enhance the resources of an ACEC. The 

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the associated regulations (301 

CMR 11.00) require review of activities within ACECs that need certain state 

permits, use state funding, or involve state agency actions. The purpose of a MEPA 

review within an ACEC is to ensure that the proposed projects will avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts to the resources of the ACEC. As of October 2007, 28 ACECs 

covering approximately 241,000 acres in 73 municipalities have been designated. 

Special care should be taken to protect these sensitive areas. 

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/acec/acecs.htm.

2

 

 f. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act 

An Environmental Notification Form (ENF) must be obtained from the MA 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, in accordance with the Massachusetts 

Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), 301 CMR 11.00, if: 

 The activity is within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (See: 

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/waterSupply/watershed/water.htm) and a state 

permit or funding is required for the activity. 

 If a state permit or funding as described above is required and a MEPA 

threshold, found at 301 CMR 11.03, is exceeded, (see MEPA regulatory 

thresholds at: 

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/thirdlevelpages/meparegulations/meparegul

ations.htm) For example, new ditch construction exceeding 5,000 square feet 

of BVW would likely require submittal of an ENF. Maintenance of existing 

ditches is likely exempt from this requirement as Corps jurisdiction for ditch 

maintenance projects is determined on a site by site basis, using best 

professional judgment, and taking into account the wetland functions and 

values. 

g. Chapter 91: Waterways Regulations 

As provided in the waterway regulations at 310 CMR 9.04(1)(e), projects require 

review if they occur below the high water mark of any non-tidal river or stream on 

which public funds have been expended for stream clearance, channel improvement, 

or any form of flood control or prevention work, either upstream or downstream

within the river basin, except for any portion of any such river or stream which is not 

normally navigable during any season, by any vessel including canoe, kayak, raft, or 

 

2

 The original ACEC designations or subsequent ACEC Resource Management Plans and wetland

restoration plans for these areas should be reviewed. Those covering large marsh or wetland area may

specifically include mosquito control activities as part of their respective management plans. 

10
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

rowboat. If mosquito control activities are subject to these provisions, see: 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/ch91wo.doc for instructions and 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/ch91apwo.doc for a copy of the applicable 

waterway license application form. 

C. Completing the Site Plan 

The next step in the planning process is for MCD personnel to complete the Site Plan 

(Appendix 2) for each site where mechanized wetlands management activities are 

proposed. The purpose of the Site Plan is to guide mosquito control personnel in 

planning and implementing work in freshwater wetlands whose objective is to control 

mosquitoes. The Site Plan also should provide sufficient information to determine 

whether the activity meets regulatory requirements. The Site Plan can include sitespecific information on the following: project purpose, sensitive areas, current and 

proposed site conditions, proposed alteration, BMPs, and plan map. 

1. Site Information and History 

This section of the Site Plan provides information on the MCD proposing the 

management activity in freshwater wetlands and general background information on 

the site including: 

 Location;

 MCD preparing the Site Plan; 

 Present and Past (if known or different) land use in the area of activity (i.e., 

suburban, industrial, agricultural, open space). 

If known, the history of prior work (i.e., ditch maintenance or previous freshwater 

wetlands management activities) at the site location is helpful to determine U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineer jurisdiction over ditch maintenance activities. Evidence of

previous ditch maintenance may be demonstrated to be “reasonably evident” from

one or more of the following sources: 

 Physical evidence, such as spoil deposits, soil profiles, tree stumps, structures, 

etc. 

 Historical evidence such as municipal, state, or mosquito control records,

aerial photographs, or maps; evidence of historic stream channel. 

 Documented recollection of residents, abutters, or public officials, etc. 

2. Purpose of Freshwater Wetland Work 

 Identify the type of work proposed; 

 Mosquito breeding documentation 

3. Identification of Sensitive Area 

 Identify the presence of sensitive areas that may trigger regulatory review. 

11
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

4. Documentation of Site Conditions 

A variety of pre-existing site conditions should be documented on the Site Plan, 

including: 

 Natural stream channel or constructed ditch

 Channel/Ditch type (main, lateral, sub-lateral); 

 Hydrology of channel/ditch flow (intermittent or perennial, if known) 

 Wetland vegetation present (i.e., forested, shrub, emergent, wet meadow or

open water); 

 Cross section dimensions of current channel/ditch profile at no greater than 

100 foot intervals, but in all cases a minimum of two profiles, including: 

a. Top and bottom channel/ditch widths; 

b. Depth of channel/ditch from top of bank; 

c. Side slope ratios; 

d. Locations of existing spoil deposits. 

 Soil profile within the channel to depths sufficient to document the depth of 

organic and, if applicable, mineral layers. Core samples to be taken at 100 ft 

intervals with hand auger. 

 Indicate staging areas, access points, and locations where removed material 

will be disposed if deposited within wetland resource areas. 

 Representative, dated photographs of the site taken from established, fully 

recoverable set points depicted on accompanying maps. 

5. Proposed Alteration and BMPs 

This section of the Site Plan provides a description of the proposed work at the site, 

detailing the following: 

 Tentative proposed start assumed to be 30 days from the written notice date or 

the stated specific date or date range; 

 Estimated length/area and type of each ditch/wetland resource area being 

altered (length expressed in feet and area in square feet); 

 An estimate of the amount of spoil to be removed from each ditch, expressed 

in cubic feet; 

 Location of spoil deposition if left in wetland resource areas; 

 Estimated cross section dimensions of finished ditch profile, including: 

a. Top and bottom channel widths; 

b. Depth of channel from top of bank; 

c. Side slope ratios if altered from original profile; 

Identify all BMPs to be used for vegetation removal, sediment disposal, erosion 

and sedimentation control. Indicate location of BMPs on the site map. 

12
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

6. Site Plan Maps 

Two maps are needed as part of the Site Plan. The first map is a section of the 

USGS quadrangle map of the area showing the location of the proposed site. 

Additionally, a plan, aerial photo from MassGIS, or computer-generated map of the 

site should be included (See Appendix 2). This map should include: 

 Named cross streets, gravel or paved roads (annotated); 

 Known feeder streams or water conveyances into the site; 

 All set-points (i.e. location and orientation) used for photographs; 

 Known natural and human-made hydrologic connections (i.e., pond outflows, 

streams, culverts); 

 Location of certified vernal pools, if present; 

 Aerial and/or ground-based photographs or digital images depicting features 

requiring mediation. Location and direction or bearing (north, south, east, or 

west – upstream or downstream) of photographs should be marked on the 

accompanying maps. 

D. Notification

Notification of the appropriate parties regarding the proposed activity serves to: 

• Enhance communications between property owners and abutters, and local, 

state and federal agencies; 

• Save time by avoiding misunderstandings; 

• Build public support for mosquito control work in the community. 

Notification of mechanical wetlands management activities should consist of: 

 Sending a Standard Notification by mail and / or e-mail thirty (30) calendar 

days prior to initiating work. The Notification should include a narrative, an 

aerial photograph or other site plan map, and the section of the USGS 

topographic map depicting the site location (See: Appendix 3) and any 

supporting documentation to: 

a. Conservation Commission: Voluntary notification to the applicable 

Conservation Commissions is recommended even though MCD work is 

exempt as authorized by Chapter 252 MGL; 

b. Public Water Supply Authority, if necessary; 

c. Appropriate Regional MassDEP office to the attention of the Wetlands & 

Waterways Program http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/regional.htm; 

d. District Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

e. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if applicable. 

 

 Relevant notification information is also recommended to be sent to the 

following: 

13
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

a. All property owners or persons legally in control of property where work 

is to be conducted; 

b. Dig Safe and any non-member utility companies (e.g. Municipal 

Water/Sewer Departments and State Highway Departments) prior to 

excavation. 

 Posting of a sign at the site, visible from the nearest public way, will include 

the MCD name, pertinent contact information and a reference that work is 

being conducted pursuant to MGL Chapter 252 

3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

A. Vegetation Disturbance 

An important BMP goal of any wetlands management activity is to minimize 

unnecessary disturbance to vegetation. This will reduce the potential for erosion and

sedimentation into the water body and help to maintain water quality and wildlife and 

fisheries habitats. 

 Locate access and travel pathways where feasible to avoid steep slopes, 

wetland resource areas, and certified vernal pools, while minimizing loss of 

vegetation. 

 All reasonable efforts should be made to minimize soil erosion and loss of 

bank stability. 

It may be more cost effective and efficient to maneuver along a longer access path to

minimize erosion. The pathway with the least impact may involve having the 

machinery work from opposite banks along different segments. To the extent 

possible and practical: 

 

 Use environmentally sensitive low-ground pressure equipment and hand 

clearing when and where feasible for the purpose of equipment and work 

access. 

 Minimize tree cutting and, if possible, focus access areas in grass and shrub 

areas. 

 If at all possible, avoid the operation of heavy equipment directly within the 

channel. 

 Work should proceed with appropriate sediment control structures in place. 

See the section relating to sediment containment in channels for more 

information. Excavation of the channel is limited to the historic grade, 

dimensions and channel course as described in Site Plan.

. 

 All disturbed banks and access pathways should be graded and stabilized by 

reseeding and / or planting with native species and /or mulching to resist 

erosion after the activity is completed. See the section on Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control below for more information. 

14
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

As part of any MCD’s effort to control mosquitoes by the improvement of stream

flow and restoration of stream channel characteristics, and to the extent practicable, 

consideration should be given to preserving natural conditions and promoting fish 

habitat. Naturally deposited wood in streams is very important to stream ecology and 

can provide fish habitat to promote natural predation. If MCD activities involve 

placement of a new culvert, construction standards are required to conform to the 

stream crossing standards contained in Appendix E: Massachusetts River and Stream

Crossing Standards of the Massachusetts Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for 

Inland Wetlands –, March 2006. See link: 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/wldhab.pdf. While not required, consideration 

should also be given to these standards for activities involving culvert replacement, 

maintenance and repair. 

B. Cut Vegetation 

 Trees and brush (slash) should only be cut as necessary to allow safe transport 

and work space for mechanized equipment and personnel during mosquito 

control activities. If feasible, cut vegetation should be removed from the 

wetland. Slash that cannot be removed from the site should be placed on

upland areas rather than wetland areas, unless removal will result in 

significant additional wetland impacts as defined by the ACOE, or cause 

significant additional slash. Because piles of slash represent a fire danger, 

slash should be spread out or chipped instead of piled. In proximity to stream

channels, slash should be chipped or deposited in a manner or location where 

movement towards the waterway is unlikely. Consideration should also be 

given to slash disposal that avoids the spread of invasive species. To reduce 

negative aesthetic impacts, slash should not be left in close proximity to the 

outer edge of a highway.

C. Sediment Disposal 

 Sediments excavated from the channel or bank should be deposited in 

such a manner to prevent reentry into the water body. 

 If possible, excavated sediments should be deposited on an adjacent 

upland and the deposition of excavated sediments in wetlands should be 

avoided. Sediment deposition on adjacent wetlands may trigger federal 

404 jurisdiction and possible state 401 reviews. The following practices 

are recommended for soil management beyond wetland jurisdiction: 

• Mineral soils should not be removed from channels unless they impede 

the water flow and cause the channel to deviate from the original 

configuration. If excavated, these mineral soils should be deposited 

off site. Alternatively, they may be placed on upland areas, spread 

thinly and graded for proper runoff. 

• Road sand removed from channels should be deposited off site. Onsite sand disposal may be placed on upland areas outside wetland 

15
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

resource areas (e.g. 200 feet beyond stream banks if possible), spread 

thinly, and graded for proper runoff. 

• On-site upland stockpiling of sediments is not recommended, however, 

provided appropriate erosion control structures are used when 

necessary - stockpiles for the purpose of dewatering for removal or 

stockpiling of material while waiting for the availability of equipment 

for relocation is acceptable. See the next section on Erosion Control

for more information. 

D. Erosion & Sedimentation Control 

Wetland management activities for mosquito control may result in impacts to 

adjacent and downstream wetland resources. Increased turbidity and loss of 

vegetative cover could affect water quality as well as the habitat for a variety of 

organisms. Erosion control measures are recommended when necessary, to reduce the 

potential for sediments entering the water body during the work phase, inactive 

periods (e.g., overnight, on weekends or during down times), and the post-work 

phase. Numerous erosion control techniques are available, some of which are 

described in the Western Massachusetts Streambank Protection Guide: Handbook for 

Controlling Erosion in Western Massachusetts Streams. Franklin, Hampden, & 

Hampshire Conservation District, Northampton, MA 1998. The Massachusetts 

Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas may also 

be consulted. See: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/esfull.pdf. The appropriate erosion 

control measure should be selected to prevent the potential for erosion and increased 

turbidity into nearby water bodies. 

The use of checkdams is recommended when necessary, for in-channel sediment 

control. A variety of materials may be used for checkdams depending upon sitespecific conditions. These materials include stone, coir, rice, straw or other fiber 

rolls, burlap and straw or hay bales. The proper selection of the checkdam 

composition should be based upon the water velocity in the channel. For example, 

the use of stone checkdams is recommended for higher velocity channels. For lower 

velocity channels, it may be feasible to block a downstream culvert with a permeable 

barrier. Filter material such as burlap fencing or piled burlap will decrease the 

velocity enough to cause sediments to be deposited upstream of the barrier while 

allowing the water to pass. If straw or hay bales are used, they should be placed in 

trenches about 4 inches deep, staked to the ground in two places, and placed with 

there ends (just not corners) abutting each other. If silt fencing is used, the lower 

edge should be placed in a 4-inch trench, which is then backfilled with soil. Straw or 

hay bales and silt fence may be used down slope of a disturbed area to keep watercarrying sediments from entering the water body. 

 If sediment builds up behind the sediment control structures during 

construction, it must be removed periodically to maintain necessary 

effectiveness. 

16
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

 Inspection of the site should occur during or immediately after a rainstorm to 

determine the effectiveness of sediment control measures and to correct or 

repair the controls if they are ineffective or have need of repair. 

 After the disturbed site is stabilized, clean out collected sediments before 

removing all sediment control structures. 

E. Monitoring Project Effectiveness 

Although disturbed areas typically re-vegetate naturally, site restoration and 

stabilization may be accelerated by reseeding or mulching. . The following erosion 

control and soil stabilization measures are encouraged and may be employed based 

upon specific site conditions such as steepness of slopes, soil types, vegetation, 

thickness of soil deposits, and proximity of deposits to the channel. Stabilization 

methods may include: 

 Mulching limits surface erosion, suppresses weeds, retains soil moisture and 

can add some organic material to soil. As a major source of invasive exotic 

species, the use of hay should be discouraged unless it is certain that it was 

obtained from a local site free of invasive species. A thin layer of wood chips 

or straw (if available) may be used. Straw is effective for erosion control and 

can be spread by hand or broadcast from machine. However, straw can be

blown by the wind so in exposed areas should be anchored. It can be punched 

or crimpled into the soil by hand with a rake or mechanically. 

 When possible a small-vegetated buffer strip (approximately 3-4 feet wide) 

should be left between the channel bank and the spoil deposits. 

 Silt fencing or straw bales may be used site specifically (see previous 

recommendations). Do not leave the bales or fence in place as a permanent 

erosion control structure as these may serve as a barrier to wildlife 

movements. 

 Disturbed soils may be reseeded. Grasses and other herbaceous cover can 

stabilize bare soil and minimize erosion. Native seed source is preferable for 

re-seeding. A compromise alternative is to use plants that germinate quickly 

to stabilize soils, but are not highly aggressive and will not persist or spread. 

In the meantime, the soil is immediately stabilized, and the regrowth of native 

vegetation is allowed to progress. Several options are commercially available: 

Seed mixturea Lbs/acre Lbs/1,000ft

2 Soil pH range 

Domestic ryegrass 20 0.45 4.5-7.5 

Creeping red fescue, 

Redtop, 

Tall fescue 

20 

2 

20 

0.45 

0.05 

0.45 

4.5-7.5 

17
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Recommended seeding times are from April 15 to June 15 or August 1 to September 

15. However, winter rye may be used as a temporary cover and seeds between 

August 15 and October 15. 

 MCD staff should conduct periodic inspections during the first two months 

after completion of the activity to document any deficiencies in erosion 

control and to recommend maintenance requirements. 

 As part of each periodic inspection, MCD staff shall correct all deficiencies 

promptly. 

In addition to monitoring the stability of the BMPs, the MCDs will survey the 

project site during their standard site inspections to insure the BMP practice is 

effective in the short and long term. The MCDs and other state agencies will 

continue to work towards augmenting the post-project monitoring data they 

currently collect to addresses environmental concerns. 

E. Stormwater Best Management Practices and Mosquito Breeding

 Thorough review of proposed designs, proper implementation during the 

construction phase, routine inspections of operation, and regular maintenance will not 

only provide better stormwater protection but also discourage the use of these areas 

by vector species. In addition, scheduled maintenance intervals provide an 

opportunity to control mosquitoes at the site by the use of effective larvicides by 

credentialed professionals. For a list of specific stormwater design, operation, and 

maintenance practices to reduce the likelihood of mosquitoes breeding in Stormwater 

treatment BMPs, see: Stormwater Management: Volume Two Stormwater Technical 

Handbook (2008). http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm 

As discussed in MassDEP’s 2008 Stormwater Management handbooks and in 

the Wetlands Protection regulations (310 CMR 10.05(6)(k)9), the owners of the 

property that develop the stormwater BMPs, or municipalities that “accept” them

through local subdivision approval, are responsible for their operation and 

maintenance to insure that the stormwater BMPs are operating effectively. Although 

the SRMCB and its mosquito control districts and projects are not responsible for the 

operation and maintenance of stormwater BMPs, these structures can be included in 

the MCDs larvicide treatment plans. MCDs will alert local Municipalities when they 

encounter poorly maintained BMPs. 

18
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

4. Acknowledgments 

Curtice R. Griffin – University of Massachusetts 

Misty-Anne Marold - Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife 

MaryAnn Dipinto – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

Gary Gonyea – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

Thomas Maguire – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

Michael Stroman - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

David M. Keddell –United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

John Kenny – Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) 

Mark S. Buffone – Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) & 

 State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB) 

Timothy Deschamps – Central Massachusetts Mosquito Control Project 

Nicole Granger – Central Massachusetts Mosquito Control Project 

Caroline E. Haviland – Norfolk County Mosquito Control Project 

David Henley - East Middlesex County Mosquito Control Project 

Amanda Hope – Central Massachusetts Mosquito Control Project 

Priscilla Matton – Bristol County Mosquito Control Project 

Walter Montgomery – Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control & Wetlands 

 Management District 

Gabrielle Sakolsky - Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project 

Emily DW Sullivan – Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control & Wetlands 

 Management District 

5. Literature Cited 

Department of Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1997. 

Stormwater Management, Volume II: Stormwater Technical Handbook. 

Publication No. 1781–250–1800–4/97-6.52-C.R. Boston. 

http://www.state.ma.us/MassDEP/brp/stormwtr/files/swmpolv2.pdf 

Department of Food and Agriculture, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1998. Final 

Generic Environment Impact Report. 

19
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Appendix 1 

Mosquito Control Complaint and 

Documentation Form 

__________________________________________________ 

Larviciding Records Mapped Larviciding Site 

Field Personnel’s Observation Notes 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Residents/Public Officials Complaints 

Name Date

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Subject of Complaint (Comments) 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Larvae or Adult Mosquitoes Observed at Site 

Dipper Data (see attached sheets) 

Comments / Date(s) 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

20
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Appendix 2

Site Plan for Mechanized Wetlands Management 

Activities 

Date: / / 

Site Information: 

Location Preparer of Plan

Town(s) District/Project name 

Road(s) Mailing address 

______________________________ 

Contact 

Approx. start date: ____/____/____ Phone: __________________________ 

Work Purpose (check all that apply)

 Mosquito Control  Sediment removal  Culvert replacement 

 Drainage or flood control  Stream bank Restoration  Obstruction removal 

Mosquito Observation Data (check all that apply)

 Previous Larviciding  Dip counts  Landing counts  Complaints 

 Observations of field personnel 

Additional comments: 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

21
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Sensitive Areas 

Site work area checked for occurrence of: 

 Rare & endangered species - MA Natural Heritage Atlas

 Certified vernal pools - MA Natural Heritage Atlas

 Outstanding Resource Waters – MassGIS Map of Outstanding Resource Waters

 (http://www.state.ma.us/mgis/orw.htm)

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – Appendix 7 

If any of these sensitive areas occur at the work site, refer to regulatory requirements section 

of the MA Mosquito Control BMP and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Controll and 

indicate location on site work map. 

Erosion Control, Soil Stabilization & Sediment Containment 

(ESS)

Indicate location on map ESS-1 ESS-2 ESS-3 ESS-4 

Straw bales 

Silt fences 

Reseeding 

Mulching 

Straw/Hay bales in water channel 

Water quality swales 

Sediment traps 

Planting 

Other: 

22
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Additional Comments: 

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Alteration 

Total length (ft) ___________ Total spoil removed _________ (approx. cubic yards) 

Mineral: ____________ (c.y.) Organic: ____________ (c.y.) 

Location of proposed spoil deposits: (indicate on site plan map) 

 

Approximate Area (sq. ft) of spoil displaced to wetland 

 

23
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Site Conditions 

Ditch type ______ Linear ft _________ Flow _______ Wetland type(s) __________

 Codes: Ditch type: Flow: Wetland type:

 ________________________ 

MA Main IT Intermittent FO Forested EM Emergent OW Open

water 

LA Lateral PE Perennial SH ShrubWM Wet meadow

SL Sub lateral

Top Width 

Slope ratio Depth

Bottom Width 

Dimensions Existing Proposed

Top width 

Slope ratio

Depth 

Bottom width 

Comments: 

 

 

24
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Site Conditions 

Ditch type Linear ft Flow Wetland type(s) 

Codes: Ditch type: Flow: Wetland type: 

MA Main IT Intermittent FO Forested EM Emergent OW Open water 

LA Lateral PE Perennial SH Shrub WM Wet meadow SL Sub lateral

Top Width 

Slope ratio Depth 

Bottom Width 

Dimensions Existing Proposed

Top width 

Slope ratio

Depth 

Bottom width 

Comments: 

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________ 

25
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Proposed Alteration Summary (Include if more than 1 ditch) 

Ditch Total Cubic Yards Displaced

Type 

Number 

On Wetland On Upland 

Total Cubic Yards Displaced __________________ On Wetland 

Total Cubic Yards Displaced __________________ On Upland 

Comments: 

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

Soil Profile (representative)

Organic Depth: _________ (inches) Mineral (if applicable): ____________ (inches) 

Notes: (Types, Colors, Hydrology, etc) 

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

26
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Site Plan Map 

Submit both a copy of the USGS Topographic map with site circled and attach a copy of the Site Plan Map (i.e. 

aerial photograph or MassGIS if available) depicting the site location and proposed work with the Standard

Notification Form to the appropriate Department. The photo should include the following information marked

on it at a minimum: equipment access points (name nearby streets), approximate locations of all work areas, 

locations of erosion control (ESS) measures implemented (from previous section above), and locations of

dredge spoil deposits. 

27
Massachusetts BMPs and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control October 24, 2008 

Appendix 3 

MCD Letterhead 

Date 

Municipal Conservation Commission 

# Street 

City/Town, MA Zip 

Re: Site # Mechanized Ditch Maintenance Project 

Dear __________, 

The (Specific MC District/Project) is proposing wetlands management activities as described below

in compliance and accordance with Chapter 252 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts on the site indicated on the attached topographic map in City/Town, Massachusetts. 

Site number i.e. (NW0801 or 524A Methuen) involves a brief, but detailed description of the

freshwater activity including: the reason for site selection (i.e. Public Official/Municipal Department

or Commission, Resident, MCD Personnel) location (Town, street names, direction of ditch or stream

in relation to street) estimated length of ditch to be maintained, and any additional information each

district/project deems necessary. 

The Notification may include a unique statement [i.e. although exempt from the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, we invite inspection and comments, welcoming the opportunity to address any concerns 

that the Commission may have in regards to the proposed activity on this site. Please feel free to call

me at the number listed above.] 

If we do not hear from the Department / Commission within 30 days after the date of this notice, we 

will assume that there are no concerns regarding the proposed activity on this site and work will 

tentatively commence thereafter / specific date / date range. 

Respectfully, 

Name 

Title (ex. Wetlands Project Coordinator)

Enclosed Location Map and Site Plan Map 

Additional Notification furnished to: 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

MA Department of Environmental Protection (proper) Regional Office 

28