1

Surveillance for Ixodes pacificus and pathogens found 

in this tick species in the United States 

Table of Contents

Contributors and Reviewers...............................................................................................................................................3

Intended Audience and Objectives.....................................................................................................................................3

Public Health Importance of Ixodes pacificus.....................................................................................................................3

Life Cycle of Ixodes pacificus...............................................................................................................................................5

Tick Surveillance Objectives................................................................................................................................................6

Classify County Status for Ixodes pacificus.....................................................................................................................7

Identify Presence and Prevalence of Human Pathogens in Ixodes pacificus Ticks.........................................................8

Estimate the Density of Host-Seeking (Infected) Ixodes pacificus Ticks.........................................................................8

Document Host-Seeking Phenology of Ixodes pacificus Ticks......................................................................................10

Document Geographic and Temporal Trends in Human-Ixodes spp. Tick Encounters ................................................10

Tick Collection Methods...................................................................................................................................................11

Drag Sampling or Flagging ............................................................................................................................................12

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................12

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................12

Walking Sampling .........................................................................................................................................................12

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................12

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................12

Carbon Dioxide–Baited Tick Traps................................................................................................................................13

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................13

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................13

Tick Collection from Deer .............................................................................................................................................13

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................13

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................13

Tick Collection from Small- or Medium-Sized Mammals, Non-Migratory Birds and Lizards........................................13

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................13

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................14

Ticks Found on People and Pets...................................................................................................................................14

Background and methods.........................................................................................................................................14

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: ................................................................14

Estimating the Density of Host-seeking (Infected) Ixodes pacificus Ticks........................................................................14
2

Where to Sample..........................................................................................................................................................14

Size of Area to Sample..................................................................................................................................................14

When to Sample ...........................................................................................................................................................15

How Many Sites to Sample...........................................................................................................................................15

How to Estimate Infection Prevalence in Host-Seeking Ticks.......................................................................................15

How to Calculate the Density of Host-Seeking (Infected) Ticks with Confidence Intervals .........................................16

Describing Host-Seeking Phenology of Ixodes pacificus Ticks..........................................................................................16

Where to Sample..........................................................................................................................................................16

How to Sample..............................................................................................................................................................16

When to Sample ...........................................................................................................................................................16

Describing State or Regional Trends in When and How Frequently Different Life Stages of I. pacificus and Other Ixodes

Species Ticks are Biting or Infesting humans....................................................................................................................17

How to Sample..............................................................................................................................................................17

When to Sample ...........................................................................................................................................................17

Pathogen Detection..........................................................................................................................................................17

Recommended Tick Samples and Preservation for Pathogen Testing .........................................................................17

Minimum Criteria for Acceptability of Pathogen Detection Assay...............................................................................18

Important considerations for Borrelia testing..........................................................................................................19

Notes on nomenclature:...........................................................................................................................................19

Important considerations for Anaplasma phagocytophilum testing .......................................................................19

Samples CDC will Test for Pathogens ...............................................................................................................................20

In Counties Where the Pathogen of Interest has Never Been Identified.....................................................................20

In Counties Where the Pathogen of Interest has Been Identified................................................................................20

Limitations to Tick Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................21

References........................................................................................................................................................................21

Supplemental Material.....................................................................................................................................................24

Avoiding Tick Bites............................................................................................................................................................24

While You Are Outdoors...............................................................................................................................................24

After You Come Indoors ...............................................................................................................................................24

How to Remove a Tick ......................................................................................................................................................25

How to Make Tick Drags...................................................................................................................................................26

Blanket-Style Drag ........................................................................................................................................................26

Supplies.....................................................................................................................................................................26

Sewing instructions...................................................................................................................................................26

Sewing diagrams.......................................................................................................................................................28
3

Modified Drag with “Fingers” .......................................................................................................................................29

Supplies.....................................................................................................................................................................29

Sewing instructions...................................................................................................................................................29

Sewing diagrams.......................................................................................................................................................30

Contributors and Reviewers

The following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Vector-Borne Diseases staff 

members formed the technical development group that prepared or reviewed this report:

• Rebecca J. Eisen, Ph.D. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Lars Eisen, Ph.D. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Erik Foster, M.S., B.C.E. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Christine B. Graham, Ph.D. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Andrias Hojgaard, Ph.D. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Paul S. Mead, M.D., M.P.H. (Bacterial Diseases Branch)

• Gil Kersch, Ph.D. (Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch)

• Sandor Karpathy, Ph.D. (Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch)

• Christopher D. Paddock, M.D., M.S. (Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch)

We are grateful to the following state health partners for their thoughtful review and contributions to 

this document:

• Vicki Kramer, Ph.D., Kerry Padgett, Ph.D., and Melissa Yoshimizu, Ph.D., California Department 

of Public Health

Intended Audience and Objectives

Public health entomologists/biologists are the intended audience for this document.

The primary objective of this document is to provide guidance for surveillance of the western blacklegged tick, Ixodes

pacificus, and pathogens found in this tick species in order to provide health care providers and the public with 

current and accurate information on where this tick occurs, when the different life stages are most active during the 

year, and which human pathogens are of the greatest local concern. 

Public Health Importance of Ixodes 

pacificus

The western blacklegged tick, Ixodes pacificus, is the primary vector to humans in the far western United States of 

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto (Lyme disease), Anaplasma phagocytophilum (anaplasmosis) and most likely 

Borrelia miyamotoi (B. miyamotoi disease) (Table 1). 
4
5

Table 1. Pathogens transmitted by Ixodes pacificus, life stages that can be infected, and the human diseases caused 

by infection with these pathogens.

Disease Pathogen(s) Life stages infected

Lyme disease Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto, 

Borrelia mayonii Nymphs, Adults

Anaplasmosis Anaplasma phagocytophilum Nymphs, Adults

Borrelia miyamotoi disease Borrelia miyamotoi Larvae, Nymphs, Adults

Life Cycle of Ixodes pacificus

Generalized life cycle of Ixodes pacificus.

Ixodes pacificus is primarily a woodland-associated tick. In north-coastal California where the tick has been studied 

most extensively, it has, minimally, a 3-year life cycle consisting of four life stages: egg, larva, nymph, and adult 

(Padgett and Lane 2001). Larval and nymphal ticks each take a single bloodmeal before molting to the next life stage 

and may acquire human pathogens through blood-feeding on infectious hosts or by co-feeding transmission (infected 

and uninfected ticks feeding in close proximity; pathogen transmission can occur in the absence of a systemic host 

infection). Larvae and nymphs feed primarily on lizards, squirrels, and ground-dwelling birds. However, they can also 

infest other mammals including deer. Female ticks take a single bloodmeal (most commonly from deer but also from 

other medium-sized and large mammals), lay a large batch of eggs and then die. Based on evidence from closely 

related Ixodes species and in contrast to other human pathogens transmitted by this tick, Borrelia miyamotoi, is likely 

transmitted transovarially by I. pacificus (vertical transmission from infected females to their offspring). Borrelia 
6

burgdorferi sensu stricto, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (and likely Borrelia miyamotoi) are maintained via 

horizontal transmission, where infected nymphal or female ticks transmit the agents to vertebrate hosts, and naïve 

larval or nymphal ticks then acquire pathogens while feeding on the infectious hosts.

Adults are active mainly during the cool months of the year from late fall to early spring. Females typically lay eggs in 

spring, but hatched larvae do not seek hosts actively until the following spring. After blood-feeding, larvae molt to 

nymphs, but do not begin host-seeking until the following spring. Peak nymphal host seeking is typically observed in 

May and June, depending on location. After blood-feeding, nymphs molt to adults and seek hosts in the fall, winter,

or early spring, resulting in a minimum of three years to complete a life cycle (Figure 2; Padgett and Lane 2001). 

Notably, host-seeking phenology may differ across the geographic range of this tick species. For example, in central 

and southern California, the host-seeking period, particularly of juvenile ticks is truncated, with activity occurring in 

March and April (MacDonald and Briggs 2016).

Tick Surveillance Objectives

Tick surveillance is intended to monitor changes in the distribution and abundance of ticks and the presence and 

prevalence of tickborne pathogens in order to provide actionable, evidence-based information to clinicians, the public 

and policy makers. Key questions address when and where humans are at risk for exposure to ticks and tickborne 

pathogens. 

Specifically, at the spatial scale of U.S. counties, CDC aims to: 

1) classify county status for I. pacificus: established, reported, or no data available, and 

2) classify county status for presence of specific pathogens in I. pacificus ticks: present or no data 

available.

Additional objectives include the following: (3) generate estimates for local prevalence of specific pathogens in 

relevant I. pacificus life stages and local density of host-seeking (infected) nymphs or adults, which then can be 

aggregated and displayed at county scale; (4) document host-seeking phenology of all I. pacificus life stages in 

strategic locations across the tick’s range and display this information at state or regional spatial scales; and (5) 

document geographic and temporal trends in human- Ixodes spp. tick encounters. For more details on tick 

sampling methods, please see the “Tick Collection Methods” section of this document.

Objective 1 provides the most basic information for risk assessment (i.e., is the tick known to be reported or 

established in the county of interest?). Presence of a vector tick species does not necessarily indicate presence of 

human pathogens, and therefore, Objective 2 provides additional information about potential exposure to I. 

pacificus-borne human pathogens. While documenting the presence of a human pathogen in a county is useful, 

estimates of infection prevalence in host-seeking ticks (the percentage of ticks tested that are infected) provides a 

better indication of the likelihood that ticks encountered by humans may be infected with the pathogen of interest. 

Tick-borne infections in humans arise following the bite of infected ticks. Therefore, a measure that captures the 

abundance of host-seeking ticks, often referred to as density of host-seeking nymphs (DON) or females (DOF), 

provides more accurate information on the likelihood of human encounters than simple measures of tick presence or 

establishment. That is, although human behavior affects the likelihood of human-tick encounters, assuming similar 

human behavior across tick habitats, human-tick encounters are likely to increase with increasing DON or DOF. 
7

Overall, acarological risk measures such as pursued in Objective 3 that combine the density of host-seeking nymphs 

and local estimates of infection prevalence (often referred to as the density of host-seeking infected nymphs or DIN) 

provide more accurate estimates of human encounters with infected host-seeking nymphs than simple measures of 

tick/pathogen presence or abundance (Mather et al. 1996, Eisen et al. 2006, Pepin et al. 2012, Eisen and Eisen 2016). 

Recognizing that acarological risk measures often differ by life stage, documenting when each life stage is actively 

host-seeking aids in identifying when humans are at greatest risk for exposure to tick bites and tick-borne pathogens. 

Therefore, Objective 4 aims to document host-seeking phenology of larval, nymphal and adult I. pacificus ticks. 

Finally, although the density of host-seeking ticks should positively correlate with human-tick encounter rates, 

the fine scale geographic distribution of ticks together with human landscape use and behavior (including use of 

personal protection measures) will impact contact rates. Although density sampling provides accurate 

geographic assessments of [infected] tick abundance, it is labor-intensive and consequently limited in 

geographic scale. Monitoring tick encounters through passive surveillance of ticks recovered from people and 

pets allows for sampling over a broader geographic area. Ticks collected from people provides a more direct 

assessment of human risk for TBDs, and may be used to identify areas of tick or pathogen emergence that can 

be confirmed with active surveillance (e.g., drag or flag sampling) and pathogen testing. Passively collected data 

of Ixodes sp. ticks on people and pets may be useful in describing which Ixodes species (in addition to Ixodes 

scapularis or I. pacificus) are biting or crawling on people and pets, providing state or regional data on seasonal, 

life-stage and species-specific information about when persons are bitten by medically important ticks. 

Although time-lagged, such data provide specificity and complement efforts to track tick phenology through 

tracking tick bites reported by emergency departments without knowledge of which tick species were 

encountered.

Criteria for classifying county establishment status for I. pacificus and estimating infection prevalence, densities of 

host-seeking (infected) ticks and documenting host-seeking phenology are summarized below. CDC aims to collate 

tick surveillance data to make county-level data available to the public on national-scale maps that will be displayed 

on the CDC website. State health departments and other CDC public health partners may submit data through 

ArboNET. For additional information on ArboNET submissions, please see https://wwwn.cdc.gov/arbonet or contact 

us at ticksurveillance@cdc.gov. Additional information can be found in subsequent sections of this document.

Classify County Status for Ixodes pacificus

• Objective: Update the I. pacificus distribution map based on county level establishment criteria (Dennis et 

al. 1998). Data will be displayed at: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/

• County status classification criteria are as follows:

o Established: > 6 I. pacificus of a single life stage or > 1 life stage collected per county within a 12-

month period

o Reported: < 6 I. pacificus of a single life stage collected per county within a 12-month period

o No records

• For this objective and all others, ticks should be identified to species and life stage using published taxonomic 

keys (e.g., Keirans and Clifford 1978, Furman and Loomis 1984) or molecular assays (e.g. Wright et al. 

2015).For counties reporting new records, voucher specimens supporting the status change should be 

archived. 

• Because we have greater confidence in presence than absence data, after a county is classified as 

“established,” it will remain so and will not regress to “reported” or “no records” status. Counties classified 

as “reported” may progress to “established” and counties classified as “no records” may progress to 

“reported” or “established” when criteria for those classifications have been met. After a county is classified 
8

as “established” surveillance efforts should focus instead on pathogen presence and prevalence and 

assessments of acarological risk of human exposure to I. pacificus-borne pathogens.

Identify Presence and Prevalence of Human Pathogens in Ixodes

pacificus Ticks

• Objective: Map the county level distribution of human pathogens in I. pacificus ticks or in natural hosts for 

this tick. Data will be displayed at: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/

• Data to be mapped include:

o Shading counties where the I. pacificus-borne pathogen of interest has been detected in I. pacificus

ticks or in natural hosts of I. pacificus. This is a simple binary response (pathogen detected or not). 

Pathogen detection assays must meet minimal assay requirements described in “Minimum Criteria 

for Acceptability of Pathogen Detection Assay.” Samples from which potential exposure could have 

occurred in other counties will not be included (ticks from people or pets are not acceptable unless 

travel outside of the county within 10 days prior to detection of the tick can be ruled out) but 

infection in ticks collected from the environment (by dragging, flagging, walking, or trapping) or 

infection in ticks collected from trapped mammals (provided their home ranges are limited enough 

to infer exposure occurred in the county of interest) are acceptable for documenting presence of 

pathogens in a county.

o For counties where the pathogen of interest already has been detected in I. pacificus ticks (this 

information will be updated annually on https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/), pathogen 

prevalence and 95% confidence intervals can be estimated per relevant tick life stage and per 

collection site in Excel using the Pooled Infection Rate Add-In. Inclusion of confidence intervals is 

recommended in addition to point estimates in order to convey the level of uncertainty in point 

estimates. Confidence intervals can be interpreted as “there is a 95% probability that the true 

infection prevalence is between [insert lower confidence limit] and [insert upper confidence limit].” 

As sample sizes increase, the width of the confidence intervals decreases. Typically, testing 50 

nymphal or adult ticks per site gives reasonable confidence limits for most I. pacificus-borne 

pathogens. For example, when 10 of 50 tested ticks are positive, infection prevalence is estimated 

as 20% (95%CI: 11-33%). Likewise, if no ticks are infected in a sample of 25 or 50 ticks, infection 

prevalence could be as high as 13% or 7%, respectively. Although infection prevalence can be 

calculated for smaller sample sizes, uncertainty in estimates is high; pathogen prevalence will not be 

displayed unless a minimum of 25 ticks have been tested within a given county for a given life stage. 

Overall, estimates of infection prevalence improve with increasing sample sizes. Infection 

prevalence and associated 95% confidence intervals will be calculated by CDC for data submitted to 

ArboNET. 

Estimate the Density of Host-Seeking (Infected) Ixodes pacificus Ticks

For each of the objectives listed below, when sufficient data have been submitted to ArboNET, CDC will post annual 

surveillance reports at https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/. 

• Objective: Map the county level density of host-seeking I. pacificus nymphs. 

o Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

 Displayed in categories based on number of host-seeking nymphs collected per 1000 m2 or 

displayed as the inverse showing the distance covered before expected encounter with a

nymph. 

 Requires at least 750 m2 drag sampled per site for density estimate; drags should be 

inspected for ticks at consistent intervals and at least every 10-20 m; sampling should be 
9

timed to coincide with the peak in nymphal host-seeking activity (Eisen et al. 2010, DiukWasser et al. 2012); ideally, estimates of nymphal density should be based on at least 2-3 

visits to the site within the perceived seasonal peak in host-seeking (Dobson 2013). For more 

information on sampling, please see: “Estimating the Density of Host-seeking (Infected) 

Ixodes pacificus ticks.”

 Requires at least 1 site sampled per county, otherwise county will be displayed as “no 

records.”

 In ecologically diverse counties, sampling at multiple sites representing the range in suitable 

habitat for the tick is recommended; when multiple sites are sampled per county, average 

and range will be accessible. 

 Although timed sampling (e.g., dragging for fixed amounts of time, rather than fixed 

distances) is a valid sampling approach, in the interest of comparability among localities, we 

will only accept distance-based assessments of DON and DIN for ArboNET.

• Objective: Map the county level density of host-seeking infected I. pacificus nymphs. 

o Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

 Displayed in categories based on number of host-seeking infected nymphs collected per 

1000 m2 or displayed as the inverse showing the distance covered before expected 

encounter with an infected nymph. 

 Calculated by multiplying the estimated density of nymphs by infection prevalence (both 

described above).

 When multiple sites are sampled per county, average and range will be accessible.

• Objective: Map the county level density of host-seeking I. pacificus females. 

o Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

 Displayed in categories based on number of host-seeking females collected per 1000 m2

(DOF) or displayed as the inverse showing the distance covered before expected encounter 

with a female tick.

 Requires at least 750 m2 drag sampled or flagged per site for density estimate; because 

adults drop off more readily than nymphs, drags or flags should be inspected for ticks every 

10 m; sampling should be timed to coincide with the peak in adult host-seeking activity; 

ideally, estimates of female density should be based on at least 2-3 visits to the site within 

the perceived seasonal peak in host-seeking.

 Requires at least 1 site sampled per county, otherwise county will be displayed as “no 

records.”

 Sampling at three or more sites per county is recommended; when multiple sites are 

sampled per county, average and range will be accessible.

 In ecologically diverse counties, sampling at multiple sites representing the range in suitable 

habitat for the tick is recommended; when multiple sites are sampled per county, average 

and range will be accessible.

 Although timed sampling (e.g., dragging for fixed amounts of time, rather than fixed 

distances) is a valid sampling approach, in the interest of comparability among localities, we 

will only accept distance-based assessments of DOF and DIF for ArboNET.

• Objective: Map the county level density of infected host-seeking I. pacificus females. 

o Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

 Displayed in categories based on number of host-seeking infected females collected per 100 

m2 or displayed as the inverse showing the distance covered before expected encounter 

with an infected female tick.

 Calculated by multiplying the estimated density of females by infection prevalence in tested 

adult ticks (both described above).

 When multiple sites are sampled per county, average and range will be accessible.
10

Document Host-Seeking Phenology of Ixodes pacificus Ticks

• Objective: Describe when I. pacificus ticks are actively host-seeking (phenology). 

• Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

o Displayed as region of the state, or state-wide (or neighboring state) records of tick activity by life 

stage. This will be a categorical response (records of the tick being active for a particular month of 

the year or not, or no records if phenology studies were not reported from a particular state or its 

neighbor).

o Based on weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly non-removal sampling over a 12-month period, excluding 

winter months too cold for tick activity in colder parts of the tick’s range and excluding months that 

are too hot for tick activity in the warmer parts of the tick’s range. For more information, see 

“Describing Host-Seeking Phenology of Ixodes pacificus Ticks.”

Document Geographic and Temporal Trends in Human-Ixodes spp. 

Tick Encounters

• Objective: Describe state or regional trends in when and how frequently different life stages of I. 

pacificus and other Ixodes species ticks are biting or found crawling on humans

• Data display and minimal sampling requirements include:

o Displayed as state (or neighboring state) records of tick activity by species and life stage per 

month and year. This will be a numerical count of submissions per tick species and life stage 

weighted per human population of the coverage area. Activity is defined as a recorded human 

tick encounter (either crawling or attached) on a person with no reported travel history outside 

the county of record for 10 days prior to discovering the tick.
11

Tick Collection Methods

Several methods can be used to collect I. pacificus ticks, however, some are better suited than others for addressing 

specific surveillance objectives (Table 2). For example, all of the methods described below can be used to 

demonstrate the presence of I. pacificus or I. pacificus-borne pathogens in a county of interest. Demonstrating that 

both the vector and pathogen are present within a county provides fundamental data for assessing the risk of human 

encounters with infected ticks. However, for Lyme disease, which is most commonly acquired through the bite of 

infected nymphs, estimates of the density of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.)-infected host-seeking nymphs are

a more accrurate predictor of human Lyme disease occurrence than simple measures of the presence of the tick or 

pathogen, or quantitative measures of the density of host-seeking nymphs or the infection prevalence in the nymphs

alone (Mather et al. 1996, Stafford et al. 1998, Pepin et al. 2012, Eisen and Eisen 2016)) 

Table 2. Summary of tick collection methods that are acceptable or unacceptable for each surveillance objective.

Collection Method Objective: 

Classify county 

status

Objective: 

Presence/Prevalence of 

pathogens in ticks

Objective: DON/DIN 

or DOF/DIF

Objective: 

Phenology/

human 

encounters

Dragging/Flagging Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

for hostseeking 

phenology

Walking Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Acceptable 

for hostseeking 

phenology

CO2 traps Acceptable Acceptable for presence, 

but not prevalence

Not Acceptable Not 

Acceptable

Ticks collected from deer Acceptable Acceptable for presence, 

but not prevalence

Not Acceptable Not 

Acceptable

Ticks collected from smallor medium-sized mammals, 

birds, lizards

Acceptable Acceptable for presence, 

but not prevalence

Not Acceptable Acceptable

Ticks from people/pets Acceptable, if 

travel history is 

accounted for

Acceptable for presence, 

but not prevalence

Not Acceptable Acceptable, 

if travel 

history is 

accounted 

for
12

Drag Sampling or Flagging

Background and methods

Drag sampling and flagging are similar methods used to collect host-seeking Ixodes spp. ticks (Daniels and Fish 1990, 

Carroll and Schmidtmann 1992, Falco and Fish 1992; Tälleklint-Eisen and Lane 2000). Both typically use a 1 m wide by 

1 m long flannel, denim or other sturdy white fabric with sufficient texture for ticks to grip. To increase contact 

between the fabric and vegetation, weights (e.g., metal washers or chains) may be sewn into the trailing edge and/or 

the trailing edge may be cut into “fingers” or “strips” rather than using a solid cloth. Modified handles (e.g. wooden 

dowel or rope) may be used to increase maneuverability. For additional details on how to make tick drags, please see 

the “How to Make Tick Drags” supplemental information. The tick drag or flag is moved horizontally across 

vegetation or leaf litter (drag) or more vertically (flag). This method of sampling provides good spatial precision for 

documenting the occurrence and/or abundance of ticks in a county. 

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus

• Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages)

• Estimating the density of host-seeking (infected) nymphs or females; although either dragging or 

flagging can be used, horizontal distance sampled should be reported to ArboNET

• Documenting host-seeking phenology

Walking Sampling

Background and methods

Walking sampling entails an investigator walking through tick habitat and checking his/her clothing and body for 

crawling ticks (Carey et al. 1980, Schulze et al. 1986, Lane 1996). The distance walked and the number of ticks 

encountered per distance should be recorded. Investigators typically wear light-colored clothing to more easily 

detect ticks on clothing. Long sleeves and long pants, tucked into socks, are required to reduce the risk for tick bites. 

White “painter’s coveralls” are also a good option to protect field staff, as they cover the whole body and ticks are 

easily seen on the light-colored fabric. This method of collection may be more accurate for assessing human-tick 

encounters than drag sampling, flagging or collection from hosts or carbon dioxide baited traps, but more so in areas 

with emergent vegetation for ticks to ascend than in leaf litter where tick exposures more commonly may be related 

to human behaviors exposing legs or hands/arms directly to the substrate (e.g., when playing or doing yardwork). 

Walking sampling generally yield fewer adult I. pacificus compared with dragging (Lane 1996). This method of 

sampling provides good spatial precision for documenting the occurrence and/or abundance of ticks in a county.

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus

• Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages)

• Documenting host-seeking phenology
13

Carbon Dioxide–Baited Tick Traps

Background and methods

Carbon dioxide traps work on the premise that ticks have well-developed chemo-receptors and are attracted to 

carbon dioxide to find a host. Traps consist of a solid base to hold dry ice (a solid form of carbon dioxide) within an 

insulating material that is surrounded by a sticky tape to capture ticks attracted to the carbon dioxide released as the 

dry ice sublimates (Wilson et al. 1972). These traps were developed originally for collection of lone star ticks 

(Amblyomma americanum) which display a more aggressive and mobile host-seeking behavior compared with I. 

scapularis or I. pacificus. Carbon dioxide traps capture I. scapularis, but appear to be less effective than drag sampling 

or flagging (Ginsberg and Ewing 1989, Falco and Fish 1992). Carbon dioxide trapping is generally less labor-intensive 

than several other tick collection methods, but because of its inefficiency at collecting I. scapularis, it is not 

recommended for assessments of host-seeking densities I. scapularis or I. pacificus. However, this method of 

sampling provides good spatial precision for documenting the occurrence and/or presence or prevalence of 

pathogens in a county.

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus

• Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages)

Tick Collection from Deer

Background and methods

Columbian black-tailed deer serve as important hosts for adult I. pacificus ticks. Inspection of hunter-killed deer 

brought into check stations is a cost-effective means of detecting changes in the distribution of I. pacificus, 

particularly in areas where the tick is emerging. However, owing to the home range of deer, it is spatially nonspecific. Based on studies of closely-related I. scapularis, abundance of ticks on deer may not correlate well with 

estimates of host-seeking tick densities obtained from drag sampling (French et al. 1992, Bouchard et al. 2013, Lee et 

al. 2013, Raizman et al. 2013). Because infection rates derived from blood-fed ticks is not representative of infection 

rates in host-seeking ticks, we do not recommend assessing infection prevalence in ticks collected from deer to infer 

infection prevalence in host-seeking ticks.

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus

• Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages)

Tick Collection from Small- or Medium-Sized Mammals, NonMigratory Birds and Lizards

Background and methods

Small- and medium-sized mammals, birds and lizards often serve as hosts of larval and nymphal I. pacificus ticks. 

Trapping and inspecting these animals for ticks can provide useful information on the presence and abundance of 

ticks and presence of associated pathogens in the collected ticks, as well as data on host-seeking phenology of 

immature life stages, in a county of interest. Spatial precision of estimates is associated with the home-range of the 

target animals, with migratory birds having the greatest home-range and providing low spatial precision in estimating 

exposure sites to ticks. Host trapping is generally more labor-intensive than drag sampling, however, in areas where I. 
14

pacificus immatures are seldom collected on drags, host sampling may be an effective means of demonstrating 

establishment of I. pacificus populations and documenting host-seeking phenology. 

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus (excludes ticks from migratory birds)

• Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) 

• Documenting host-seeking phenology

Ticks Found on People and Pets

Background and methods

Identification of ticks collected from people or pets can be a useful means of assessing human- or pet-tick encounters. 

However, because people and their pets often travel long distances, ticks collected from these hosts should only be 

included in assessments of county status when travel history is considered. Specifically, because ticks can remain 

attached to a host for 7-10 days, samples obtained from persons or pets who traveled outside the county of residence 

within 10 days of tick encounter should be excluded. Likewise, records with more than one possible exposure site 

should not be reported. CDC does not recommend testing ticks from people for human diagnostic purposes. 

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives:

• Classifying county status for Ixodes pacificus (if travel history is considered)

• Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages; if travel 

history is considered)

• Documenting geographic and temporal trends in human-Ixodes spp. tick encounters

Estimating the Density of Host-seeking 

(Infected) Ixodes pacificus Ticks 

Where to Sample

Ixodes pacificus is primarily a woodland-associated tick. Therefore, sampling will typically focus on forested or 

wooded settings, including their edges, and especially along trails. Nymphal ticks are more likely to be found in leaf 

litter and on substrates such as logs, tree trunks and rocks. Specific sampling sites should focus on areas considered to 

be a public health concern and might include, but not limited to, the following:

• novel areas of potential human exposure to I. pacificus

• counties where I. pacificus is newly established

• counties (or counties neighboring areas) where incidence of I. pacificus-borne illnesses have changed 

over time

• heavily used recreational areas, including those bordering on neighborhoods

• areas where novel pathogens are suspected to be circulating

• representative habitat types within counties where I. pacificus-borne infections are prevalent

Size of Area to Sample

The density of host-seeking nymphal or female ticks varies spatially and temporally. To get a representative sample 

of the density of host-seeking (infected) nymphs or females, the sampling area should be expansive (spanning at least 
15

750 m of linear transects, or 50 transects of 15 m dragged with a cloth measuring 1 m wide). Distance sampled can 

be assessed using several methods including: 1) setting fixed sampling grids where flags, stakes or other objects are 

used to mark the start and end points of each measured length of the transect, 2) using a measured rope or cable and 

dragging or flagging its full length, 3) measuring the collectors stride length and walking a fixed number of strides 

prior to checking the flag or drag, or 4) measuring distance sampled with a global positioning system. Because ticks 

can drop off from the drag or flag easily, inspecting the cloth at regular intervals is important (typically between 10-20 

m; adults detach more readily than nymphs and therefore the drag or flag should be checked minimally every 10-15 

m) (Diuk-Wasser et al. 2006, Eisen, Eisen and Lane 2006, Diuk-Wasser et al. 2010, Eisen et al. 2010, Diuk-Wasser et al. 

2012, Johnson et al. 2017, Johnson et al. 2018a, Johnson et al. 2018b). Drags/Flags should be checked systematically 

and all parts of the cloth should be examined, including the leading edge, ropes, and seams. Samplers should also 

inspect their hands at each check and include any ticks recorded on their person while in the field. Wearing white or 

other light-colored clothing is recommended to more easily detect ticks on the tick collector.

When to Sample

• Sampling should be conducted during the perceived peak of nymphal or adult tick activity. This 

information could be gleaned from previous phenology studies conducted in the region, timing of onset 

of human Lyme disease cases or data obtained from passive surveillance (submission of ticks from 

people or pets, etc.). 

• Sampling each site 3 or more times within the perceived peak of host-seeking activity provides the most 

accurate density estimates, but this may not always be feasible; sampling twice improves precision over 

a single sample (Dobson 2013). 

• Sampling should NOT be conducted when it is raining, when the vegetation is wet enough to saturate 

the tick drag or when it is unseasonably cold or extremely windy.

How Many Sites to Sample

Sampling numerous sites per county provides better estimates of spatial variation in the density of host-seeking 

(infected) ticks within a county. Sampling multiple sites is strongly encouraged, particularly within ecologicallydiverse counties. However, data will be displayed if minimum sampling requirements are met of only a single site per 

county. 

How to Estimate Infection Prevalence in Host-Seeking Ticks

In some situations, particularly where the densities of host-seeking ticks are low, it will not be possible to collect a 

reasonable sample size for pathogen testing within the defined 750 m sampling area even when combining ticks 

collected over multiple sampling sessions. In this case, it is recommended to collect additional ticks through drag 

sampling or flagging in the area surrounding the sampling plot. These ticks should not be included in estimates of 

nymphal or females densities, but can be included in assessing site-specific estimates of pathogen prevalence. 

Pathogen detection assays should meet the minimal requirements described above (“Minimum criteria for 

acceptability of pathogen detection assay”). Pathogen prevalence and 95% confidence intervals can be estimated per 

tick life stage and per site in Excel using the Pooled Infection Rate Add-In. Inclusion of confidence intervals is 

recommended in addition to point estimates in order to convey the level of uncertainty in point estimates. 

Confidence intervals can be interpreted as “there is a 95% probability that the true infection prevalence is between 

[insert lower confidence limit] and [insert upper confidence limit].” As sample sizes increase, the width of the 

confidence intervals decreases. Typically testing 50 ticks per site gives reasonable confidence limits. However, the 

number of ticks that need to be tested is dependent on how infection prevalence estimates will translate to public 
16

health action. Pathogen prevalence will not be displayed unless a minimum of 25 I. pacificus ticks of a given life stage 

have been tested within a given county. NOTE: infection prevalence and confidence intervals will be calculated per 

site upon submission of data to the ArboNET Tick Module (described below: ArboNET Tick Module).

How to Calculate the Density of Host-Seeking (Infected) Ticks with 

Confidence Intervals 

• Density of host-seeking nymphs (DON) is estimated as the total number of I. pacificus nymphs collected 

per total area sampled. DON can be scaled per 1000 m2 by multiplying the total number of I. pacificus

nymphs collected per sampling session by 100 m2

, then dividing the product by the total area sampled.

• Density of host-seeking infected nymphs (DIN) is estimated by multiplying DON by the local infection 

prevalence (% of ticks infected or the point estimate derived using the Pooled Infection Rate Add-In). To 

include a confidence interval, DON should be multiplied by the lower infection prevalence confidence 

limit and then by the upper infection prevalence confidence limit.

• Density of host-seeking females (DOF) is estimated as the total number of I. pacificus females collected 

per total area sampled. DOF can be scaled per 1000 m2 by multiplying the total number of I. pacificus

females collected per sampling session by 1000 m2

, then dividing the product by the total area sampled.

• Density of host-seeking infected adults (DIF) is estimated by multiplying DOF by the local infection 

prevalence (% of ticks infected or the point estimate derived using the Pooled Infection Rate Add-In). To 

include a confidence interval, DOF should be multiplied by the lower infection prevalence confidence 

limit and then by the upper infection prevalence confidence limit.

Describing Host-Seeking Phenology of 

Ixodes pacificus Ticks 

Where to Sample 

Because I. pacificus is a primarily woodland-associated tick, phenology study sites should be situated in woodlands, 

ideally in an area where the tick is abundant in order to accurately assess temporal changes in density. Sites with low 

tick density are susceptible to stochastic variation. Typically, significant differences in host-seeking phenology are not 

expected over short-distances. Therefore, this labor-intensive sampling should be conducted in strategic locations to 

identify regional differences in host-seeking phenology, such as in 1-2 sites per state. 

How to Sample

Drag sampling, flagging or collection of ticks from hosts trapped within a fixed area provide suitable samples for 

documenting when ticks are actively host-seeking. 

When to Sample

Sampling should be conducted at the same site, using the same standardized methods across sampling session. Sites 

should be sampled weekly or every two weeks to assess either the presence or abundance of ticks collected by life 
17

stage per visit. For drag sampling or flagging, ticks should be returned to the transect from which they were collected 

(non-removal sampling) to avoid artificial depletion of ticks over time in the study area due to intensive sampling. 

Describing State or Regional Trends in 

When and How Frequently Different Life 

Stages of I. pacificus and Other Ixodes

Species Ticks are Biting or Infesting 

humans

How to Sample

Ticks found crawling on or biting people or pets may be submitted to state, local or partnering institutions that 

are participating in passive surveillance programs. Submissions should include the tick (preserved as instructed 

by the participating program) and minimal data on when (date) and where (county) the tick was found, if it was 

found on a person pet or other source, if the tick was found crawling or attached (biting), and if the person or 

pet traveled outside the county of record within 10 d of finding the tick. Fields required for ArboNET reporting 

are available upon request (ticksurveillance@cdc.gov).

When to Sample

Submissions should be accepted year-round.

Pathogen Detection

Recommended Tick Samples and Preservation for Pathogen Testing 

Pathogen testing in host-seeking, unfed ticks is recommended for the following surveillance objectives:

• Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens

• Calculating DIN and DIF

Results from pathogen testing in fed ticks, or from vertebrate host blood or tissue, should be considered with caution 

because: 1) in some cases ticks can acquire pathogens from hosts while feeding and become infected, but not be able 

to maintain infection through the molt to the next life stage, and 2) infection rates derived from blood-fed ticks or 

from hosts is not representative of infection rates in host-seeking ticks. Pathogen testing in fed ticks, or from 

vertebrate host blood or tissue, is acceptable for the following surveillance objectives:

• Documenting presence of pathogens in a county
18

Prior to testing, ticks or tissue samples should be preserved in one of the following:

• 70-95% ethanol (denatured ethanol should be avoided as it contains additives that may inhibit PCR)

• RNALater

• Frozen at -80°C without preservatives

Minimum Criteria for Acceptability of Pathogen Detection Assay 

To improve accuracy in estimates of infection prevalence and to enable detection of co-infections, ticks should be 

tested individually, rather than in pools. However, testing pools of ticks can be useful in some situations, including 1) 

when prevalence of infection is expected to be very low and testing resources are limited, or 2) when simply noting 

the presence, rather than prevalence of pathogens is the goal.

In order to report that an I. pacificus or pool of I. pacificus is positive for Borrelia burgdorferi s.s., Borrelia miyamotoi, 

or Anaplasma phagocytophilum, based on the results of molecular testing of a nucleic acid extract, that testing must 

include:

• A detection assay or assays (e.g., real-time PCR or standard PCR) specific to the target pathogen. To 

demonstrate that an assay is pathogen species-specific, it should be tested against a panel comprising 

genetically-similar species, ideally including any genetically-similar species that might also be found in I. 

pacificus ticks (see the specific considerations for each pathogen below). A published assay that has 

previously been shown not to detect genetically-similar species meets this requirement.

OR

• An assay or assays that detect a genus followed by sequencing to identify the pathogen to species or to 

at least confirm or rule out the target species. If a molecular target sequence is similar to homologous 

sequences from multiple species such that it is impossible to confirm or rule out the presence of the 

target species, testing must incorporate sequencing of at least one additional molecular target.

In addition to the minimum requirements listed above, we highly recommend using a molecular testing scheme that 

has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and includes:

• Multiple targets for each pathogen. 

• Established limits of detection for each real-time and/or standard PCR target in the presence of tick 

DNA. If the testing scheme includes a multiplex assay designed to detect multiple pathogens, the limit 

of detection for each pathogen target should also be confirmed in the presence of more abundant DNA 

from other pathogens targeted by the same assay. 

• An internal control (e.g., a segment of the tick actin gene) that can be used to confirm the presence of 

amplifiable DNA in each specimen. A specimen that does not contain amplifiable DNA should not be 

included in infection prevalence calculations. 

See, for example, Graham et al. (2018).

All real-time or standard PCR testing should include no-template controls and, if possible, negative extraction controls 

(extracts from DNA-free water or buffer taken through the entire DNA extraction process alongside tick specimens). 

To limit the risk of contaminating field-collected samples with amplicons from previously processed samples, nucleic 

acid extraction, PCR reaction set-up, and any work with amplicons (e.g., setting up sequencing reactions) should be 

conducted in separate work areas, ideally with dedicated pipets.
19

Important considerations for Borrelia testing

The Borrelia genus comprises two major clades: a relapsing fever (RF) group and a distinct Borrelia burgdorferi sensu 

lato (s.l.) complex. Phylogenetic analyses place B. miyamotoi within the RF group. To date, B. miyamotoi is the only 

RF group Borrelia associated with I. pacificus (Barbour 2014). Borrelia miyamotoi is known to cause human disease in 

the United States (Krause et al. 2015).

There are at least 9 recognized (named) species within the B. burgdorferi s.l. complex occurring in the United States

(Schotthoefer and Frost 2015, Pritt et al. 2016, Margos et al. 2017a). At least 5 of those have been detected in fieldcollected I. pacificus: B. burgdorferi s.s., B. americana, B. bissettiae, B. californiensis, and B. lanei (Margos et al. 2017a, 

Margos et al. 2016, Fedorova et al. 2014, Rudenko et al. 2009). 

Notes on nomenclature:

• Publications may use “Borrelia burgdorferi” to refer to B. burgdorferi s.s. and/or B. burgdorferi s.l. If you 

are using a published assay that is reported to be B. burgdorferi-specific, it is important to determine 

whether it is truly specific to B. burgdorferi s.s., which causes human disease, or to B. burgdorferi s.l., 

which includes a number of species that are not known to cause human disease.

• Some have proposed dividing the genus Borrelia into two genera, with Borrelia continuing to encompass 

species in the RF group, and a new genus, Borreliella, to encompass species previously included in the 

Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. group (Adeolu and Gupta 2014). Investigators continue to debate this proposal 

(Barbour et al. 2017, Margos et al. 2017b). Those querying databases to identify specimens to species

should be aware, however, that Borreliella was included in a validation list (no. 163: list of new names 

and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published (Oren and Garrity 2015)), and 

that B. burgdorferi s.l. species in the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) nucleotide databases may 

be identified as Borrelia species or Borreliella species.

To demonstrate that an assay is B. miyamotoi specific, it should be tested against at least one B. burgdorferi s.l.

species (e.g., B. burgdorferi s.s.). It should also be shown not to detect other RF Borrelia species.

To demonstrate that an assay is B. burgdorferi s.s. specific, it should be tested against a panel including non-target B. 

burgdorferi s.l. species, ideally including B. americana, B. bissettiae, B. californiensis, and B. lanei.

There are a number of published assays for amplifying and sequencing Borrelia targets to identify Borrelia to species. 

Assays including nested PCR protocols are useful for amplifying the often scarce pathogen DNA in ticks. See Wang et 

al. (2014) for descriptions of and references to several approaches for molecular typing of B. burgdorferi s.l. Note 

that protocols for PCR-based RFLP can also be used to generate amplicons for sequencing. 

Important considerations for Anaplasma phagocytophilum testing

To demonstrate that an assay is specific to A. phagocytophilum, at a minimum, sequence analysis using BLAST or a 

similar database search tool should be used to confirm that primer and probe target sites are not conserved across 

Anaplasmataceae or Rickettsiaceae, as I. pacificus can harbor at least one rickettsial endosymbiont , Candidatus 

Cryptoplasma californiense (a novel Anaplasmataceae species) (Eshoo et al. 2015, Rounds et al. 2012), and Ehrlichia 

chaffeensis, though detection of E. chaffeensis in I. pacificus has been rare and may be highly focal (Lane et al. 2004). 

Assays should be tested for specificity against Rickettsia and Ehrlichia spp. as well as against other Anaplasma spp., 

ideally including A. ovis, A. bovis and A. marginale.

Molecular assays designed to detect A. phagocytophilum in I. pacificus may not differentiate A. phagocytophilum

strains known to cause disease in humans from strains not known to infect humans (Rejmanek et al. 2012). You 
20

should interpret PCR-based A. phagocytophilum testing results with this in mind. It is possible to differentiate strains 

by amplifying and sequencing select targets including the ank or groESL genes (Rejmanek et al. 2012). This is advisable 

when reporting an A. phagocytophilum-positive tick from a county that has never reported a human anaplasmosis 

case and/or has never reported an A. phagoctophilum-positive tick.

Samples CDC will Test for Pathogens

In support of tick surveillance efforts, CDC has limited resources available to support pathogen detection in ticks 

submitted by public health partners. Samples will not be accepted for testing from the general public. We offer 

tick testing for the following pathogens: Borrelia burgdorferi s.s., Borrelia mayonii, Borrelia miyamotoi, 

Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia microti. By submitting ticks to CDC for testing, submitters agree to 

allow CDC to retain the DNA extract for our reference collection. Limited resources typically preclude us from 

returning aliquots from ticks for which we perform DNA extractions. For submitters wishing to retain DNA from 

their ticks, we ask that you extract the DNA and submit an aliquot to CDC for pathogen testing. Prior to 

submitting ticks or DNA for testing, public health entities should contact CDC at: ticksurveillance@cdc.gov. 

In Counties Where the Pathogen of Interest has Never Been 

Identified

In counties where Borrelia burgdorferi s.s., Borrelia miyamotoi, or Anaplasma phagocytophilum have not been 

identified previously in ticks or hosts, CDC will test the following samples submitted by collaborating public health 

partners for presence of pathogens: 

• Host-seeking nymphs (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps); pathogen prevalence 

will be estimated if sample size is >25 individuals per site per county. 

• Host-seeking females (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps); pathogen prevalence 

will be estimated if sample size is >25 individuals per site per county.

• Ticks collected from hosts; ticks will be tested for pathogen presence only, but prevalence will not be 

estimated. 

In Counties Where the Pathogen of Interest has Been Identified 

In counties where Borrelia burgdorferi s.s., Borrelia mayonii, Borrelia miyamotoi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum or 

Babesia microti has been identified previously in ticks or hosts, CDC will test the following samples submitted by 

collaborating public health partners for prevalence of pathogens: 

• Host-seeking nymphs (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps) where >25 individuals 

are submitted per site per county.

• Host-seeking females (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps) where >25 individuals 

are submitted per site per county. 

• In areas where drag sampling/flagging was conducted to assess DIN or DIF, we will test ticks from low 

density sites, even if the total sample size is less than 25 individuals. Collection of additional ticks from 

area surrounding the density sampling site should be attempted, but in some cases, collection of 25 

individuals will not be feasible.
21

Limitations to Tick Surveillance

• Presence of I. pacificus within a county may be a poor indicator of human disease risk. For example, I. 

scapularis has been reported in many counties in the southeastern United States, but Borrelia

burgdorferi s.s. infection rates are typically low and nymphs do not commonly ascend vegetation when 

host-seeking, thus limiting contact between people and nymphs.

• Although county estimates of the density of host-seeking infected nymphs is a better predictor of

human disease occurrence compared with simple measures of tick presence or density of host-seeking 

nymphs, DIN and DON do not always accurately estimate risk of tick-borne diseases in humans. This 

may relate to spatial heterogeneity in where ticks are found and where people spend time outdoors, 

human behaviors that may increase or decrease risk of exposure to infected ticks, or other factors.

References

Adeolu, M., and R. S. Gupta. 2014. A phylogenomic and molecular marker based proposal for the division of the genus

Borrelia into two genera: the emended genus Borrelia containing only the members of the relapsing fever Borrelia, 

and the genus Borreliella gen. nov. containing the members of the Lyme disease Borrelia (Borrelia burgdorferi 

sensu lato complex). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105: 1049-1072.

Barbour, A. G. 2014. Phylogeny of a relapsing fever Borrelia species transmitted by the hard tick Ixodes scapularis. Infect. 

Genet. Evol. 27: 551-558.

Barbour, A. G., M. Adeolu, and R. S. Gupta. 2017. Division of the genus Borrelia into two genera (corresponding to Lyme 

disease and relapsing fever groups) reflects their genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness and will lead to a better 

understanding of these two groups of microbes. . Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 67: 2058-2067.

Bouchard, C., P. A. Leighton, G. Beauchamp, S. Nguon, L. Trudel, F. Milord, L. R. Lindsay, D. Belanger, and N. H. Ogden. 

2013. Harvested white-tailed deer as sentinel hosts for early establishing Ixodes scapularis populations and risk 

from vector-borne zoonoses in southeastern Canada. J. Med. Entomol. 50: 384-393.

Carey, A. B., W. L. Krinsky, and A. J. Main. 1980. Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) and associated ixodid ticks in Southcentral Connecticut, USA. J. Med. Entomol. 17: 89-99.

Carroll, J. F., and E. T. Schmidtmann. 1992. Tick sweep: modification of the tick drag-flag method for sampling nymphs of 

the deer tick (Acari: Ixodidae). J. Med. Entomol. 29: 352-355.

Daniels, T. J., and D. Fish. 1990. Spatial distribution and dispersal of unfed larval Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) in 

southern New York. Environ. Entomol. 19: 1029-1033.

Dennis, D. T., T. S. Nekomoto, J. C. Victor, W. S. Paul, and J. Piesman. 1998. Reported distribution of Ixodes scapularis and

Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 35: 629-638.

Diuk-Wasser, M. A., A. G. Gatewood, M. R. Cortinas, S. Yaremych-Hamer, J. Tsao, U. Kitron, G. Hickling, J. S. Brownstein, 

E. D. Walker, J. Piesman, and D. Fish. 2006. Spatiotemporal patterns of host-seeking Ixodes scapularis nymphs 

(Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 43: 166-176.

Diuk-Wasser, M. A., G. Vourc'h, P. Cislo, A. G. Hoen, F. Melton, S. Hamer, M. Rowland, R. Cortinas, G. J. Hickling, J. I. Tsao, 

A. G. Barbour, U. Kitron, J. Piesman, and D. Fish. 2010. Field and climate-based model for predicting the density of 

host-seeking nymphal Ixodes scapularis, an important vector of tick-borne disease agents in the eastern United 

States. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19: 504-514.

Diuk-Wasser, M. A., A. G. Hoen, P. Cislo, R. Brinkerhoff, S. A. Hamer, M. Rowland, R. Cortinas, G. Vourc'h, F. Melton, G. J. 

Hickling, J. I. Tsao, J. Bunikis, A. G. Barbour, U. Kitron, J. Piesman, and D. Fish. 2012. Human risk of infection with 

Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease agent, in eastern United States. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 86: 320-327.

Dobson, A. D. 2013. Ticks in the wrong boxes: assessing error in blanket-drag studies due to occasional sampling. Parasit. 

Vectors 6: 344.

Eisen, R.J., L. Eisen, and R.S. Lane. 2006. Predicting density of Ixodes pacificus nymphs in dense woodland in Mendocino 

County, California, based on geographic information systems and remote sensing versus field-derived data. A. J. 

Trop. Med. Hyg. 74: 632-640.

Eisen, R.J., R.S. Lane, C.L. Fritz, and L. Eisen. 2006. Spatial patterns of Lyme disease risk in California based on disease 

incidence and modeling of vector-tick exposure. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 75: 669-676.
22

Eisen, R.J., L. Eisen, Y.A. Girard, N. Fedorova, J. Mun, B. Slikas, S. Leonhard, U. Kitron, and R.S. Lane. 2010. A spatiallyexplicit model of acarological risk of exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi-infected Ixodes pacificus nymphs in 

northwestern California based on woodland type, temperature, and water vapor. Ticks and Tick-Borne Dis. 1: 35-

43.

Eisen, L., and R. J. Eisen. 2016. Critical evaluation of the linkage between tick-based risk measures and the occurrence of 

Lyme disease cases. J. Med. Entomol. 53: 1050-1062.

Eisen, R. J., L. Eisen, and C. B. Beard. 2016. County-scale distribution of Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: 

Ixodidae) in the Continental United States. J. Med. Entomol. 53: 349-386.

Eshoo, M. W., H. E. Carolan, C. Massire, D. M. Chou, C. D. Crowder, M. A. Rounds, C. A. Phillipson, S. E. Schutzer, D. J. 

Ecker. 2015. Survey of Ixodes pacificus ticks in California reveals a diversity of microorganisms and a novel and 

widespread Anaplasmataceae species. PLos One 10(9): e0135828..

Falco, R. C., and D. Fish. 1992. A comparison of methods for sampling the deer tick, Ixodes dammini, in a Lyme disease 

endemic area. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 14: 165-173.

Fedorova, N., J. E. Kleinjan, D. James, L. T. Hui, H. Peeters, R. S. Lane. 2014. Remarkable diversity of tick or mammalianassociated Borreliae in the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area, California. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 5: 951-961.

French, J. B., Jr., W. L. Schell, J. J. Kazmierczak, and J. P. Davis. 1992. Changes in population density and distribution of

Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) in Wisconsin during the 1980s. J. Med. Entomol. 29: 723-728.

Furman, D. P. and E. C. Loomis. 1984. The ticks of California. Bull. Cal. Insect Survey 25, University of California Press, 

239p.

Ginsberg, H. S., and C. P. Ewing. 1989. Comparison of flagging, walking, trapping, and collecting from hosts as sampling 

methods for northern deer ticks, Ixodes dammini, and lone-star ticks, Amblyomma americanum (Acari:Ixodidae). 

Exp. Appl. Acarol. 7: 313-322.

Graham, C. B., S. E. Maes, A. Hojgaard, A. C. Fleshman, S. W. Sheldon, and R. J. Eisen. 2018. A molecular algorithm to 

detect and differentiate human pathogens infecting Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae). Ticks 

Tick Borne Dis. 9: 390-403.

Johnson, T. L., C. B. Graham, K. A. Boegler, C. C. Cherry, S. E. Maes, M. A. Pilgard, A. Hojgaard, D. E. Buttke, and R. J. 

Eisen. 2017. Prevalence and diversity of tick-borne pathogens in nymphal Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in 

eastern national parks. J. Med. Entomol. 54: 742-751.

Johnson, T. L., K. A. Boegler, R. J. Clark, M. J. Delorey, J. K. H. Bjork, F. M. Dorr, E. K. Schiffman, D. F. Neitzel, A. J. 

Monaghan, and R. J. Eisen. 2018a. An acarological risk model predicting the density and ditribution of hostseeking Ixodes scapularis nymphs in Minnesota. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 98: 1671-1682.

Johnson, T. L., C. B. Graham, S. E. Maes, A. Hojgaard, A. Fleshman, K. A. Boegler, M. J. Delory, K. S. Slater, S. E. Karpathy, 

J. K. Bjork, D. F. Neitzel, E. K. Schiffman, and R. J. Eisen. 2018b. Prevalence and distribution of seven human 

pathogens in host-seeking Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs in Minnesota, USA. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.

Keesing, F., D. J. McHenry, M. Hersh, M. Tibbetts, J. L. Brunner, M. Killilea, K. LoGiudice, K. A. Schmidt, and R. S. Ostfeld. 

2014. Prevalence of human-active and variant 1 strains of the tick-borne pathogen Anaplasma phagocytophilum in 

hosts and forests of eastern North America. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 91: 302-309.

Keirans, J.E. and C.M. Clifford. 1978. The genus Ixodes in the United States: A scanning electron microscope study and key 

to the adults. J. Med. Entomol. Suppl. 2: 1-149.

Krause, P. J., D. Fish, S. Narasimhan, and A. G. Barbour. 2015. Borrelia miyamotoi infection in nature and in humans. Clin. 

Microbiol. Infect. 21: 631-639.

Kurtti, T. J., R. F. Felsheim, N. Y. Burkhardt, J. D. Oliver, C. C. Heu, and U. G. Munderloh. 2015. Rickettsia buchneri sp. nov., 

a rickettsial endosymbiont of the blacklegged tick Ixodes scapularis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65: 965-970.

Lane, R.S. 1996. Risk of human exposure to vector ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in a heavily used recreational area in northern 

California. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 55: 165-173.

Lane, R.S., D. B. Steinlein, and J. Mun. 2004. Human behaviors elevating exposure to Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) 

nymphs and their associated bacterial zoonotic agents in a hardwood forest. J. Med. Entomol. 41: 239-248.

Lee, X., K. Hardy, D. H. Johnson, and S. M. Paskewitz. 2013. Hunter-killed deer surveillance to assess changes in the 

prevalence and distribution of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in Wisconsin. J. Med. Entomol. 50: 632-639.

MacDonald, A.J. and C.J. Briggs. 2016. Truncated seasonal activity patterns of the western blacklegged tick (Ixodes 

pacificus) in cetnral and southern California. Ticks and Tick-Borne Dis. 7: 234-242.

Margos, G., R. S. Lane, N. Fedorova, J. Koloczek, J. Piesman, A. Hojgaard, A. Sing, V. Fingerle. 2016. Borrelia bissettiae sp. 

nov. and Borrelia californiensis sp. nov. prevail in diverse enzootic transmission cycles. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 

66: 1447-1452. 

Margos, G., N. Fedorova, J. E. Kleinjan, C. Hartberger, T. G. Schwan, A. Sing, and V. Fingerle. 2017a. Borrelia lanei sp. nov. 

extends the diversity of Borrelia species in California. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 67: 3872-3876.
23

Margos, G., D. Marosevic, S. Cutler, M. Derdakova, M. Diuk-Wasser, S. Emler, D. Fish, J. Gray, K. P. Hunfeldt, B. Jaulhac, 

O. Kahl, S. Kovalev, P. Kraiczy, R. S. Lane, R. Lienhard, P. E. Lindgren, N. Ogden, K. Ornstein, T. Rupprecht, I. 

Schwartz, A. Sing, R. K. Straubinger, F. Strle, M. Voordouw, A. Rizzoli, B. Stevenson, and V. Fingerle. 2017b. There 

is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 67: 1081-1084.

Mather, T. N., M. C. Nicholson, E. F. Donnelly, and B. T. Matyas. 1996. Entomologic index for human risk of Lyme disease. 

Am. J. Epidemiol. 144: 1066-1069.

Oren, A., and G. M. Garrity. 2015. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations, and new taxonomic 

opinions have appeared in volume 65, part 3, of the IJSEM. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65: 1701-1702.

Padgett, K.A. and R.S. Lane. 2001. Life cycle of Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae): timing of developmental processes under 

field and laboratory conditions. J. Med. Entomol. 38: 684-693.

Pepin, K. M., R. J. Eisen, P. S. Mead, J. Piesman, D. Fish, A. G. Hoen, A. G. Barbour, S. Hamer, and M. A. Diuk-Wasser. 

2012. Geographic variation in the relationship between human Lyme disease incidence and density of infected 

host-seeking Ixodes scapularis nymphs in the Eastern United States. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 86: 1062-1071.

Pritt, B. S., M. E. J. Allerdice, L. M. Sloan, C. D. Paddock, U. G. Munderloh, Y. Rikihisa, T. Tajima, S. M. Paskewitz, D. F. 

Neitzel, D. K. Hoang Johnson, E. Schiffman, J. P. Davis, C. S. Goldsmith, C. M. Nelson, and S. E. Karpathy. 2017.

Proposal to reclassify Ehrlichia muris as Ehrlichia muris subsp. muris subsp. nov. and description of Ehrlichia muris 

subsp. eauclairensis subsp. nov., a newly recognized tick-borne pathogen of humans. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 

67: 2121-2126.

Pritt, B. S., L. B. Respicio-Kingry, L. M. Sloan, M. E. Schriefer, A. J. Replogle, J. Bjork, G. Liu, L. C. Kingry, P. S. Mead, D. F. 

Neitzel, E. Schiffman, D. K. Hoang Johnson, J. P. Davis, S. M. Paskewitz, D. Boxrud, A. Deedon, X. Lee, T. K. Miller, 

M. A. Feist, C. R. Steward, E. S. Theel, R. Patel, C. L. Irish, and J. M. Petersen. 2016. Borrelia mayonii sp. nov., a 

member of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, detected in patients and ticks in the upper midwestern 

United States. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66: 4878-4880.

Raizman, E. A., J. D. Holland, and J. T. Shukle. 2013. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) as a potential sentinel for 

human Lyme disease in Indiana. Zoonoses Publ. Hlth. 60: 227-233.

Rejmanek, D., G. Bradburd, and J. Foley. 2011. Molecular characterization reveals distince genospecies of Anaplasma 

phagocytophilum from diverse North American hots. J. Med. Microbiol. 61: 2014-212.

Rounds, M. A., C. D. Crowder, H. E. Matthews, C. A. Philipson, G. A. Scoles, D. J. Ecker, S. E. Schutzer, M. W. Eshoo. 2012.

Identification of Endosymbionts in Ticks by broad-range polymerase chain reaction and electrospray ionization 

mass spectrometry. J. Med. Entomol. 49: 843-850.

Rudenko, N., M. Golovchenko, T. Lin, L. Gao, L. Grubhoffer, J.H. Oliver. 2009. Delineation of a new species of the Borrelia

burgdorferi sensu lato complex, Borrelia americana sp. nov. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 3875-3880.

Schotthoefer, A. M., and H. M. Frost. 2015. Ecology and epidemiology of Lyme borreliosis. Clin. Lab. Med. 35: 723-743.

Schulze, T. L., G. S. Bowen, M. F. Lakat, W. E. Parkin, and J. K. Shisler. 1986. Seasonal abundance and hosts of Ixodes 

dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) and other ixodid ticks from an endemic Lyme disease focus in New Jersey, USA. J. Med. 

Entomol. 23: 105-109.

Stafford, K. C., 3rd, M. L. Cartter, L. A. Magnarelli, S. H. Ertel, and P. A. Mshar. 1998. Temporal correlations between tick 

abundance and prevalence of ticks infected with Borrelia burgdorferi and increasing incidence of Lyme disease. J. 

Clin. Microbiol. 36: 1240-1244.

Stromdahl, E. Y., and G. J. Hickling. 2012. Beyond Lyme: aetiology of tick-borne human diseases with emphasis on the 

south-eastern United States. Zoonoses Publ. Hlth. 59 Suppl 2: 48-64.

Tälleklint-Eisen, L. and R.S. Lane. 2000. Efficiency of drag sampling for estimating population sizes of Ixodes pacificus (Acari: 

Ixodidae) nymphs in leaf litter. J. Med. Entomol. 37: 484-487.

Wang, G., D. Liveris, P. Mukherjee, S. Jungnick, G. Margos, and I. Schwartz. 2014. Molecular typing of Borrelia burgdorferi. 

Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. 34: 12C 15 11-31.

Wilson, J. G., D. R. Kinzer, J. R. Sauer, and J. A. Hair. 1972. Chemo-attraction in the lone star tick (Acarina: Ixodidae). I. 

Response of different developmental stages to carbon dioxide administered via traps. J. Med. Entomol. 9: 245-252.

Wright, C.L., W.L. Hynes, B.T. White, M.N. Marshall, H.D. Gaff, and D.T. Gauthier. 2015. Single-tube real-time PCR assay 

for differentiation of Ixodes affinis and Ixodes scapularis. Ticks and Tick-Borne Dis. 5: 10.1016.
24

Supplemental Material

Avoiding Tick Bites

The best way to prevent tick-borne diseases is to prevent tick bites. To do so, CDC recommends: 

While You Are Outdoors

• Know where to expect I. pacificus ticks. Adult ticks are found on the tips of grasses and shrubs, often along 

trails. Nymphs are found in leaf litter and on rocks, logs, tree trunks or fallen branches under trees in oak 

woodlands or other shaded natural areas. Thus, spending time, hiking, camping, or hunting could bring you in 

contact with ticks seeking a host. Some people may find ticks in their own yard or neighborhood, and get 

bites while gardening or doing yard work.

• Use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered tick repellents containing DEET, picaridin, IR3535, Oil 

of Lemon Eucalyptus (OLE), para-menthane-diol (PMD), or 2-undecanone. EPA’s helpful search tool can help 

you find the product that best suits your needs. Always follow product instructions. 

o Do not use repellent on babies younger than 2 months old.

o Do not use products containing OLE or PMD on children under 3 years old.

• Treat clothing and gear with products containing 0.5% permethrin. Permethrin can be used to treat boots, 

clothing and camping gear and remain protective through several washings.

• Minimize the risk of contact with I. pacificus ticks

o Avoid wooded and brushy areas with high grass and leaf litter when possible. 

o Walk in the center of trails.

• Check your clothing for crawling ticks frequently and remove them before they can attach and blood-feed. 

After You Come Indoors

• Check your clothing for ticks. Ticks may be carried into the house on your clothing. Any ticks that are 

found should be removed. Tumble dry clothes in a dryer on high heat for 10 minutes to kill ticks on dry 

clothing after you come indoors. If the clothes are damp, additional time may be needed. If the clothes 

require washing first, hot water is recommended. Cold and medium temperature water will not kill ticks.

• Shower soon after being outdoors. Showering within two hours of coming indoors has been shown to 

reduce your risk of getting Lyme disease and may be effective in reducing the risk of other tick-borne 

diseases. Showering ensures that you remove (and then presumably change into clean) clothing and also 

provides an opportunity to spot ticks that were crawling or attached under the clothing. Showering may 

help wash off unattached ticks and it is a good opportunity to do your daily tick check.
25

• Even if not showering, check your body for ticks after being outdoors. Conduct a full body check upon 

return from potentially tick-infested areas, including your own backyard. Use a hand-held or full-length 

mirror to view all parts of your body. Tick can attach anywhere on the body, but especially check these parts 

of your body and your child’s body for ticks:

o Under the arms

o In and around the ears

o Inside belly button

o Back of the knees

o In and around the hair

o Between the legs

o Around the waist

• Examine gear and pets. Ticks can be transported into the home on clothing and pets, then attach to a person 

later, so carefully examine pets, coats, and daypacks.

How to Remove a Tick

• Use fine-tipped tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin’s surface as possible.

• Pull upward with steady, even pressure. Don’t twist or jerk the tick; this can cause the mouth-parts to break 

off and remain in the skin. If this happens, remove the mouth-parts with tweezers. If you are unable to 

remove the mouth-parts easily with clean tweezers, leave it alone and let the skin heal.

• After removing the tick, thoroughly clean the bite area and your hands with rubbing alcohol or soap and 

water.

• Never crush a tick with your fingers. Dispose of a live tick by putting it in alcohol, placing it in a sealed 

bag/container, wrapping it tightly in tape, or flushing it down the sink or toilet.
26

• If you develop a rash or fever within several weeks of removing a tick, see your doctor. Be sure to tell the 

doctor about your recent tick bite, when the bite occurred, and where you most likely acquired the tick.

How to Make Tick Drags

Blanket-Style Drag

Supplies

1-1/2 yd. rubberized cotton flannel sheeting, 45” wide

2 - zinc-plated screw eyes, size #12

3 - zinc-plated cut washers, 2” outer diameter, 3/4” inner diameter 

1 - length of braided polyester clothesline, 3/16” thick

1 - dowel, 3/4” in diameter, 48” long

Heavy-duty thread 

Heavy-duty sewing machine 

20 small lead sinkers, used for weighting fishing lines, 1⁄4 oz. size

Sewing instructions

For each flag:

Step 1: Preparing the materials

From the rubberized cotton flannel material, cut:

a. One (1) – 39.5” x 36” rectangle for the main panel of the tick drag. 

b. One (1) – 39.5” x 4” strip for the pocket that will hold the washers.

Step 2: Sewing the loop for the dowel

a. Laying the main panel flat so that it measures 39.5” from left to right, fold the top of the panel down 

approximately 3” toward the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. (Diagram A)

b. Sew along the bottom edge of the fabric, leaving the two sides open to form a “loop” for the dowel. 

(Diagram B)
27

Step 3 (flat drag): Adding the weights

a. Flip the panel over so that the seam from Step 2 is facing down. The panel should still be situated so that 

the loop is across the top of the panel.

b. Next, pin or clip the 39.5” x 4” rectangle onto the bottom of the panel so that the long edges align. Sew 

the two pieces together along the bottom edge, using a generous seam allowance. (Diagram C)

c. Flip the panel again so that the seam from Step 2 is again facing up. Turn the 39.5” x 4” strip from Step 

3b to the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. (Diagram D)

d. Following the diagram, sew the strip in place, adding the three washers as you work. (Diagram E)

Step 4: Completing the drag

a. Affix one screw eye to each end of the dowel, and thread the dowel through the dowel loop from Step 

2.

b. Measure and cut a length of braided cord, and knot each end through the screw eyes to make the drag 

handle. The length of cord should be long enough for the front of the drag to reach the ground as the 

collector pulls it along the vegetation.
28

Sewing diagrams
29

Modified Drag with “Fingers”

Supplies

1-1/2 yd. rubberized cotton flannel sheeting, 36” wide

2 - zinc-plated screw eyes, size #12

3 - zinc-plated cut washers, 2” outer diameter, 3/4” inner diameter 

1 - length of braided polyester clothesline, 3/16” thick

1 - dowel, 3/4” in diameter, 48” long

20 - small lead sinkers, 1⁄4 oz. weight

Heavy-duty thread 

Heavy-duty sewing machine 

Sewing instructions

From the rubberized cotton flannel material, cut:

a. One (1) – 39.5” x 23” rectangle for the main panel of the tick drag. 

b. Ten (10) – 23” x 2” strips for the fingers that will hold the lead weights.

Step 2: Sewing the loop for the dowel

a. Laying the main panel flat so that it measures 39.5” from left to right, fold the top of the panel down 

approximately 3” toward the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. (Diagram A)

b. Sew along the bottom edge of the fabric, leaving the two sides open to form a “loop” for the dowel. 

(Diagram B)

Step 3 (finger drag): Adding the weights

a. Pin or clip the ten 23” x 2” fabric strips at even distances across the bottom of the rectangular piece so 

that each one overlaps the larger piece by approximately 1”. 

b. Sew a double line of stitches across all ten fingers, securing them to the back of the drag. (Diagram C)

c. Fold approximately 2” of the bottom of each strip over and sew along two edges to form a pocket with 

an open side. (Diagram D)

d. Insert two of the lead sinkers into this pocket and continue sewing the third side of the pocket to close. 

Repeat for all ten fingers. (Diagram D)

Step 4: Completing the drag

a. Affix one screw eye to each end of the dowel, and thread the dowel through the dowel loop from Step 

2.

b. Measure and cut a length of braided cord, and knot each end through the screw eyes to make the drag 

handle. The length of cord should be long enough for the front of the drag to reach the ground as the 

collector pulls it along the vegetation.
30

Sewing diagrams