Department of Defense Recommendations
on Military Research Requirements
in Pest Management for FY 2004
Developed by
The Armed Forces Pest Management Board
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment)
Forest Glen Section, Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Washington, DC 20307-5001
DoD Recommendations on Military Research Requirements in Pest
Management for FY 2004
Introduction
The overall goals of the Department of Defense (DoD) disease vector control and pest management program are
to: (1) support readiness by preventing vector borne diseases in U.S. forces and (2) prevent losses to DoD facilities,
rations, and materiel while reducing pesticide risks and enhancing the environmental acceptability of pest
management actions. Research is needed to answer existing requirements in each of these primary program areas.
This document describes DoD recommendations on military research requirements in pest management. These are
intended to meet the requirements set forth in the Master Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) between the DoD
and the USDA* and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DoD and the USDA, Agricultural
Research Service (ARS)**. Additionally, these requirements serve to inform federal, state, academic, and other
research entities of the research needs of the DoD. Requirement titles are listed by overall priority on page 2, by
research organization on pages 3 and 4, and by pest management subject area on page 5. The requirements are
described in the body of the document.
The criteria considered by the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB) in determining the priority for
each requirement included: (1) the potential of the proposed research to reduce combat disease casualties; (2) the
benefits of the proposed research on health or morale of military personnel and their dependents; (3) improvements in
economic or logistic impact on military operations as a result of the proposed research; (4) the geographic extent of
the problem addressed by the research; and (5) the length of time and amount of resources required to meet the
requirement (nearness to completion).
For deployment settings, DoD needs environmentally friendly, innovative vector control techniques that reduce or
eliminate exposure of U.S. forces and civilians to traditional pesticides and other chemicals. DoD’s pest management
and disease vector control needs require an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that includes multiple,
environmentally sustainable techniques. Environmental protection (point source reduction, pollution prevention, and
compliance), pesticide risk reduction, long-range sustainability, bioweapons and bioterrorism contingency and
containment are important considerations in meeting DoD’s pest management research needs. Known weaponized
zoonotic biological warfare (BW) diseases include pathogens that may be transmitted by many of the arthropod and
vertebrate pests targeted under the proposed research studies (e.g., ticks, mosquitoes and biting flies, rodents, etc).
Rodents, birds, cats, dogs, vertebrate pests, and non-pest wildlife species may also serve as reservoirs and/or vectors
for various BW pathogens and emerging zoonotic diseases that may be of potential medical importance to military
personnel at home and abroad. Proposed IPM strategies must be scientifically developed and field demonstrated.
These validated IPM approaches are needed to fully meet DoD disease vector control and pest management
requirements. If pesticides are included in these IPM approaches, they need to be non-cholinesterase inhibitors.
This document is available from the AFPMB, which can be reached at (301) 295-7476, as well as from the
AFPMB's web page. It is updated on an annual basis. The current Fiscal Year version of the Military Research
Requirements in Pest Management is also available on the AFPMB’s web page <http://www.afpmb.org>.
* MMOU between the DoD and the USDA Relative to Cooperation with Respect to Food, Agriculture, Pest
Management, Nutrition, and Other Research of Mutual Interest. Dated August 18, 1997.
** MOU between the U.S. Army Medical Command; the Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General;
the Department of the Navy, Office of the Surgeon General; the Armed Forces Pest Management Board; and the
USDA, ARS, on Biological and Toxicological Testing of Pesticides. Dated April 29, 1996.
1
DOD REQUIREMENTS BY PRIORITY
Title
Repellents and Personal Protection Items
Repellent and Attractant Discovery and Development
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Pest Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control
Bird and Other Vertebrate Control in Airdromes
Pesticide Resistance
Pest Control in Munitions
Termite Control
Urban Insect Control
Aerial Pesticide Application
Brown Tree Snake Quarantine and Control
Insect Detection in Stored Products
Food Fumigants
Terrestrial Vegetation Management
Protective Packaging for Stored Products
Fire Ant Control
Wood Preservation
Pesticide Treatments for Stored Product Pest Control
Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates
Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
Turfgrass Pest Management
Forest Insect and Disease Control
Wood Destroying Beetle Control
Basic Biological Investigations of Stored Product Pests
Fabric Protection
Aquatic Weed Control
Fresh Subsistence Protection
Priority
1 of 30
2 of 30
3 of 30
4 of 30
5 of 30
6 of 30
7 of 30
8 of 30
9 of 30
10 of 30
11 of 30
12 of 30
13 of 30
14 of 30
15 of 30
16 of 30
17 of 30
18 of 30
19 of 30
20 of 30
21 of 30
22 of 30
23 of 30
24 of 30
25 of 30
26 of 30
27 of 30
28 of 30
29 of 30
30 of 30
2
Page
7
9
11
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE USDA
SERVICE/Title
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (ARS)
Repellents and Personal Protection Items
Repellent and Attractant Discovery and Development
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Pest Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Pesticide Resistance
Termite Control*
Urban Insect Control
Aerial Pesticide Application*
Insect Detection in Stored Products
Food Fumigants
Terrestrial Vegetation Management
Protective Packaging for Stored Products
Fire Ant Control
Wood Preservation
Pesticide Treatments for Stored Product Pest Control
Turfgrass Pest Management
Basic Biological Investigations of Stored Product Pests
Fabric Protection
Aquatic Weed Control
Fresh Subsistence Protection
Priority
Page
1 of 30
2 of 30
3 of 30
4 of 30
5 of 16
7 of 30
9 of 30
11 of 30
12 of 30
13 of 30
15 of 30
16 of 30
17 of 30
18 of 30
19 of 30
20 of 30
21 of 30
24 of 30
27 of 30
28 of 30
29 of 30
30 of 30
7
9
11
15
17
21
25
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
43
47
48
49
50
FOREST SERVICE (FS)
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Termite Control*
Aerial Pesticide Application*
Wood Preservation
Forest Insect and Disease Control
Wood Destroying Beetle Control
7 of 30
11 of 30
13 of 30
20 of 30
25 of 30
26 of 30
21
28
30
38
45
46
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Bird and Other Vertebrate Control in Airdromes
Pest Control in Munitions
Brown Tree Snake Quarantine and Control
Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates
Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
6 of 30
7 of 30
8 of 30
10 of 30
14 of 30
22 of 30
23 of 30
19
21
23
26
31
40
42
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE - SHOULD CONSIDER ENTIRE LIST
*
Listed under more than one USDA Service
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE MILITARY INFECTIOUS
DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM (MIDRP)
Title
Repellents and Personal Protection Items
Repellent and Attractant Discovery and Development
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Priority
1 of 30
2 of 30
3 of 30
4 of 30
3
Page
7
9
11
15
Pesticide Resistance
Aerial Pesticide Application
9 of 30
13 of 30
25
30
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Title
Invasive Species Prevention and Control
Termite Control
Urban Insect Control
Aerial Pesticide Application
Terrestrial Vegetation Management
Forest Insect and Disease Control
Wood Destroying Beetle Control
Aquatic Weed Control
Priority
7 of 30
11 of 30
12 of 30
13 of 30
17 of 30
25 of 30
26 of 30
29 of 30
Page
21
28
29
30
34
45
46
49
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Title
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control
Pesticide Resistance
Aerial Pesticide Application
Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
Priority
3 of 30
4 of 30
6 of 30
7 of 30
9 of 30
13 of 30
23 of 30
Page
11
15
18
20
25
30
42
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES (NIAID)
Title
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control
Pesticide Resistance
Priority
3 of 30
4 of 30
6 of 30
7 of 30
9 of 30
Page
11
15
19
21
25
DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION (USGS, BRD)*
Title
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control
Terrestrial Vegetation Management
Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates
Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
Aquatic Weed Control
Priority
6 of 30
7 of 30
17 of 30
22 of 30
23 of 30
29 of 30
Page
19
21
34
40
42
49
*The Master Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior
has lapsed but is in the process of being re-drafted and staffed.
4
DOD REQUIREMENTS BY SUBJECT AREA
SUBJECT AREA/Title
REPELLENT/ATTRACTANT/PESTICIDE DEVELOPMENT
Repellents and Personal Protection Items
Repellent and Attractant Discovery and Development
Pesticide Resistance
Priority
Page
1 of 30
2 of 30
9 of 30
7
9
25
ARTHROPOD PEST MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Pest Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Urban Insect Control
Aerial Pesticide Application
Fire Ant Control
Forest Insect and Disease Control
3 of 30
4 of 30
5 of 30
7 of 30
12 of 30
13 of 30
19 of 30
25 of 30
11
17
19
21
29
30
36
45
VERTEBRATE PEST MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Bird and Other Vertebrate Control in Airdromes
Brown Tree Snake Quarantine and Control
Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates
Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
6 of 30
7 of 30
8 of 30
14 of 30
22 of 30
23 of 30
19
21
23
31
40
42
FOOD AND MATERIEL PROTECTION
Pest Control in Munitions
Termite Control
Insect Detection in Stored Products
Food Fumigants
Protective Packaging for Stored Products
Wood Preservation
Pesticide Treatments for Stored Product Pest Control
Wood Destroying Beetle Control
Basic Biological Investigations of Stored Product Pests
Fabric Protection
Fresh Subsistence Protection
10 of 30
11 of 30
15 of 30
16 of 30
18 of 30
20 of 30
21 of 30
26 of 30
27 of 30
28 of 30
30 of 30
26
28
32
33
35
38
39
46
47
48
50
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
Invasive Species Prevention and Control*
Terrestrial Vegetation Management
Turfgrass Pest Management
Aquatic Weed Control
7 of 30
17 of 30
24 of 30
29 of 30
21
34
43
49
* Listed under more than one subject area
5
Key to Format for Department of Defense Research Recommendations
on Military Research Requirements in Pest Management
1.
Component I.D. Number: Identifying prefix (“P” designates the Armed Forces Pest Management Board,
AFPMB) with a serial number for each recommendation.
2.
Title: Brief title describing the recommendation.
3.
Component Priority: The AFPMB’s rank order of the recommendations.
4.
Description and Extent of the Problem: Quantitative estimates and a description that capture the gross size or
frequency of the problem across the Department of Defense (DoD). This information is presented to justify the
priority of the recommendation and illustrate the size of the market for prospective technologies and for broad
programming and budget decisions. Information at a level for a specific project justification or selection is not
provided; however, the AFPMB has listed specific research needs for each research requirement to provide
more defined research objectives.
5.
Customers and Users of New Technology: The organizations or functions within the DoD that will employ
the new technology.
6.
Alternative Options: If new technology to solve this problem is not or cannot be developed, how will the user
deal with the problem?
7.
Point of Contact: Office designation, telephone and facsimile number in the AFPMB that can answer questions
related to these requirements. The AFPMB Research Liaison Officer will serve as the central point of contact
for DoD research recommendations on military research requirements in pest management.
8.
Specific Research Needs: This section provides a description of the specific research needs for each pest
management requirement. These specific research needs provide a more detailed description of DoD’s research
requirements and would be of interest to research laboratories, research leaders, or individual researchers
actually conducting or planning research projects to meet these requirements.
6
1. Component I.D. Number: P.1.
2. Title: Repellents and Personal Protection Items.
3. Component Priority: 1 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Personal protective measures are vital for preventing arthropod-borne
diseases such as malaria, dengue, arthropod-borne viruses, leishmaniasis, Lyme disease, scrub typhus, etc.
Repellents offer the greatest tactical flexibility of any arthropod-borne disease prevention strategy, including
prophylaxis and vaccines. Effective vaccines and prophylaxis are not available for the arthropod-borne diseases of
military importance. Repellents are often the only means of protection against vector-borne diseases in combat
environments when vector control measures are not available or possible. The DoD Repellent Development
Program involves cooperative research efforts among the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Army,
the U.S. Navy, and the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB). The program has fielded an extendedduration formulation of deet (N, N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) for skin application and four formulations of
permethrin for uniform treatment to protect troops against disease vectors and pests. Improvements in the
composition and formulation of repellents for military use could extend the duration of protection, extend efficacy to
a broader range of species, increase user acceptability, and reduce loss from abrasion and wetting,
The DoD and USDA jointly developed a “Strategic Plan for Joint USDA-DoD Research on Repellents Against
Biting Arthropods, Fiscal Years 1998-2002.” The strategies described in this plan would exploit new technologies
to discover and develop more effective repellents than those developed by traditional repellent research. The overall
goal of the strategic plan is to define the collaborative research effort needed to develop the next generation of
arthropod repellents for use by DoD. These include a topical repellent for use on skin to replace deet, a replacement
clothing repellent for permethrin, and spatial repellents for selected arthropods of military importance. The Strategic
Plan for Joint USDA-DoD Research on Repellents provides an outline for coordinated-collaborative research
between the USDA and DoD laboratories involved with repellent research to enhance research productivity and
provide a unified strategic direction to the repellent program. Copies of the plan are available from the Armed
Forces Pest Management Board, Washington, DC.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: All DoD and allied personnel who are exposed to disease vectors or
pests, such as mosquitoes, ticks and biting flies, would be customers/users of new repellents.
6. Alternatives: Alternatives include the continued use of current repellents; broad area pesticide treatments,
which are often not an option in combat situations; or no action, which exposes personnel to diseases, discomfort,
and disruption of work.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.1. Repellents and Personal Protection Items
a. Increase basic and applied research to identify and develop new candidate repellents for application to skin
or fabrics that increase protection against biting arthropods of military importance. Emphasize field-testing, as well
as laboratory research, on existing compounds (e.g., permethrin) to which vectors may develop resistance.
b. Develop data on comparative effectiveness of candidate repellents against laboratory-reared and natural
mosquito populations.
c. Begin research on the sensory physiology and behavior of mosquitoes.
d. Develop quantitative and efficient single-cell, whole-organism and electrophysiological bioassay techniques
that can be standardized for use in repellent screening. Specifically, develop an in-vitro single-cell assay for
screening large numbers of candidate repellents at the same time. Insects as compared to mammals have "specific"
receptors that may respond to only one chemical group and induce only one response, i.e., repelling behavior. This
would require the identification and isolation of protein(s) involved in repellent reception (CAIBL).
e. Explore cost-effective and streamlined mechanisms for rapid technological transfer of repellent-research
findings so DoD can promptly bring new repellents into use. Establish partnerships with academia, private
7
foundations and/or industry to explore the potential commercialization of new repellents. Consult with industry and
the AFPMB for leads (CHPPM, WRAIR).
f. Assist DoD in the development and testing of a replacement for the standard DoD skin and clothing
repellents.
g. Identify and investigate existing compounds that are candidate repellents for replacement of permethrin as an
impregnant for clothing fabric.
(1) Review literature for candidate repellent impregnants for clothing fabric (WRAIR, MFRU).
(2) Review preliminary research data conducted by the U.S. Army, WRAIR, on candidate repellent
impregnants for clothing fabric (WRAIR, MFRU).
(3) Conduct basic efficacy and longevity testing using existing bioassay systems on candidate repellent
clothing impregnants (MFRU).
h. As a long-range goal, develop repellents or combinations with greater efficiency against tabanids, stable flies
and other relatively resistant arthropods.
i. Develop better methods for field evaluation of repellents on humans without incurring disease risk, e.g.,
landing versus biting counts.
j. Assist in developing an insect repellent suitable for use on uniforms made of Nomex ®, including 1 piece
flight suits for pilots, 1 piece CVC coveralls for tankers and armored vehicle personnel, 2 piece aircrew BDUs for
helicopter personnel, and any other uniforms made from Nomex ®.
* Abbreviations
CAIBL: Chemicals Affecting Insect Behavior Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD
CHPPM: U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
MFRU: Mosquito and Fly Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology,
USDA, ARS, Gainesville, FL
WRAIR: Department of Entomology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington, DC
8
1. Component I.D. Number: P.2.
2. Title: Repellent and Attractant Discovery and Development
3. Component Priority: 2 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: DoD needs new chemicals that act as repellents or attractants to
improve the efficacy of control efforts against disease vectors (e.g., vectors of malaria, dengue, etc.) or to replace
products that no longer meet safety or environmental requirements. Research on the biochemical basis for
repellency and attraction is needed for the rational design of repellents. Because development time is typically 5-10
years at minimum and overall developmental costs typically exceed $10-15 million for a new product, joint R&D
efforts with industry are needed. Discovery and selective synthesis of candidate repellents, attractants and alarm
pheromones (for stinging insects) are vital to the research and development programs that support DoD needs.
The Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Agriculture jointly developed a “Strategic Plan for Joint
USDA-DoD Research on Repellents Against Biting Arthropods, Fiscal Years 1998-2002” (1996). The strategies in
this plan exploit new technologies to discover and develop more effective repellents than those developed by
traditional repellent research. The strategic plan identifies research tools such as combinatorial synthetic chemistry,
computer molecular modeling, and new bioassays as tools for pursuing repellent discovery and development.
Copies of the plan are available from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board, Washington, DC.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: All DoD and allied personnel who are exposed to disease vectors
and pests, such as mosquitoes, ticks and biting flies, would be customers/users of new repellents (pesticides).
6. Alternatives: Alternatives include the continued use of current repellents; broad area pesticide treatments,
which are often not an option in combat situations; or no action, which exposes personnel to diseases, discomfort,
and disruption of work.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.2. Repellent Discovery and Development
a. Expand efforts to discover new classes of chemical compounds for evaluation as potential skin and clothing
repellents against arthropod species of military importance.
b. Retain capabilities to synthesize larger quantities (approximately 2 kg) of promising candidate repellent
compounds of increased purity required for sub-chronic toxicological evaluation.
c. Improve capabilities for discovery and synthesis of candidate chemicals for repellent and insecticide testing
against vector/pest arthropods of military importance.
d. Expand new repellents screening to include characterization of promising repellents as to volatility, odor,
solvency to fabrics, paints and plastics, and other properties.
e. Investigate chemical modification of selected class III, IV and V skin repellents to improve their repellent
characteristics and eliminate unacceptable attributes through chemical synthesis to ensure potential candidate
repellents are not rejected from further evaluation.
f. Initiate synthesis of compounds that are attractive to biting and stinging arthropods of military importance,
which may be useful in baits and/or surveillance devices.
g. Expand capabilities for synthesis of candidate chemicals for repellent testing. Evaluate combinatorial
synthetic chemistry techniques currently used by the commercial drug industry in drug-development programs;
adapt and apply these techniques to a repellents discovery program (CAIBL, WRAIR).
h. Develop a computerized database of chemical structure x arthropod-repellency activity using existing data
and literature for computer modeling of candidate repellents.
9
(1) Use the WRAIR, Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Department of Chemical Information system
as a model for development of the database (WRAIR).
(2) Identify and integrate all literature and information resources that contain structure and repellent
activity data, and existing toxicological data, into the selected database (CHPPM, CAIBL, MFRU,
WRAIR).
i. Conduct computer analyses of repellent chemical structures as they relate to their respective repellent
activities.
* Abbreviations
CAIBL: Chemicals Affecting Insect Behavior Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD
CHPPM: U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
MD
MFRU: Mosquito and Fly Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology,
USDA, ARS, Gainesville, FL
WRAIR: Department of Entomology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD
10
1. Component I.D. Number: P.3.
2. Title: Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
3. Component Priority: 3 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: The military needs effective techniques to use in assessing,
preventing, and controlling mosquitoes and other biting flies during all operations. Many species of biting flies
(mosquitoes, sand flies, stable flies, black flies, etc.) are significant disease vectors or major nuisance pests. Also,
an estimated 102 species of mosquitoes and 149 other species of arthropods are resistant to one or more classes of
insecticides currently in use. The number of resistant species is increasing steadily, and the selection of existing
chemicals to use against resistant species is dwindling. Also, new surveillance methods that augment or possibly
control vector populations through removal must be explored and developed. Multiple control strategies are needed
to protect U.S. forces from vector-borne diseases transmitted by biting flies and to meet the DoD’s goal of reducing
pesticide usage and risk. Where possible, systems for control of particular vector groups should be designed with
military application as the goal.
Effective assessment of biting fly populations and precision targeting of environmentally sound control strategies for
biting flies are dependent upon knowledge of biting fly life cycles and behavior. Much basic information on the
biology and ecology of medically important biting flies is unknown. For example, the bionomics of sand flies,
vectors that transmit Leishmania, is very poorly documented. Basic studies on vision, flight range, olfactory
physiology, distribution, breeding habits, host selection, insecticide detoxification mechanisms, etc., of biting flies
will help improve surveillance methods and lead to more environmentally sound, integrated pest management
control methods.
Positive species identification is a core element of surveillance, and biosystematics is the key to positive
identification. Without a capability to identify biting flies of concern at the field level, central biosystematics
support to the DoD is crucial. Due to the ongoing loss of biosystematics capabilities in the U.S. and other countries,
including the loss of work on biting flies at the USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, work on operationally
important arthropods has diminished to a critically low level. The Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, Walter Reed
Army Institute of Research, is the only unit in the Armed Forces doing this mission. Continued biosystematic
studies on arthropods of military importance, development of computer-based identification systems and up-to-date
vector distribution maps, implementation of automatic data processing communications between USDA and DoD,
development of expert systems for identifying arthropods, studies of introduced pests, investigations of new
biochemical tools to assist in identification, and publication of articles dealing with arthropods of military
importance must be continued to ensure the survival of this important element of the national public health
infrastructure.
Computerized disease vector models for biting flies can be effective in predicting the quantitative relationships
between disease incidence and vector control under field conditions and in selecting appropriate prevention/control
methods. Basic models are now used directly in the formulation of medical and logistical plans for execution of
military operations. Further computer modeling is needed for rapid prediction of vector and disease dynamics,
proper timing of control operations, and logistical planning of amounts of drugs, repellents, and insecticides required
for deploying forces. Models are also excellent for planning measures to lessen the impact of vector-borne diseases
on combat effectiveness. These models and expert systems are primarily needed for use in contingency situations,
but have peacetime applications as well. There is a need to continually upgrade models for application to current
computer devices.
Control agents are needed that have minimal negative impact on the environment due to the spread of insecticide
resistant insect populations, increasing environmental concerns, and the increasingly prohibitive costs and lead-in
times of developing and registering new insecticides. Laboratory and field studies are needed to: improve
formulation, efficacy, residual activity and shelf life of existing biological control agents; continue development of
microbial agents for biocontrol; improve culture techniques for important arthropods; and evaluate new parasitic and
predatory organisms for control potential. Genetic studies are another research approach to discovering new
technology for more environmentally sustainable control of biting flies. Genetic studies can provide an
understanding of the mechanisms of insecticide resistance, the development of alternate approaches to control, and
the identification of species complexes of militarily important disease vectors. Potential areas of research include:
recombinant DNA research and the formulation of strategies for this technology for biting fly control, new field
11
studies to evaluate promising genetic control methodologies for selected vector species of military importance,
research studies on population genetics and speciation in natural mosquito populations of military importance, and
basic genetic studies of malaria vectors.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: DoD personnel who are exposed to biting flies would be the
customers for new surveillance and control technologies. All DoD preventive medicine and pest management
personnel and deployable units would be users of new products. Our Allied counterparts would also have access to
these products. Unified command medical and logistical planners and deployable units' J-4 staff would use
predictive models.
6. Alternatives: The primary alternative is not to improve existing products and techniques. DoD will then
continue to use older, less effective methods whose effectiveness will continue to decrease over time. The second
alternative is to take no action in surveying or controlling biting flies, and therefore to rely on personal protective
measures to include proper wear of uniform, use of repellents, chemoprophylaxis (when available), or treatment of
cases. This is unacceptable from a readiness or public health standpoint. The alternative to having models or expert
systems is for DoD to use less-effective, "best guess" techniques.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.3. Biting Fly Biology, Surveillance, and Control
a. Develop integrated pest management strategies for militarily relevant situations that integrate chemical
insecticides with other methodologies and materials (biological, mechanical, remote sensing, etc.).
b. Assess vector-borne disease threats to operational forces and provide guidance for far-forward vector
suppression.
c. Continue research and product development of candidate biopesticides/insecticides (non-cholinesterase
inhibitors), particularly those in new chemical classes, which provide better control of vector/pest arthropods,
especially mosquitoes, sand flies, and biting midges in military environments.
d. Develop and validate tools for identification, risk assessment, monitoring, surveillance and control of adult
dengue vectors.
e. Determine and pursue the most appropriate acquisition strategy for each validated component of the Dengue
Vector Control System for the control of dengue vectors, for use by preventive medicine teams.
f. Conduct field evaluation of techniques for surveillance and control of larval and adult dengue vectors in
situations representative of military deployments.
g. Develop control materials and procedures for eggs of Aedes albopictus and other container-breeding
mosquitoes in tires and other containers.
h. Develop and evaluate more effective surveillance and integrated control techniques for biting flies of
military importance.
i. Continue evaluation and development of new trapping technologies for mosquitoes and other biting flies that
can be used to improve surveillance and to “trap out” mosquito populations.
j. Develop systems supporting practical identification of vector species, to including innovative information
systems (e.g., computerized keys and catalogs), traditional systems (e.g., pictorial keys, revisions), and new
technologies (e.g., biochemical identification).
k. Develop computer-based, illustrated identification manuals and current vector distribution maps for major
vector groups and pest species of regional military importance.
l. Compare devices identified and modify, if necessary, for surveillance of adult dengue vectors and for
evaluation of virus infection.
12
m. Develop a field manual describing standard systems for identification of vectors, including computerized
resources, DNA identification and morphology.
n. Continue biosystematic studies on biting arthropods of military importance that transmit diseases to troops.
o. Develop better methods for field evaluation of vector biting fly populations without incurring disease risks,
as when conducting biting/landing counts.
p. Continue development of expert systems for use in identifying arthropods of medical importance.
q. Continue evaluation and development of attractant materials (e.g., synthesis of human skin emanations and
other attractant materials) that can be used to enhance existing technology for surveillance traps and/or control
applications.
r. Develop a computerized guide to container-breeding and day-biting mosquitoes for identification of dengue
vectors.
s. Identify malaria vector species in a variety of transmission foci in Africa (e.g., high altitude, urban, dry
season).
t. Continue studies on peptides/enzyme inhibitors that may lead to new vector/pest control strategies.
u. Conduct basic research on the systematics and bionomics of phlebotomine sand flies, including identification
of sugar meal sources, identification of larval habitats, definition of cues used in host seeking, and determination of
diel activity patterns and seasonal abundance.
v. Continue investigations of biochemical tools to assist in the identification of biting flies of military
importance.
w. Adapt existing identification tools (e.g., published keys) and create new identification tools (e.g., Lucid
software based) for posting on Internet, targeting major groups of vectors that are currently difficult to identify (e.g.,
Asian and African phlebotomines, Hyrcanus group Anopheles, Nyssorhynchus subgenus of Anopheles) and/or
specific geographic areas of military significance (e.g., Balkans, Middle East, East Asia).
x. Complete the Anopheles section of the Internet Mosquito Identification and Systematics Resource.
y. Develop field-deployable diagnostics (Rapid Detection of Arthropod-Borne Pathogen Assays) to screen for
pathogens transmitted by biting flies.
z. Refine the current model for dengue transmission and integrated control in conjunction with the present
Aedes aegypti model. Build in specific elements for military scenarios.
aa. Determine genetic variation in malaria parasites in relation to vector species.
bb. Review need for arthropod identification as a part of doctrinal preventive medicine and pest control for
dengue vectors.
cc. Conduct longitudinal and spatial studies of malaria epidemiology related to vector abundance, with the
purpose of providing the means to target vector control.
dd. Conduct laboratory and field studies on potential (including sylvatic) dengue vectors like Aedes niveus,
African Stegomyia, and Aedes (Howardina).
ee. Study vector dynamics of malaria transmission in a variety of foci, especially in Africa, with emphasis on
identification of tools (e.g., correlation of light/CO2 traps with landing rates; correlation of environmental/
entomological factors with local intensity of transmission to humans) necessary for a malaria vector control system.
ff. Test alternative techniques for DNA identification of vector species.
13
gg. Continue to support basic and applied modeling of biting fly populations and of the spread of diseases
transmitted by biting flies.
hh. Conduct studies on the formulation of microbial control agents to improve their efficacy, residual activity,
and shelf life.
ii. Continue field and laboratory studies on the development of microbial agents for biocontrol of insects of
military importance, and develop potential strategies for their use in military IPM programs.
jj. Develop methods for integrated control of New and Old World phlebotomine sand flies.
14
1. Component I.D. Number: P.4.
2. Title: Tick Biology, Surveillance, and Control.
3. Component Priority: High / 4 of 16.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Ticks are second only to mosquitoes in the number and variety of
pathogens transmitted to man and animals. Applied tick control research requires funding for development of
integrated tick control measures and evaluation under military field conditions. Lyme disease, transmitted by the
blacklegged tick, is now the most prevalent arthropod-borne disease in the U.S. and is a problem worldwide.
Ehrlichiosis, babesiosis, and other tick-borne diseases are becoming increasingly common. Ticks are also extremely
annoying, cause loss of military training time, and have a deleterious effect on troop morale. Current methods of
control include personal protection (proper clothing, repellents), broadcast area treatment with pesticides, and
habitat modification (such as controlled burning). Basic research is needed to develop control methods and
materials for use in troop bivouac areas, training areas and deployment areas, as well as military housing areas and
recreational areas at the majority of military installations. Potential areas for research also include basic studies on
tick biology, physiology, ecology, and biological control. Support for the biosystematics of ticks is needed,
including biochemical identification tools and computer-based identification systems.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: DoD personnel and dependents who are exposed to ticks are the
customers for new surveillance and control technologies. Users are military medical and engineering pest
management personnel involved in vector-borne disease control and pest management operations for DoD
installations and deployments.
6. Alternatives: Without new technology, DoD must use old techniques, some of which have decreasing
effectiveness and are environmentally unacceptable. Taking no action is unacceptable because ground troops are
occupationally exposed to tick-borne diseases when deployed overseas and during training in this country, and
dependents are exposed on many DoD installations.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.4. Tick Biology Surveillance and Control
a. Complete transfer of integrated control strategies for Ixodes species (the principal vectors of Lyme disease),
Amblyomma americanum, and other tick species in a peridomestic environment.
b. Compile and transfer technology for identification and integrated control of ticks that affect man, with
emphasis on personal protective measures (including tick avoidance), acaricides, vegetation management, pesticide
dispersal equipment, and basic behavior and biology.
c. Continue developmental efforts with industry for tools to assist preventive medicine personnel identify,
survey and control ixodid ticks.
d. Develop and evaluate an area-wide tick attractant and control device.
e. Field test attractant acaricides in an operational setting.
f. Develop field-deployable diagnostics to screen for tick-borne pathogens.
g. Study of the transmission dynamics of the most militarily relevant tick-borne infectious diseases (e.g., tickborne encephalitis), cooperating among laboratories on a single vector/pathogen system, if possible.
h. Investigate the role of Amblyomma americanum and other species in the transmission cycle of Borrelia
lonestari, the probable etiologic agent causing “Lyme-like” disease.
i. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of ticks.
15
j. Continue work on biological control agents for Ixodes and Amblyomma species.
k. Continue studies on integrated control measures, survey procedures, and bionomics of the American dog
tick, Dermacentor variabilis.
l. Continue to support basic and applied modeling of tick populations and of the spread of diseases transmitted
by ticks.
16
1. Component I.D. Number: P.5.
2. Title: Pest Fly (Mechanical Vector) Biology, Surveillance, and Control
3. Component Priority: 5 of 30
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Pest flies include filth flies and other fly species that can cause an
extreme nuisance and contribute to transmission of diseases in troops. Filth flies were the most common and
widespread entomological problem during the Gulf War. Past research has shown that house flies can effectively
transmit Shigella spp. when troops compromise hygiene practices. Recent research has demonstrated that house
flies can transmit Escherichia coli, 0157:H7 and that these bacteria proliferate on house fly mouthparts; this
proliferation increases the time, up to three days, that the flies can excrete the bacteria. Currently, most methods
available for control of medically important pest flies involve chemical pesticides. DoD needs control agents that
have minimal negative impact on the environment and that rely on methods other than conventional pesticides. This
is especially important because of the spread of insecticide-resistant insect populations, increasing environmental
concerns, and the increasingly prohibitive costs and lead-in times of developing and registering new insecticides.
There is a requirement for laboratory and field studies to discover biological control agents, to continue development
of microbial agents for biocontrol, to evaluate new parasitic and predatory organisms for control potential, to
improve trapping technology, to identify attractants and repellents, to improve baits, and to explore other innovative
surveillance and control strategies. Much basic information on the biology and ecology of pest flies is unknown.
Potential areas for research include basic studies on: vision, flight ranges, olfactory physiology, distribution,
breeding habits, and insecticide detoxification mechanisms. Continued biosystematic support is needed for pest flies
of military importance, including development of computer-based identification systems and up-to-date vector
distribution maps, implementation of automatic data processing communications between USDA and DoD,
development of expert systems for identifying arthropods, studies of introduced pests, investigations of new
biochemical tools to assist in identification, and publication of articles dealing with pest flies of military importance.
These measures should result in development of environmentally sound products for control of pest flies to protect
DoD personnel during deployments and field training from nuisance and disease threats while ensuring minimal
negative effect on the environment and exposure of troops to conventional pesticides used for control.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel and troops who are exposed to
the nuisance and disease threat from pest flies. Users would be DoD preventive medicine and pest management
personnel who would use or direct the use of the new technologies.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued use of current technology, with decreasing pest management efficacy and
efficiency and increasing risk of environmental impacts, would result in continued medical hazard, morbidity, and
nuisance for troops in the field, family members, and people who rely on the U.S. military for control of pest flies,
such as refugees during humanitarian missions.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.5. Pest Fly (Mechanical Vector) Biology, Surveillance, and Control
a. Continue development of improved integrated filth fly control strategies, using traps, attractants, and nonconventional pesticide methodologies, including application by aerial spray.
b. Continue biosystematic support for pest flies of military importance, including development of computerbased identification systems and up-to-date vector distribution maps, implementation of automatic data processing
communications between USDA and DoD, development of expert systems for identifying pest flies, studies of
introduced pests, investigations of new biochemical tools to assist in identification, and publication of articles
dealing with pest flies of military importance.
c. Conduct basic research on the biology and ecology of pest flies, including studies on vision, flight ranges,
olfactory physiology, distribution, breeding habits, insecticide detoxification mechanisms, etc. that have potential
use in surveillance or control strategies.
d. Explore innovative surveillance strategies.
17
e. Conduct laboratory and field studies to discover biological control agents; evaluate parasitic and predatory
organisms for their potential in controlling medically important pest flies.
f. Continue development of microbial agents for biocontrol.
18
1. Component I.D. Number: P.6.
2. Title: Rodent and Ectoparasite Control.
3. Component Priority: 6 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Rodents cause tremendous damage on DoD installations around the
globe and endanger the health and safety of DoD personnel and dependents by harboring arthropod vectors and
reservoirs of plague, Lyme disease, and hantaviruses. Control is needed to reduce damage and suppress associated
diseases. Some rodents have become resistant to first-generation anticoagulant agents, and resistance is developing
to some second-generation rodenticides. Other current rodent control technologies are labor intensive, costly, and
antiquated. EPA has suspended some rodenticide registrations due to inadequate data to support continued
registration. There are no adequate methods for rodent control suited for area-wide application, particularly in
sylvatic situations. Research is needed for prevention of rodent damage or contamination of operational rations and
other military subsistence items, munitions, and clothing and other textile items, particularly during long-term
storage, and at international sites. Research should focus on developing integrated methods for controlling feral
disease vectors and reservoirs to reduce the threat of disease transmission in fixed installations, troop bivouac and
training areas, missile silos, etc. Further research is needed to develop systemic and topical delivery of insecticides
to control rodent-associated ectoparasites; to determine optimum time and distribution of delivery systems for each
mammalian species; to register rodenticides for use against field rodents; to develop physical and chemical control
technologies, including immunocontraception; to alleviate rodent and other vertebrate damage to stored foods and
materiel; to improve the physical attributes of protective packaging; to test repellents, rodenticide baits and
formulations; and to conduct efficacy studies on bait box designs.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military, dependent, and civilian personnel.
Users would be DoD engineering, environmental, natural resources, and pest management personnel who would use
or direct the use of the new technology for rodent control.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current methods would be increasingly expensive, of limited
effectiveness, and perhaps unacceptable in the future. This alternative would result in unacceptable rodent damage
and health risks to DoD personnel.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
Specific Needs for P.6. Rodent and Ectoparasite Control
j. Develop physical and chemical control technologies, including immunocontraception.
a. Develop integrated methods for controlling plague vectors including systemic and topical insecticides.
i. Develop systemic and topical delivery of insecticides to control rodent-associated ectoparasites.
e. Develop IPM methods, such as repellents, rodent-proof packaging, and repellent overwraps, to prevent
commensal rodents from contaminating foodstuffs, damaging equipment, and transmitting disease.
g. Evaluate different rodenticide baits and bait formulations (bait blocks, pellets, liquids, powders, etc.) for use
against commensal rodents.
c. Develop physical and chemical control technology to alleviate rodent and other vertebrate damage to stored
food stuffs, electronic gear, and munitions on military installations.
d. Examine different physical attributes (hardness, shape, etc.) of packaging for protection of food commodities
from rodents.
b. Develop integrated methods for controlling feral plague and hantavirus reservoirs.
(1) Identify and conduct the required studies to meet EPA data requirements for the registration/
reregistration of rodenticides for use against field rodents that serve as reservoirs of plague and hantavirus.
19
(2) Determine the optimum time and distribution of control systems for reservoirs of plague and
hantavirus.
f. Develop physical and chemical control technology to alleviate rodent and other vertebrate damage to
forest regeneration on military lands by protection of seeds and seedlings.
k. Continue to support basic and applied modeling of rodent populations and of the spread of diseases
transmitted by rodents and their ectoparasites.
h. Conduct efficacy studies of available bait box designs. Develop more effective bait boxes based on studies
of existing designs.
20
1. Component I.D. Number: P.7.
2. Title: Invasive Species Prevention and Control.
3. Component Priority: 7 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Invasive species are second only to habitat destruction in causing other
species to become endangered. Invasive species management constitutes the largest portion of DoD's pest
management effort with regard to installation natural resources. Federal law requires the development of control
strategies for invasive alien weed species (nonnative, invasive weed species) on military property to prevent DoDmanaged property from becoming a reservoir for noxious plants. Nearly every installation has an invasive species
problem to some degree. Plant and animal invasive species are particularly troublesome in the warmer climates of
the southern and southwestern U.S., and on islands such as Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. On
some installations invasive species and endangered species issues are serious problems that impact mission
requirements. Many conventional management techniques for invasive species involve the use of pesticides that
adversely affect nontarget organisms. These pesticides often also become ineffective because the invasive species
quickly develop resistance to the pesticides. As invasive species are accidentally introduced, they often occur in
new environments without their normal natural complement of biological organisms that provide the natural means
to keep these species in check. Biological control strategies and cultural and mechanical techniques are urgently
needed to provide sound integrated pest management (IPM) approaches in mitigating invasive species problems.
Because of its global operations, DoD is at high risk of accidentally transporting nonnative species from one part
region to another. DoD’s policy of adhering to quarantine regulations, being a good neighbor, and serving as a
steward of its lands requires that it have techniques available to detect and control invasive species on equipment
and cargo. These techniques should be compatible with military quarantine and wash-down procedures. DoD needs
efficient and economical techniques such as: electronic and chemical detectors, improved detection by dogs,
fumigation technology to replace methyl bromide, thus ensuring that all pests are eliminated prior to entry of
military materiel, and heat, irradiation and other non-toxic chemical technologies.
International movement of ships and aircraft has introduced insects, rodents, weeds, mollusks, and snakes of medical
and agricultural importance into new countries, including the U.S. For example, a ship under military contract
transported military cargo infested with Asian gypsy moths to a port in North Carolina. The USDA estimates that
extermination of this pest would cost $7.5 M. Other examples of introductions include virtually all pest cockroaches
in the U.S., the roof and Norway rat, the house mouse, the Asian tiger mosquito, and a myriad of agricultural pests.
Rapid-response military actions such as those in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and future
military actions that insert troops into less developed countries, also have the potential of retrograding pests back to
the U.S. Inter-regional exercises within the U.S. can introduce pests into new areas. It is imperative that military
cargoes arrive at their destination pest free and that DoD fully complies with all quarantine laws and regulations.
Research is needed to develop pest exclusion and monitoring techniques, improve cleaning procedures for vehicles,
and develop alternative procedures such as altered atmospheres, heat and cold treatments, and improved surveillance
and detection techniques. Aircraft disinsection is also crucial to preventing accidental transportation of medical and
destructive pests. Accidental introduction of pests aboard military aircraft is blamed for the increasing frequency of
“airport malaria,” the need for a one-million dollar USAF-funded Japanese beetle suppression program in the
Azores, and the introduction of half the mosquito species in Guam. The potential for introduction of disease vectors
to the U.S. and other countries is enormous: military aircraft often embark from remote tropical sites where vector
and pest species abound; aircraft have large cargo doors that allow easy access to flying insects; loading is often
done at night when lights inside the aircraft attract flying insects; and cargo and packing material also can harbor
pests. Research is needed to develop and evaluate new aircraft disinsection products and dispersal systems to
replace d-phenothrin, including a residual pesticide application program and non-insecticidal pest control methods.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military, dependent, and civilian residents on
DoD installations. Users would be DoD deployable units and DoD and other federal agencies’ engineering,
environmental, natural resources, and pest management personnel who would use or direct the use of the new
technology for invasive species prevention and control, international pest quarantine, and disinsection of military
aircraft, vehicles, and materiel.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued reliance upon chemical control techniques will make it difficult to reduce the
use of pesticides. Because of increased world trade and military deployments and training exercises, invasive
21
species will be an increasing problem for the DoD. Unless good IPM technologies are developed, DoD’s continued
reliance on chemical toxins will be the only short-term alternative.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.7. Invasive Species Prevention and Control
a. Continue research on methods to prevent the introduction and spread, and to control nonnative, invasive
species.
b. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of invasive species.
c. Evaluate efforts to reduce the introduction of vector-borne pathogens and vectors by military members and
conveyances.
d. Evaluate possible use and permanent installation of light traps or other types of traps to attract and destroy
insects, including stored products pests, on board aircraft.
e. Develop a cooperative program for discovery and screening of new aircraft disinsection products and
dispersal systems.
f. Develop perimeter pest exclusion techniques and devices to prevent pest entry into clean cargo packing,
crating, and marshaling areas.
g. Improve pest monitoring of clean cargo packing, crating, and marshaling areas through the use of traps,
attractants, and other techniques and devices.
h. Conduct taxonomic investigations and develop reference collections of invasive snail species of quarantine
interest to DoD and USDA.
i. Develop improved cargo, pallet, and vehicle inspection techniques.
j. Evaluate safety and efficacy of pyrethroid or other insecticidal treatment of cargo pallet straps, plastic covers
for palletized cargo, and cargo pallets.
k. Evaluate safe and nonpersistent pesticide formulations for use inside vehicles, helicopters, rolling stock, and
other large equipment being transported as retrograde cargo.
l. Improve efficiency of vehicle cleaning with high pressure water; develop alternatives to high pressure water
cleaning for remote sites.
m. Develop improved surveillance and detection techniques for invasive species on military vehicles, aircraft,
and materiel.
n. Investigate alternatives for fumigation of ordnance with traditional fumigants to meet quarantine regulations.
o. Continue to evaluate new or improved surveillance equipment and techniques for rapid detection of Khapra
beetle (or other Trogoderma species) and evaluate alternative pesticides for control/eradication of Khapra beetle.
p. Develop techniques for the elimination of pests in aircraft wheel wells and cargo areas.
q. Evaluate the impact of artificial lighting on flying insect attraction to cargo storage areas and open aircraft
doors; determine alternative light wavelengths or other methods to reduce attraction.
r. Develop or evaluate window traps for use on cargo aircraft.
22
1. Component I.D. Number: P.8.
2. Title: Bird and Other Vertebrate Control in Airdromes
3. Component Priority: 8 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Birds and other vertebrates represent a very serious hazard to military
aircrews and aircraft. The Air Force has reported an average of more than 2,500 bird strikes annually since 1985.
Damages resulting from these strikes have cost the Air Force approximately $40 million per year. During the same
period, 14 aircraft and 33 lives were lost to collisions with birds. In 1995, a single bird strike event involving a
USAF E-3 AWACS aircraft resulted in the death of 24 aircrew members and loss of the aircraft. During the time
1986 to present, the Navy and Marine Corps reported 105 bird-aircraft strikes (Classes A, B, and C) with costs
exceeding 179 million dollars. Seven aircraft were lost and one death occurred as a result. Importantly, reported
bird-aircraft strikes within the Navy are but a fraction of the actual number of strikes. While considerable funding
and research have been directed at this hazard, the number of strikes per 100,000 flying hours for Air Force aircraft
continues to increase (from 72.8 in 1991 to 118.4 in 1995). Nearly 50% of the reported bird-aircraft strikes occur in
the airfield environment. Agricultural outlease operations, an important source of funds to DoD, may increase the
strike hazard potential by attracting birds into aircraft movement areas.
Birds also create health hazards and cause millions of dollars in damage to structures, static displays, and equipment.
The roosting behavior of pigeons, starlings, and bats inside buildings contaminates work areas. Droppings damage
aircraft surfaces, increase maintenance costs, and support disease organisms that may create human health problems.
Starlings often excavate nest cavities in building insulation that result in costly repairs. The current lethal control
options are limited, time consuming, and expensive. The only avicide registered for toxic perches may soon become
unavailable.
Facilities management, such as vegetation height, and operational practices that reduce bird attractions on the
airdrome need to be identified. Research is needed to develop advanced techniques to identify and reduce hazards to
aircraft and structures. Techniques requiring further study may include, but are not limited to, developing bird and
other vertebrate risk matrices; developing integrated vertebrate pest control strategies, such as the use of border
collies to control Canada geese; identifying land use practices that are compatible with safe aircraft operations; and
testing the efficiency of new and existing wildlife control products.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel on DoD installations with
airdromes. Users would be DoD airfield safety, engineering, environmental, natural resources, and pest
management personnel who would use or direct the use of the new technology for bird and other vertebrate control.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current methods is becoming increasingly expensive, questionable
in effectiveness, and unacceptable from an environmental or social perspective. DoD’s failure to effectively deal
with wildlife-related damage could result in an increased risk to health, potential loss of life and aircraft, and greater
equipment costs. This situation could result in costly liability suits, negative public relations, and a degradation of
defense capability.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.8. Bird and Other Vertebrate Control in Airdromes
a. Develop IPM techniques to identify and alleviate hazards from birds and other vertebrates to in-flight
aircraft, e.g., techniques for preparation of bird and bat hazard risk maps (including the matrix of bird or bat
attractants that may be found at or near military airports), chemical (e.g., methyl anthranilate and alphachloralose)
and mechanical control techniques; and environmental manipulation techniques.
b. Conduct studies to obtain registration of contact avicides for roosting birds. Materials selected should be
acceptable for direct application to entry points, roosts, and staging areas. They should also be as specific as
possible for target species and present little or no secondary hazards.
23
c. Conduct field tests of CPT (3-chloro-4-methyl benzamine) aerosol to control pigeons and starlings that are
roosting or nesting inside large buildings, such as aircraft hangars. Collect data necessary for full federal
registration of CPT aerosol in buildings if the tests indicate that effective control can be achieved.
d. Evaluate new bird prevention and control measures, including frightening and repelling devices, e.g., the
Peaceful Pyramid.
e. Develop new or improved methods for restricting access and roosting of nuisance birds in aircraft hangars,
warehouses, and other military structures.
f. Develop field-deployable diagnostics to screen for rodent-borne and ectoparasite-borne pathogens.
g. Evaluate efficacy and environmental safety of chemicals to be used for a variety of avian species that cause
damage to aircraft, power lines, cables, material, and foodstuffs.
h. Develop methods to help alleviate human health and morale problems caused by large populations of
roosting migratory birds at military installations (e.g., problem definition, ecology, methods development).
i. Conduct studies to determine agricultural outlease practices compatible with airfield operations.
j. Develop new or improved techniques for the control of nuisance bats in airdrome settings.
k. Expand studies to determine if accumulation of yard waste compost in the vicinity of airfields is compatible
with safe aircraft operations.
24
1. Component I.D. Number: P.9.
2. Title: Pesticide Resistance.
3. Component Priority: 9 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Effective pesticides are valuable tools in the protection of our military
personnel, food, stored fiber products, and structures. We must know if pests are resistant to the chemicals that we
intend to use to control them. Detection of resistance is difficult, time consuming, local or regional in nature, and
dependent upon the control of several environmental and physiological factors. Simple detection systems are
needed to measure insecticide resistance levels in natural populations of militarily important arthropods (e.g.,
resistance in mosquitoes to permethrin used as DoD’s clothing repellent). Current methods of dealing with this
problem include the use of antiquated field test kits and laboratory tests that require time-consuming rearing of
target populations. An understanding of the mechanisms of pesticide resistance in vectors/pests requires basic
research and is essential to development of practical field resistance tests and equipment.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Military personnel and their dependents are the customers and the
beneficiaries of more efficient, environmentally sound pest management. All DoD and allied pest management
personnel will be the primary users of the new technology.
6. Alternatives: The primary alternative is continued use of the current techniques that are inadequate or
undesirable. These do not provide quick results, are ineffective and costly, and may increase rather than reduce
pollution. The alternative for DoD to not addressing pesticide resistance is unacceptable from a health, cost, and
environmental perspective.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.9. Pesticide Resistance
a. Evaluate and improve currently available resistance testing procedures, applicable to insects and arthropods
of military importance, and provide recommendations for potential use by DoD.
b. Continue development of accurate, simple, field-usable insecticide resistance test procedures and kits for
arthropods of military importance (e.g., mosquitoes, cockroaches, biting flies, stored products pests, and filth flies).
Develop diagnostic doses for insects of military importance that relate to field insecticide treatment success or
failure.
c. Determine molecular and genetic mechanisms of resistance development in arthropods of military
importance and make recommendations for management of resistance, including the impact of pesticide rotation on
resistance.
d. Continue to evaluate the extent and spread of insect resistance to aluminum phosphide, synthetic pyrethroids,
and other insecticides (e.g.., IGRs) used to control stored products insects.
25
1.
Component I.D. Number: P.10.
2.
Title: Pest Control in Shipment of Munitions
3.
Component Priority: 10 of 30
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: In an era of increasing mobility and the need for rapid responses and
deployments of military materiel, improved methods are needed to ensure that shipped munitions are pest free.
Numerous Executive Orders, task forces, and now the development of a national invasive species management plan,
calling for the tracking of possible avenues of introduction, mandate protective action. Various effective protocols
exist for sterilizing vehicles, clothing, and subsistence items. However, increasingly varied and complicated
weapons systems and munitions have rendered older sanitization and sterilization techniques ineffectual. Many pest
species avoid detection effectively and are immune to cursory surface treatments. Non-native snails are one of the
most persistent and potentially devastating pest groups. A lack of widespread expertise in identification of native
versus non-native species, coupled with resistance of pests to commonly and easily used controls, exacerbates the
problem. Control technologies may be unsafe for use in conjunction with explosive munitions, or they may prove
too corrosive or otherwise damaging to the complex electronics associated with secondary targeting and/or delivery
systems.
These considerations pertain to all but the smallest caliber munitions and weapons systems and to associated
electronics and microchip technologies as they become more widely applied and deployed. Every retrograde action
is affected by these concerns in light of rapidly evolving war fighting and support systems. While the tolerance of
individual components to environmental or chemical inputs may be well established, the solution to the pest control
problem rests in the development of safe and effective protocols for the broadest range of aggregate weapons,
guidance, communication, targeting, and delivery systems.
Whether shipment of weapons systems and munitions is between regions of the U.S., between the U.S. and other
locations, or between OCONUS locations, it is imperative that quarantine laws are obeyed and that munitions leave
and arrive in a pest-free condition. USDA, APHIS quarantines infested retrograde ordnance (e.g., Mediterranean
land snails on howitzer shells). In advance of Exercise Tandem Thrust ’97, Australia, as host nation, required the
fumigation of pallets and dunnage prior to shipment. Registration and safety issues surround the use of fumigants on
complex munitions systems.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel of all components that train
with, maintain, transport, and develop the current and future generations of munitions and complex electronic
materiel. Users would be DoD logisticians who are responsible for rapid movement and/or re-deployment of
munitions and materiel.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued dependence on current methods is becoming increasingly ineffective and
expensive, in terms of outright expenditures as well as the hidden (and usually greater) costs associated with nonavailability of materiel for training and/or re-deployment as quarantine and subsequent control technologies are
employed.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8.
Specific Needs for P.10. Pest Control in Retrograde Munitions
a. Investigate and develop safe and efficacious pest control methods for the elimination of hidden pests on
modern munitions, which often include a mix of explosive, mechanical, and electronic components.
b. Develop a list specifying which pest control technologies are safe and approved for munitions and weapons
systems.
c. Investigate alternative methods for design, treatment, or disinsection of wood components (e.g., pallets and
crates) and dunnage used with ordnance that will meet foreign and domestic quarantine requirements.
26
d. Conduct fumigation studies on potential pest species (e.g., snail species) and wood destroying organisms
associated with the movement of military ordnance and wood used as pallets, dunnage, and blocking to transport
ordnance.
27
1. Component I.D. Number: P.11.
2. Title: Termite Control.
3. Component Priority: 11 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Termites cause tremendous losses to DoD wooden structures.
Remedial controls are time consuming and expensive. Development of alternatives to presently used termiticides is
particularly important. New technology development is needed through continued research on improved and
environmentally acceptable chemicals, including boron and other baiting systems, for prevention and control of
subterranean (including Formosan) and drywood termites; subterranean termite ecology; new chemicals for use as
termiticides and repellents; the concentration, degradation, and movement of termiticides in the soil over time (short
and long term); alternative methods, including physical, nonchemical barriers, such as sand barriers and stainless
steel mesh; and baiting systems, such as insect growth regulators (IGRs), chitin synthesis inhibitors, and biological
agents for termite exclusion and control. Sustainable long-term control alternatives are needed to replace total
structure fumigation for drywood termites.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers are users of wood resources, including structures,
facilities, and equipment. Users include DoD engineering design, construction, contracting, and pest management
personnel who use or direct the use of the new technology for control of damaging termites.
6. Alternatives: The alternative is to continue control with current technology; however, this alternative is
becoming increasingly expensive, has adverse environmental impacts, and does not minimize life cycle costs.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.11. Termite Control
a. Continue research on baits, baiting systems and strategies for prevention, detection, and control of all
termites of economic significance.
b. Continue current studies and initiate new research on alternative methods, such as low-level chemical and
non-chemical physical barriers, for termite exclusion and control and, as appropriate, conduct demonstration
projects.
c. Pursue research on non-destructive techniques to survey buildings and structures for termite infestations and
the risk of termite infestations.
d. Expand termite studies to determine the concentration, degradation, and movement of termiticides in
different geographic regions and soil types.
e. Continue basic research on subterranean termite biology and ecology, focusing on indigenous rather than
exotic species.
f. Continue research on and evaluation of wood extracts for use as wood preservatives, termiticides, and
repellents, as well as research on woods that are resistant to termite attack.
g. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of termites.
28
1. Component I.D. Number: P.12.
2. Title: Urban Insect Control.
3. Component Priority: 12 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: DoD spends millions of dollars each year for control of cockroaches,
fleas, pest ants, and other household insects. Up to 60% of all peacetime arthropod pest management resources are
devoted to urban insect control. The economic impact, effects on health, and morale problems associated with these
insects easily justify further research. Cockroaches are now recognized as a frequent cause of allergic reactions and
are mechanical vectors of a wide array of bacteria and other pathogens. Fleas feed on blood and vector plague and
other diseases. Pharaoh ants are a problem in some medical treatment facilities and office or residential buildings.
These pests can affect mission accomplishment and morale when present in high numbers. A wide array of control
methods are available for cockroach and flea control, but effectiveness is highly variable. Studies on pest ant
biology and ecology are needed to select effective controls for species important to the military. New and improved
control techniques using baits, toxicants, pheromones, and biological control agents must be developed to improve
efficacy. Required performance factors include good efficacy, low cost, environmental compatibility, minimal use
of pesticides, and reduced health and safety hazards. Potential areas for research include basic biology, ecology, and
genetic studies. Personnel at most military installations would benefit from this research. An integrated pest
management approach is needed to reduce reliance on pesticides and the subsequent exposure of personnel to these
chemicals.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: All military and civilian personnel exposed to urban pests are the
customers for this research. DoD and allied preventive medicine and pest management personnel will be primary
users of the new technology.
6. Alternatives: Without new technology, DoD will use current, less-efficient methods. The development of
pesticide resistance in the target pests and exposure of DoD personnel to disease organisms and nuisance pests,
including patients in medical treatment facilities, are unacceptable consequences of the lack of new control methods.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.12. Urban Insect Control
a. Continue to adapt, improve, or develop practical alternative methods and materials for integrated pest
management of cockroaches and other household pests of military importance, including controlled-release and bait
formulations of insecticides for use in enclosed areas, such as aircraft, ships, and electronic equipment. Evaluate
design and construction techniques (crack sizes, shapes, textures, etc.) to exclude cockroaches from structures.
b. Develop and evaluate effective cockroach repellents and attractants, and appropriate strategies for their use
in military environments.
c. Develop effective materials and techniques for integrated flea control, especially for insecticide-resistant
strains.
d. Develop effective integrated control strategies for pharaoh and carpenter ants.
e. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of urban insects.
f. Continue to develop data on detrimental health effects on humans (allergies, etc.) of urban insects, such data
could be used in designing integrated control strategies, especially for recently introduced cockroach pest species.
g. Continue biosystematic studies on cockroaches, including species recently introduced into the United States.
29
1. Component I.D. Number: P.13.
2. Title: Aerial Pesticide Application.
3. Component Priority: 13 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Vector-borne diseases are a major worldwide threat and can quickly
reach epidemic proportions when standard preventive medicine measures are impossible due to manmade or natural
disasters. These diseases can seriously reduce U.S. combat capabilities and put a severe strain on limited medical,
logistical and troop resources. Arthropod pests can be used as bioterrorism agents to spread disease and they also
can interfere with mission accomplishment and reduce troop morale and productivity. During disasters, aerial
application is the only tool that can be immediately implemented over large areas to halt arthropod-borne disease
outbreaks like encephalitis, dengue and malaria. Research is needed to evaluate equipment to manage drift, to
reduce pesticide applications by improving efficiency of application equipment and techniques, to develop
techniques for using new environmentally desirable pesticides, and to evaluate Global Positioning Systems for
improving accuracy of aerial pesticide placement. These will reduce unnecessary pesticide use and contribute to the
successful accomplishment of military, humanitarian and disaster relief operations. Predictive models are needed to
minimize pesticide applications, maximize application accuracy and precision, and thus reduce exposure risk.
Besides controlling vector-borne diseases, aerial applications need to be developed to spray dispersants on oil spills
and decontaminants on biologically or chemically toxic spills. Protecting against the hazards of toxic spills would
enhance military operations by preventing toxic exposures to troops.
5. Customers and Users of New Technologies: Customers would be individuals exposed to vector-borne
diseases, pests, or toxic substances that interfere with mission accomplishment, and U.S. or international civilians
exposed because of natural disasters. Users are the personnel involved in vector-borne disease control, and
governmental agencies involved in public health or environmental operations.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued use of current methodology is less environmentally sound than emerging
technologies. Also, current methods will be increasingly expensive, of limited effectiveness, and perhaps
unacceptable in the future. This would result in unacceptable materiel damage, health risks, environmental impacts,
and costly liability cases. The alternative to having models or expert systems is to use less-effective, "best guess"
techniques and to lose expertise and knowledge as existing experts in aerial spray retire from federal service.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.13. Aerial Pesticide Application
a. Develop a system to integrate fixed wing and helicopter GPS data with the DoD pesticide reporting system
(Integrated Pest Management Information System, IPMIS) to allow for direct recording of location and amount of
pesticide used.
b. Develop and evaluate a granular applicator for C-130 aircraft.
c. Assist the military services in evaluating spray equipment for fixed and rotary wing aircraft, including drift
analysis and management.
d. Conduct studies to validate new aerial dispersal systems for relationships between dispersal, efficacy,
insecticide concentration and dosage in the control of arthropods of military importance.
e. Evaluate the effect of electrostatic, high pressure, and air assist nozzles on droplet deposition from fixed and
rotary wing aerial spray systems.
f. Identify, evaluate, and develop new pesticides for aerial spray.
g. Develop new decontamination materials and equipment or aircraft modifications to use for chemical and
biological agent decontamination for homeland defense and OCONUS contingency operations.
30
1. Component I.D. Number: P.14.
2. Title: Brown Tree Snake Quarantine and Control.
3. Component Priority: 14 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: The ecological and environmental damage done by the brown tree
snake (BTS) on Guam is well documented: extinction of bird species, disruption of the ecosystem, interference with
electrical utilities, and establishment as a severe pest hazard. Of further concern is the aggressive and venomous
nature of this snake, which presents an additional hazard to humans and animals. Resolution of this problem and
prevention of further problems elsewhere in the Pacific basin require improved quarantine measures to stop the
spread of the snake from Guam and suppression of the snake population on the island of Guam. Immediate support
needed includes improved detection and quarantine techniques and lethal controls for the brown tree snake. DoD
requires these effective detection, quarantine and control techniques to ensure that it can carry out its mission
operations, including having access to areas for military training exercises in the Pacific region.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military, dependent, and civilian residents of
the island of Guam, Hawaii, and other Pacific islands. Users would be DoD and other federal agencies’ engineering,
environmental, natural resources, and pest management personnel, who would use or direct the use of the new
technology for BTS quarantine and control.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued quarantine and control with current methods would be increasingly expensive, of
limited effectiveness in reducing brown tree snake numbers, and perhaps unacceptable in the future. This would
result in risk of spread of the snake to other locations, unacceptable exposure of people and ecosystems to the
hazards of snake infestation, and higher program costs in the future.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.14. Brown Tree Snake Quarantine and Control
a. Develop chemical control methods (fumigants, toxicants, attractants, and repellents) for use in integrated
brown tree snake programs. Complete data packages for registration of chemical control methods as applicable.
b. Develop integrated methods, including lethal controls, for the brown tree snake applicable to high risk,
residential, and rural areas.
c. Develop improved quarantine techniques for the brown tree snake.
d. Continue research on methods to prevent the introduction and spread, and to control BTS.
31
1. Component I.D. Number: P.15.
2. Title: Insect Detection in Stored Products.
3. Component Priority: 15 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Losses to stored product pests are difficult to estimate but may
amount to several million dollars annually. Few effective surveillance techniques for the early detection of stored
product pest infestations are available. Research is needed to provide surveillance tools that will be of value in
carrying out effective integrated pest management programs for stored product pest control in military warehouses,
military ration assembly points, and aboard ships. Accurate and timely pest detection is required to minimize
damage to stored products (primarily foodstuffs, but including textile and other products); to determine the need for
control measures; and to minimize the impact of stored product losses on DoD missions. This technology is still
evolving, with pheromone/food attractant traps being one technique; acoustic and other electrical detection devices
are also under development. Needed performance parameters for detection methods include mobility, durability,
reasonable cost, and detection efficacy for a variety of stored product pests. DNA fingerprinting for identifying
populations, and determining the distribution and origin of infestations would provide useful information for
preventing infestations and safeguarding health.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: All military personnel and their dependents would be the DoD end
customers who would benefit from this technology by having cleaner, pest-free food. DoD and allied pest
management professionals and the DoD supply and commissary systems are the primary users, as would be the
civilian grain products industry.
6. Alternatives: The status quo option for DoD includes no detection, reliance on retail customers reporting
infested products, and frequent, labor-intensive inspection of products. Reliance solely on these options is
unacceptable due to contamination and/or loss of food in many locations, especially overseas and in warmer areas.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.15. Insect Detection in Stored Products
a. Continue to evaluate new or improved cost-effective surveillance equipment, techniques, and emerging
technologies to rapidly assess pest populations associated with long-term storage of subsistence and commodities
delivered to DoD by vendors “just-in-time.”
b. Continue to evaluate the efficacy of improved attractants, including commercial pheromone preparations, in
traps to monitor stored product insect activity and how those compounds can be used in integrated pest management
strategies for stored product pests. (e.g., including their use in small storage areas with confined air movement).
c. Continue to refine the technology and use of spatial analysis and precision targeting to optimize
identification and control of stored product infestations. Demonstrate this technology for the major stored product
pests of military importance
d. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of stored product pests.
e. Develop detection techniques (e.g., sound) for stored product pests in palletized products and individual
packages/boxes.
32
1. Component I.D. Number: P.16.
2. Title: Food Fumigants.
3. Component Priority: 16 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Fumigation is an essential procedure in protecting food. The current
and future use of methyl bromide is constrained due to its alleged role in ozone depletion. Increasing insect
resistance, the 4-day minimum fumigation time with aluminum phosphide, and other factors indicate the critical
need for a better fumigant. Needed performance parameters include short-term efficacy, non-ozone depletion,
reasonable cost, and ease of use and detection for safety purposes. The availability of an additional fumigant for
subsistence items would add flexibility to programs and reduce the impact infestations have on mission
accomplishment, health and morale. The use of modified atmospheres is a promising technique as an alternative to
existing fumigants.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would include all military and family members, and the
technology would have tremendous applicability to the private sector. Certified pest management personnel in civil
engineering organizations or certified contractors would use the fumigant. The fumigant would be used at facilities
ranging in size from large logistical centers down to small installations, especially those overseas, which have food
storage requirements.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s use of current food fumigants involves the problems described in paragraph 4 above.
Fumigation is necessary in most commercial food operations, in many overseas operations, and where quarantine
requirements dictate fumigation. Transportation costs are often major expenses. DoD would use an effective new
fumigant or modification of current methods DoD-wide, as well as in allied countries.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.16. Food Fumigants
a. Investigate and develop fumigants and modified atmospheres, such as ozone, carbon dioxide, and other
alternatives to aluminum phosphide used for insect control in warehouses, sea-land type vans, and aboard ship.
b. Evaluate and develop alternatives to fumigation for use under conditions unique to the military.
c. Identify, evaluate, or develop new devices to monitor fumigant concentrations throughout the fumigation
operation.
33
1. Component I.D. Number: P.17.
2. Title: Terrestrial Vegetation Management.
3. Component Priority: 17 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Currently, weeds and other undesirable plant species growing on
military installations in CONUS and OCONUS pose significant problems by interfering with mission training
requirements and security. A large number of DoD pesticide applications (measured in lbs. of active ingredient) are
made to control weeds and diseases of turf, ornamentals, and forests. To realize and maintain the 50% reduction
goal, major changes, including technological changes, will be needed to control weeds and plant pests. Research is
needed on application techniques and formulations that will provide more effective control by herbicides and
minimize adverse effects on the environment due to nonpoint source pollution of groundwater. Research on the
control of weeds through a variety of integrated pest management procedures is required to support pesticide risk
reduction goals. Specifically, the use of biological, biotechnological and physical control techniques, in conjunction
with the use of herbicides, should be investigated. Continued support is crucial for developing new techniques to
control weeds, that do not decrease readiness on installation industrial, recreational and landscaped properties, golf
courses, airdromes, forest lands, munitions test areas, security perimeters, rights-of-way, and rangelands under DoD
control.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military and dependent users of lands and
facilities. Users would be DoD pest management, natural resources, and golf course personnel who would use or
direct the use of new technology.
6. Alternatives: If control efforts continue with current technology, DoD’s weed control would be less effective
and produce adverse environmental impacts, resulting in unnecessary environmental pollution, operational hazards,
and excessive expense that would affect readiness.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.17. Terrestrial Vegetation Management
a. Develop IPM techniques for controlling weeds and undesirable plant species in industrial areas, landscaped
areas, airdromes, forest lands and agricultural outleases, munitions test and storage areas, perimeter areas for
security purposes, rights-of-ways and rangelands.
b. Investigate the use of biological, biotechnological and physical control techniques, in conjunction with the
use of herbicides.
c. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of terrestrial vegetation.
34
1. Component I.D. Number: P.18.
2. Title: Protective Packaging for Stored Products.
3. Component Priority: 18 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: For strategic reasons, DoD must store military subsistence for
extended periods in parts of the world where pest management programs are inadequate or nonexistent. Because
insect infestations can destroy entire stored products stocks, special attention is necessary to ensure the protection of
this materiel. The extended storage period for military subsistence greatly increases the potential for infestation.
Exclusion of pests from subsistence items is one of the most important components of our stored product pest
management program. In many instances insect-resistant packaging or shrink-wrap plastic covering is the only pest
protection afforded packaged food items. In the case of MREs, heavy plastic packaging was specifically designed
and tested by the USDA to provide long-term protection against penetrating insect pests. At present, DoD is
increasingly utilizing commercially packaged goods; therefore, further improvements in protective packaging are
needed. This research would support most overseas DoD locations, international food distribution programs, and
large food logistical centers worldwide. Development of pest-proof packaging is a sustainable action that would
reduce the need for chemical fumigation or other pesticide treatments and thus reduce pesticide exposure and risk
and eliminate point sources of pollution.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Intermediate users would be military and civilian logisticians
responsible for ration and subsistence storage and transport worldwide. Ultimate beneficiaries would be DoD
personnel, especially those stationed or deployed overseas. Persons helped by military relief efforts would also be
beneficiaries. Technology would be transferable to commercial applications.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued use of currently available, inadequate protective packaging with associated food
losses, especially in bulk subsistence, is the alternative to not performing this research.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.18. Protective Packaging for Stored Products
a. Continue to develop and evaluate environmentally sound packaging (overwraps for cartons, cases, and
pallets) for physical protection against insect penetration.
b. Continue to test untreated and/or treated packaging materials, including repellent and odor- masking
packaging, for protection of operational rations and other troop issue subsistence.
c. Continue to test and evaluate improvements in packaging design to exclude stored product pests.
35
1. Component I.D. Number: P.19.
2. Title: Fire Ant Control.
3. Component Priority: 19 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Currently, at military facilities in the southern U.S., fire ants cause
loss of training time for military personnel, cause stings to dependents, and negatively affect some endangered
species. Commercially available pesticides and some application methods and strategies are expensive, inefficient,
or ineffective for some military applications. New and improved integrated control techniques using baits,
toxicants, pheromones, or biological control agents in an integrated pest management approach must be developed
to improve efficacy. Effective control strategies for fire ants in operational conditions need to be developed.
Studies on pest ant biology and ecology are needed to select effective controls for species important to the military.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel and their family members on
installations within the range of fire ants. Users would be DoD pest management or contractor personnel who would
apply or direct the use of management techniques for fire ants.
6. Alternatives: If this new technology is not pursued and control efforts continue with current technology, fire ant
infestations on DoD property will increase and control efforts will not be optimal. This will result in continued
medical hazards for troops in the field and military family members using infested military grounds, as well as the
negative impacts fire ants can have on selected endangered species.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.19. Fire Ant Control
a. Develop integrated pest management materials and methods for control of fire ants for developed and
undeveloped areas of DoD installations. Efforts should include baits, toxicants, pheromones, and biological control
agents.
b. Continue the study of spatial analysis for fire ant IPM programs.
c. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of fire ants.
36
1. Component I.D. Number: P.20.
2. Title: Wood Preservation.
3. Component Priority: 20 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Public and regulatory concern over wood preservatives makes
increased emphasis on development of alternatives essential to ensure maximization of DoD wood resources.
Effective and environmentally safe methods are needed for detecting, preventing, and controlling organisms that
damage wood, especially wood in marine and tropical environments, and disposing of preservative-treated wood.
Support is needed for: (1) evaluation of diffusible treatments as wood preservatives, including prevention of
leaching (sealants); (2) evaluation of preservative performance for use in marine environments; (3) methodologies
for long-term protection of alternate wood species in adverse environments; and (4) use of antagonistic
microorganisms for wood protection. An integrated research program should be initiated to develop new
technologies and options for reusing or disposing of treated wood, such as bioremediation with fungi to degrade
preservatives, recycling materials through combustion technology; and development of a guide to available options
for disposing of treated wood.
Mechanisms of wood decay are poorly understood. Protection of wood from decay depends on understanding the
interaction of many biotic and abiotic factors. Development of new techniques for protecting wood from decay
depends on understanding these factors. Continued basic research is needed on wood decay mechanisms to
minimize damage to current DoD wood resources, develop new preventive and control treatments, and aid in
acquisition of future resources that are less susceptible to wood decay.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers are DoD users of wood resources. Users are those DoD
personnel who use or direct the use of the new technology for control of wood-destroying organisms and facilities’
managers responsible for disposing of treated materials. Users are also the DoD engineering, pest management, and
facilities management personnel responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of structures made of
materials susceptible to wood decay.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s enforcement of proper design specifications for wooden structures, procurement
specifications, and quality assurance evaluations can reduce losses; however, the continued use of current
technologies will result in greater life cycle costs for wooden structures and buildings. DoD’s continued use of
current technologies is increasingly expensive, may have adverse environmental impacts, and may be unacceptable
in the future.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.20. Wood Preservation
a. Continue research and development of new or improved preservatives applied as pressure treatments,
fumigants, dip treatments, and brush or spray treatments to protect against wood-destroying organisms.
b. Continue research on methodologies for long-term protection of alternate wood species in adverse
environments and development of new or improved preservatives and procedures.
c. Continue development of new, non-destructive techniques to assay wooden elements of structures.
d. Continue evaluation of diffusible wood preservatives and sealants to prevent their leaching.
e. Continue studies on the relationship between water-borne preservative treatments and mechanical properties
of treated wood products.
f. Continue testing preservatives for use in marine environments for control of wood-boring organisms.
g. Investigate possible use of antagonistic microorganisms for protection of wood products.
37
h. Continue basic research on wood decay mechanisms.
i. Initiate an integrated research program to develop new technologies and options for reusing or disposing of
treated wood products, such as bioremediation technology with fungi to degrade preservatives in waste wood, and
combustion technology. Develop a guide to available options for disposing of treated wood wastes.
38
1. Component I.D. Number: P.21.
2. Title: Pesticide Treatment of Storage Facilities for Stored Product Pest Control.
3. Component Priority: 21 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Currently, the acceptable control measures for stored product pests are
limited. Increasing insect resistance to the pesticide dichlorvos and the high cost of pyrethrin pesticides underscore
the need for research of space treatments, ultra-low volume (ULV) insecticides, and dispersal equipment. Few
residual insecticides labeled for food storage areas are currently acceptable for use in the military setting. Loss of
pesticides for treatment of stored products would have severe effects on food stores, including routine and
contingency pre-positioned supplies. Therefore, evaluation of current and new ULV insecticides, insect growth
regulators, and dispersal equipment is needed. Additionally, new application techniques for improved efficacy in
food storage warehouses with residual insecticides to reduce losses of packaged food products and pesticide
exposure are crucial.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military and dependent consumers of stored
products during routine and contingency operations. Users would be DoD pest management personnel who would
apply or direct the application of the pesticides for management of stored product pests.
6. Alternatives: If this new technology is not pursued, DoD’s stored product materiel losses and potential exposure
of consumers to medical injury from infested food will increase with the loss of current capability. Great sums of
money will be needed to purchase modern technology for transportation, storage equipment and facilities, in order to
ensure stored products can be shipped and stored in adequate amounts to meet DoD’s routine demand and
contingency requirements.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.21. Pesticide Treatments of Storage Facilities for Stored Products Pest Control
a. Continue to evaluate new insecticides and insect growth regulators for ULV insecticide applications.
b. Continue to investigate more effective application techniques for currently registered materials, including the
reactivity of current materials with surface substrates.
c. Evaluate microencapsulated formulations of pesticides for pest control.
d. Investigate new technologies, such as the use of heat, microwaves, radiation, or other physical controls, for
the control of the major stored product pests of military importance.
e. Continue to demonstrate and evaluate the use of spatial analysis and precision targeting to identify and map
infestations and target control measures for the major stored product pests of military importance.
f. Continue to evaluate residual insecticides to reduce losses of packaged food products to insects during
storage and transportation.
g. Evaluate Ultra low Volume (ULV) labeled insecticides, pesticide dispersal equipment and techniques for
efficacy in food storage warehouses.
39
1. Component I.D. Number: P.22.
2. Title: Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates.
3. Component Priority: 22 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Wildlife, including deer, wild horses, feral pigs, feral cats and dogs,
and other non-rodent vertebrate animals, has caused moderate to severe damage to aircraft, facilities, bunkers, and
military lands, resulting in tremendous costs and occasional loss of life. Increasing public concern about current
control methods, which some segments of the public often view as violent and inhumane, makes it imperative that
DoD pursue all methods used to manage wildlife that interfere with military operations. Nonlethal methods are
generally more desirable; however, lethal controls must be retained for use in essential cases. All methods must be
economically and environmentally defensible and as humane as possible. Research is needed to develop IPM
techniques for species with high public visibility, such as wild horses and burros, goats and deer; to develop
economic loss damage assessment techniques to aid in cost benefit/analyses of animal damage situations; to develop
traps and trapping techniques to replace the standard leg-hold trap; to develop nontoxic mechanical and chemical
repellents or frightening devices and materials; to develop and evaluate new lethal and nonlethal control measures;
and to develop immunocontraceptive vaccines and delivery systems for mammals.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel who are exposed to wildlife
situations on DoD installations. Users would be DoD engineering, natural resources, environmental, and pest
management personnel who would use or direct the use of the new technology for IPM programs for non-rodent
vertebrates.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current methods will be increasingly expensive, of limited
effectiveness, and perhaps unacceptable in the future. DoD may then face unacceptable safety and health risks, and
the potential for costly liability cases and negative public relations.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.22. Integrated Pest Management for Non-Rodent Vertebrates
a. Develop IPM techniques for species with high public visibility, such as Canada geese, wild horses, wild
burros, goats, and deer.
b. Develop immunocontraceptive vaccine and delivery systems for white-tailed deer and other mammals.
c. Develop improved methods for excluding deer and other pests from selected military areas.
d. Develop attractants and repellents for feral dogs, cats, and swine.
e. Develop/evaluate new lethal and nonlethal control measures.
f. Develop traps and trapping techniques to replace the standard leg-hold trap.
g. Develop strategies for solving wildlife management problems of military significance by accessing
vertebrate pest literature and computerized management information systems.
h. Develop identification and population estimation procedures for vertebrate pest species.
i. Study basic biology and behavior of vertebrate pests as a means to develop effective control technologies.
j. Evaluate commercially available frightening and repellent devices, such as reflectors and ultrasound.
k. Develop methods for area exclusion and control of snakes.
l. Develop economic loss damage assessment techniques to aid in cost benefit/analyses of animal damage
situations.
40
m. Develop damage assessment techniques to define impacts of vertebrate pests.
n. Develop nontoxic mechanical and chemical repellent/frightening devices and materials.
o. Develop computer modeling programs that allow rapid comparison of various IPM alternatives for vertebrate
pests. These models should enable pest managers to evaluate the probable public health and environmental effects
of various pest control options.
41
1. Component I.D. Number: P.23.
2. Title: Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents.
3. Component Priority: 23 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Registration data requirements for vertebrate pest control agents have
changed. New and/or additional laboratory and field studies are needed to develop the data required for maintaining
EPA registration of these agents. If lack of data causes loss of existing materials, control of pest vertebrates on
military reservations will be severely compromised, causing increases in human health risk and economic damage.
Development of new methods or agents to replace existing control agents will take time. Therefore, it is imperative
that we maintain existing registrations while pursuing the registration of new materials. Laboratory and field
research is needed to meet EPA data requirements for registering vertebrate control agents.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel. Users would be DoD
engineering, environmental, natural resources, and pest management personnel who would use or direct the use of
the new technology for vertebrate control.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current methods will be increasingly expensive, of limited
effectiveness, and perhaps unavailable in the future. This could result in unacceptable damage from vertebrate pests
and health risks.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.23. Registration of Vertebrate Control Agents
a. Conduct laboratory and field research needed to meet EPA data requirements for registering and
reregistering vertebrate control agents.
42
1. Component I.D. Number: P.24
2. Title: Turfgrass Pest Management.
3. Component Priority: 24 of 30
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Turfgrass is maintained on DoD installations for soil stabilization,
training, aesthetic, and recreational purposes. Together, hundreds of thousands of acres are established and grown
as low value (roadsides, rights-of-way, around airport runways/taxiways, training ranges), medium value
(residential/office/barrack areas, parade grounds, haying/grazing fields), and high value (golf courses, athletic fields)
turfs. Major resources, in terms of labor, money, and equipment are allocated for the cultural practices of
seeding/sprigging, mowing, fertilization, irrigation, and tillage necessary to maintain acceptable turfgrass vigor and
appearance. For example, the cost of maintaining a single acre of golf course turf averages $2,500, excluding the
cost of pesticides. At many installations, the quantity of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and plant growth
regulators targeted for turfgrass often represents 25% of the total yearly pounds active ingredient (lbs. a.i.) of
pesticides applied. Pesticide resistance and/or erratic control have been reported for a significant number of
turfgrass insect, weed, and fungus pests. Biological control methods for the majority of turfgrass pests have not
been successfully demonstrated. Management factors, including treatment thresholds, life cycle and behavioral
information, as well as selection, timing, and placement of pesticides that can result in improved control efficacy,
need to be identified for many turfgrass pests. Both cool season and warm season turfgrass species varieties need to
be developed that are resistant to stress (temperature, fertility, moisture, traffic) and pests (weeds, insects/mites,
fungal pathogens). Also, turfgrass breeding projects are needed to develop varieties with growth characteristics that
minimize the need for mowing or use of chemical growth or seedhead suppressors. Research is needed to evaluate
cultural practices that have the potential to enhance the ability of low to high value turf to tolerate stress.
Demonstration projects, which evaluate nonchemical pest control methods for use in integrated management
systems in low to high value turf, need to be accomplished under realistic conditions. In order to understand the
environmental impacts of turfgrass husbandry, the fate of pesticides and nutrients applied to turfgrass needs to be
better qualified and quantified.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military, dependent, and civilian residents who
use turfgrass areas on DoD installations. Users would be DoD and other federal agencies’ engineering,
environmental, natural resources, golf course, and pest management personnel who would use or direct the use of
the new technology to improve maintenance programs in the husbandry of turfgrass.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s reliance on the use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators to
maintain quality in medium to high value turf is becoming more expensive, increases the risks associated with
exposure to pesticide residues, and poses a continuing threat to environmental quality. Without developing
alternatives to pesticides in turfgrass management within the DoD, it will be difficult to make inroads into attaining
or maintaining a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides. Competition for labor, material, and equipment resources is
intensifying within the DoD as installation maintenance budgets are trimmed. The utility of low to high value
turfgrass will be diminished significantly unless turfgrass species cultivars are developed that exhibit less traffic,
temperature and moisture sensitivity, require less fertility and mowing inputs, and show better resistance to pest
problems. In order to receive widespread acceptance and adoption by DoD turfgrass managers, researchers need to
prove that nonchemical methods of pest control are effective when tested under realistic cultural and climatic
conditions.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.24. Turfgrass Pest Management
a. Determine which methods of selection, timing, and placement of pesticides can result in decreased pounds
active ingredient (lbs. a.i.) input without sacrificing efficacy of control or turfgrass quality.
b. Conduct research on turfgrass pest management factors, including treatment thresholds, life cycle and
behavioral information of common turfgrass pests, as well as the addition of new biological controls.
43
c. Conduct turfgrass breeding projects in order to develop varieties with growth characteristics that minimize
the need for mowing or use of chemical growth or seedhead suppressors, especially in low to medium valued
turfgrass systems.
d. Conduct turfgrass breeding projects in both cool season and warm season turfgrasses in order to develop
varieties that are resistant to stress (temperature, fertility, moisture, and traffic) and pests (weeds, insects/mites, and
fungal pathogens).
e. Conduct demonstration projects, evaluating nonchemical pest control methods for use in integrated
management systems in low to high value turf, accomplished under realistic conditions.
f. Conduct research to evaluate those cultural practices that have the potential to improve the ability of low to
high value turf to tolerate stress.
g. Continue to investigate and develop IPM technologies that are easily integrated into precision
targeting/spatial analysis for control of turfgrass pests (weeds, insects/mites, and fungal pathogens).
h. Conduct studies on the environmental impacts of turfgrass husbandry, qualifying and quantifying the fate of
pesticides and nutrients applied to turfgrass.
44
1. Component I.D. Number: P.25.
2. Title: Forest Insect and Disease Control.
3. Component Priority: 25 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: DoD’s land holdings include sizable forests and woodlands in which
timber harvesting and military training occur. Through the sale of timber, DoD provides revenue to state and local
governments and to the services supporting installation forest programs. Insects and diseases can cause extensive
damage, adversely affect the environment, and diminish the economic value of the forest resource. Research is
needed on the biosystematics of forest pests and on insect dispersion, population dynamics, and suppression efforts,
with emphasis on integrated pest management (IPM). Development of control techniques that conserve habitat for
endangered or threatened species and support biodiversity are crucial for the integrated management of DoD
administered woodlands. Specifically, research is needed to develop improved measures for controlling and
biosystematically studying the pine beetle, gypsy moth, Armillaria spp., Phlebia spp., fusiform rust, oak wilt, and
the genus Phellinus; to study pest movement and evaluate area suppression tactics as influenced by dispersal
behavior; to develop analytic methodology for improving predictive technology for the onset, duration, and severity
of pest outbreaks; and to develop protection techniques for individual trees or stands with high intrinsic value.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel who use forest resources for
training or recreation. Users would be DoD engineering, environmental, natural resources, forestry, and pest
management personnel who would use or direct the use of the new technology for control of forest pests.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current technology will be increasingly expensive, may produce
environmental impacts that will be undesirable or unallowable in the future, and will be less effective over time.
This will degrade the quality of forest resources, reduce revenues generated by managed forests, potentially decrease
training time in the forested training areas, and decrease readiness.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.25. Forest Insect and Disease Control
a. Continue research on methods to prevent the introduction and spread, and to control nonnative, invasive
species of forests.
b. Develop improved measures for controlling and biosystematically studying forest insects and diseases on
DoD-managed woodlands. Specific pests identified in need of improved taxonomic and control methods include the
southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis), gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), Armillaria species, Phlebia species,
fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum, Cronartium fusiforme), oak wilt (Ceratocystis fagacearum), and members of
the genus Phellinus.
c. Continue research on forest pest movement and evaluation of area-wide suppression tactics as influenced by
dispersal behavior.
d. Continue development and field testing of protection techniques for individual trees or stands of trees with
high intrinsic value.
45
1. Component I.D. Number: P.26.
2. Title: Wood-Destroying Beetle Control.
3. Component Priority: 26 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Wood destroying beetles cause significant damage to DoD facilities
and shipping material. The diverse life cycles of these beetles and the limited number of insecticides and wood
preservatives registered for their control require that specific control techniques be developed for each target pest.
Additional study is needed due to the loss of registered pesticides and the high cost of repackaging materiel in
damaged storage materials, such as wooden boxes and pallets. Specifically, research is needed to continue studying
the effectiveness of boron or other pesticidal treatments against wood-boring beetles.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers are military personnel and their dependents that use
wooden commodities and structures and those in DoD who package materials with wood. Users are DoD facilities
management and pest management personnel who use or direct the use of the new technology for control of wood
boring beetles, and agencies and commands responsible for packaging, preserving, and transporting materials using
wood products (e.g., wooden pallets, ordnance boxes, etc.).
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current technology is increasingly expensive, not effective or
applicable in all situations, and may have adverse environmental impacts.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.26. Wood Destroying Beetle Control
a. Continue studying the effectiveness of boron and other treatments to prevent or control wood-destroying
beetle infestations.
46
1. Component I.D. Number: P.27.
2. Title: Basic Biological Investigations of Stored Product Insects.
3. Component Priority: 27 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Insect pests of stored products annually cause millions of dollars in
losses due to infestation and occasionally result in illness of humans who consume infested foods. Currently,
control measures for stored product insects rely heavily on chemical means. Research on population ecology and its
relationship to surveillance methods and surveillance results is needed for improved targeting of available control
methods. Identification and evaluation of naturally occurring, biologically active control substances, potential
biological control agents and chitin synthesis inhibitors are necessary for continued advances in environmentally
sound and safer control measures.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military personnel and their dependents that
consume stored food products. Users would be DoD pest management personnel and supply personnel who would
use or direct the use of the new technology for control of stored product pests.
6. Alternatives: If control efforts continue using current technology, DoD’s control of stored product pests and
reduction of the environmental impact of current control methods will be less than optimal. This would result in
increased expense, decreased morale, and continued medical hazards for DoD personnel and international allies who
rely on U.S. supplies.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.27. Basic Biological Investigations of Stored Products Insects
a. Identify and evaluate naturally occurring, biologically active substances for control.
b. Continue evaluation of chitin synthesis inhibitors.
c. Continue basic biological investigations of stored product pests with emphasis on population ecology.
d. Develop a model for selected stored product insects and their interaction with their substrates, including the
saw-toothed grain beetle (Oryzaephilus surinamensis), the Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella), the merchant
grain beetle (Oryzaephilus mercator), the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), the confused flour beetle
(Tribolium confusum), and the warehouse beetle (Trogoderma variabile).
47
1. Component I.D. Number: P.28.
2. Title: Fabric Protection.
3. Component Priority: 28 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Currently, long-term stockpiling and storage of uniform clothing and
textile items (tents, sleeping bags, etc.) are necessary to allow immediate issue during rapid mobilization of forces.
Effective, safe, and inexpensive pesticides and delivery systems should be available to protect these commodities
from insect damage. To ensure that preservation methods are effective and environmentally acceptable, constant
evaluation of new pesticides (including repellents), impregnation techniques, and delivery systems to protect
clothing and textiles from insect damage is needed.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be troops who are issued stored items for wear
or use. Users would be DoD pest management personnel and supply personnel who would use or direct the use of
the new technology for control of fabric destroying pests.
6. Alternatives: With current technology, DoD’s control of fabric-destroying pests will be less than optimal. This
will result in damaged textile items, negative environmental impact, and added expense to repair or replace damaged
items.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
Specific Needs for P.28. Fabric Protection
a. Evaluate new pesticides (including repellents), impregnation techniques, and delivery systems to protect
clothing and textiles from insect damage during storage.
b. Continue to evaluate new or improved cost-effective surveillance equipment and techniques to rapidly assess
pest populations associated with long-term storage of fabric items.
48
1. Component I.D. Number: P.29.
2. Title: Aquatic Weed Control.
3. Component Priority: 29 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Aquatic weeds in drainage channels, reservoirs, ponds, lakes,
impoundments, and irrigation canals provide breeding sites for pests and disease vectors and prevent these facilities
from supplying needed drainage, clean water, and recreational opportunities. Current control technology is
dependent on pesticides and labor-intensive physical control methods that are expensive and have environmental
impacts. Research is needed on IPM techniques to effectively manage submerged and emergent aquatic weeds.
Development of improved IPM techniques for aquatic weed control is essential to the maintenance of effective and
environmentally sound aquatic weed management programs that enable our installations to support the military
mission. Aquatic weed control currently performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station in cooperation with the USDA must receive continued DoD support.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be DoD personnel affected by pests breeding in
weed-infested water bodies, and military and dependent users of water resources. Users would be DoD pest
management, natural resources, and golf course personnel who would use or direct the use of new technology for
control of aquatic weeds.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current technology would be increasingly expensive and may
produce environmental impacts that will be undesirable or unacceptable in the future. This would result in
degradation of the quality of water resources and hazards from pests breeding in weed-infested water bodies.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.29. Aquatic Weed Control
a. Develop improved IPM techniques for aquatic weed control.
49
1. Component I.D. Number: P.30.
2. Title: Fresh Subsistence Protection.
3. Component Priority: 30 of 30.
4. Description and Extent of the Problem: Fresh produce, shipped to overseas military installations to ensure
availability of fresh subsistence and reasonable quality of life for overseas personnel, needs protection from pest
organisms. Quarantine actions at the final destination frequently result in economic loss from product destruction or
degradation caused by required methyl bromide fumigation. Emphasis is critically needed on quarantine fumigants
that are environmentally acceptable and less damaging to fresh produce. Continued research on techniques to
protect fresh vegetables, fruits, and dried products during transit and in storage is required. Modified atmospheres, a
promising technology for this arena, require further development.
5. Customers and Users of New Technology: Customers would be military and dependent consumers of fresh
subsistence products. Users would be DoD pest management personnel and supply personnel who would use or
direct the use of the new technology for control of pests of subsistence products.
6. Alternatives: DoD’s continued control with current technology would extend economic losses and may produce
environmental effects that will be undesirable or unfeasible in the future. This would result in product loss or
decreases in fresh subsistence availability overseas, and increased transportation costs, with a corresponding
degradation in the quality of life for military and family members stationed abroad.
7. Point of Contact: AFPMB Research Liaison Officer, Forest Glen Section/WRAMC, Washington, DC 203075001. Telephone: (301) 295-7476, facsimile: (301) 295-7473.
8. Specific Needs for P.30. Fresh Subsistence Protection
a. Continue to investigate various techniques to protect fresh vegetables and fruits, dried fruits, and nuts in
storage and in transit. Emphasis is needed on fumigants and alternative techniques that both meet international
quarantine regulations and maintain the quality of the shipped product.
50