Loading...
10.03.18 EAB PacketCITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: October 3, 2018 TIME: 6 pm PLACE: 1777 West Conference Room, 1777 Broadway 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.The August 29, 2018 Environmental Advisory Board meeting minutes and September 19, 2018 Joint Board meeting minutes are scheduled for approval. 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Muni Update (Steve Catanach) B.Options to Update and Improve Boulder’s Mosquito Management Program (Rella Abernathy) 6.OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES 7.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY A.Joint Meeting Debrief (Board) B.Annual Letter to City Council (Board) 8.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK A.The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 7, 6-8 pm. 9.ADJOURNMENT For more information call (303) 441-1931. Board packets are available after 12 pm the Thursday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov. 1 CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the board (three minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1.Presentations •Staff presentation (15 minutes maximum*) Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. •Environmental Advisory Board questioning of staff for information only. 2.Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (three minutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. Two minutes will be added to the pooled speaker for each such speaker’s allotted time up to a maximum of 10 minutes total. •Time remaining is presented by a green blinking light that means one minute remains, a yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a red light and beep means time has expired. •Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group please state that for the record as well. •Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. •Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. •Interested persons can send a letter to the Community Planning and Sustainability staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, to be included in the board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the board meeting. 3.Board Action Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. Motions are generally used to approve (with or without conditions), deny, or continue agenda item to a later date (generally in order to obtain additional information). •Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. Members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. •Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion approving any action. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORYBOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Environmental Advisory Board member, City Manager, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 8 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 8 p.m. except by majority vote of board members present. *The Chair may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments. 2 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: August 29, 2018 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Brooke McKinney, 720-564-2369. NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Karen Crofton, Miriam Hacker, Michael SanClements and Justin Brant. Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent: Jason Vogel. Staff Members Present: Brett KenCairn, Sandy Briggs and Brooke McKinney. MEETING SUMMARY: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Joint Board Meeting The board decided that the participation of one board member would be sufficient and agreed to ask J. Vogel if he would be the EAB’s liaison. M. Hacker agreed to represent the EAB if J. Vogel cannot. The board determined further discussion was unnecessary. Joint Advisory Board Meeting on Ecosystems Planning The board discussed and agreed upon a format and structure for the joint meeting around identifying ecological concerns, prioritizing and clumping them, small group discussion, and reporting ideas back to the entire group. The board emphasized the following: •There should be a minimum of three groups of four people each. •A City Council member should be invited to provide an introduction. •EAB members should facilitate and guide small groups to look for synergies and common solutions. •Issues should be able to be addressed locally. •Identify issues that can be changed, not those beyond our control. •Ten minute segments should be timed – 10 for prioritization and 10 for each major concern to be discussed. 1.CALL TO ORDER Environmental Advisory Board Chair, K. Crofton, declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by M. Hacker, seconded by K. Crofton, the Environmental Advisory Board voted 3-0 (J. Brant abstained and J. Vogel absent) to approve the July 18, 2018 and August 1, 2018 meeting minutes. 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. 4.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None.3 5.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Joint Board Meeting The board reviewed the memo provided by the East Bookend and Alpine-Balsam Area Plans staff team and their comments are captured in the Meeting Summary. B.Joint Advisory Board Meeting on Ecosystems Planning The board discussed and agreed upon a format for the joint meeting. K. Crofton will welcome the group and provide an overview and purpose for the meeting. J. Vogel will prompt the group to identify primary ecological concerns and post on a board. While B. KenCairn presents on key issues regarding ecosystems, M. Hacker and M. SanClements will organize issues into approximately 2-3 clumps. Small groups, each facilitated by an EAB member, will convene to prioritize, discuss solutions, and report back to the entire group. The board then executed this exercise as a dry run. The board’s comments are captured in the Meeting Summary. 6.OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES None. 7.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY 8.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK A.The joint board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 19 from 5-8 pm. B.The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 3 from 6-8 pm. 9.ADJOURNMENT The Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 8:00 pm. Approved: Chair Date 4 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Advisory Board FROM: Planning and Sustainability Jim Roberston, Executive Director Valerie Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Open Space and Mountain Parks John Potter, Resources and Stewardship Division Manager Andy Pelster, Agriculture Stewardship Supervisor Don D’Amico, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor Will Keeley, Wildlife Ecologist Marianne Giolitto, Wetlands and Riparian Ecologist Parks and Recreation Joy Master, Natural Lands Program Coordinator Public Works Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager DATE: October 3, 2018 SUBJECT: Improving the City’s Mosquito Management Plan ________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Boulder’s mosquito management plan was initiated in 2003 in response to a West Nile virus (WNv) outbreak. Since that time, more is known about mosquito breeding patterns on city properties, the ecosystem impacts of mosquito control treatments and the risk of WNv to people. The city’s initial management plan developed protocols to minimize the impacts of treatments to the environment, but an analysis of data collected since 2003 and new research shows that refinements can be made that could more effectively manage mosquitoes, while enhancing and protecting ecosystem health. Proposed changes to the mosquito management program will address the amount of mosquito activity by lowering negative impacts of mosquitoes and lowering the risk of mosquito-borne disease by improving wetland ecological processes and associated ecosystem services, while raising public awareness. The city’s current mosquito management plan treats all Culex (type of mosquito that can potentially transmit West Nile virus) larvae at every site with larvicide, regardless of whether the site is artificial with no ecological value or is part of ecologically-significant wetland ecosystem. In addition, selected sites in high mosquito activity areas are treated with larvicide for non-disease transmitting mosquitoes without considering the context of the particular site or the long-term impacts from mosquito control treatments. Since the original plan was adopted, multiple studies show concerning effects from mosquito larvicide treatment at every level of the food web with potentially adverse ecosystem-wide impacts. Ecosystem management and pest management are not mutually exclusive, and can in 5 2 fact, achieve the same goals by using the inherent strengths of the ecosystem that naturally limit pest populations. The strategies for a systems or holistic approach to mosquito management can be achieved by utilizing existing tools for ecosystem management and applying the knowledge from studies of mosquito biology and mosquito interactions with competitors, predators and wetland ecological dynamics. Guiding Question How might we reduce the negative impact of mosquitoes to people in and around the City of Boulder with the least amount of environmental impact and the most ecologically-sound human involvement so that the public feels assured and has confidence that the City of Boulder is addressing the issues and using resources efficiently? CORE COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN 1. Managing mosquito breeding: Reducing mosquito breeding, where appropriate, while applying treatment solutions that are specific and tailored to each site to maximize effectiveness; 2.Maintaining or enhancing ecosystem function: A sound and healthy ecosystem is crucial for environmental sustainability and resilience—functioning ecosystems support a diverse community of predators that can limit mosquito populations; and 3.Educating, training, and building awareness: Strengthening public awareness and understanding about mosquito treatments, breeding, and ecological value to further support the city’s ability to implement and manage an effective program. PROPOSED BENEFITS AND CHANGES TO EXISTING PROGRAM 1. Building better field protocols to gather site-specific data from each field monitoring visit to better understand the factors that influence mosquito breeding. 2.Utilize a holistic approach to mosquito larval treatment program. Support ecological systems overall, using a range of appropriate treatments to help maintain healthy wetlands and work towards restoring degraded wetlands. 3.Use an adaptive management approach with flexibility to adjust as needed. 4.Redirect savings from program improvements to other areas such as yard inspection programs and training city operations crews to recognize and mitigate urban mosquito breeding, which is effective for protecting public health and is better for the environment. 5.Re-examine and update the original plan’s mosquito breeding site categories to better reflect each site’s characteristics and choose the most effective management option(s). 6.Increase public education and awareness of the city’s mosquito management protocols and provide guidance for maintenance of private spaces. 7.Protect city, county and state sensitive species (e.g., northern leopard frog, northern redbelly dace, grassland-nesting birds), and federally-managed species (e.g., bald eagle). Questions for EAB: 1. Does EAB support the staff recommendation and approach for revisions to the city’s mosquito management program? 6 3 2.Does EAB have any particular issues, concerns or suggestions that you would like to be addressed during the development and implementation of the new program? BACKGROUND With changing climate, habitat destruction/fragmentation, and contamination from pollutants, including widespread pesticide use, alterations in species composition and range is transforming the world’s ecosystems with consequences that are yet to be fully understood. A February 1, 2018 Information Packet memo discusses the planet’s biodiversity crisis and the city’s Ecological Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy that uses a holistic approach that relies less on direct control methods of individual undesirable species and focuses predominantly on enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem balance to utilize the natural processes that keep populations of undesired species low. An emerging pattern from ecosystem degradation is an increase in pest and disease-causing species, including mosquitoes and ticks. In some areas of the country, mosquito populations have increased by as much as 10-fold in the last few decades. According to a recent study, the main drivers for this increase are anthropogenic – land use patterns, such as urbanization, and pesticides in the environment. When the city first developed a mosquito management program in 2002, the environmental and human health risks of using a suite of pesticides to target mosquitoes at every life stage were found to be too high, and were not in alignment with the city’s IPM Policy and natural lands protection guidelines. As West Nile virus (WNv) was moving westward across the country at that time, it necessitated a thoughtful and effective plan to protect the public health. The city developed a plan to address the threat of WNv to the public, while protecting the environment. Urban areas create artificial environments that breed Culex mosquitoes, the species that can vector or transmit WNv, and outreach and education programs were initiated to encourage the public to drain standing water in residential yards and inform residents about the importance of personal responsibility to avoid mosquito bites. Potential mosquito breeding sites on open space and natural lands are under city management. City staff were concerned about applying mosquito control products that could disrupt wetland ecological balances. Therefore, the city’s program focused on limiting the amount of larvicide (Bti) applied to wetlands by treating only Culex larvae and leaving non-vector or nuisance mosquito larvae untreated to reduce Bti application and maintain an important food source for other animals. In 2007, a nuisance program was added to the WNv management program in high mosquito activity areas around city recreational facilities and neighborhoods. For more information about the city’s program, identified gaps, and the approach for the current program update, please see the April 12, 2018 Information Packet memo. What Has Changed since the City’s Original Mosquito Management Plan was Developed? 7 4 Field Data – During the 15 years since the city’s program was adopted, the city has collected weekly adult mosquito trap data that provides information about location, abundance and the species of mosquitoes that are present throughout the city. The density and mosquito larval type (Culex and non-Culex) are collected weekly from each breeding site. Staff and consultants are analyzing this dataset to determine the patterns of adult mosquito activity, larval site breeding patterns and modeling the effect of different Bti application protocols on adult mosquito activity. Ecosystem Impacts - During the development of the city’s WNv mosquito management plan, the scientific literature was reviewed to determine the impacts of different mosquito control products and all were found to have broad and unacceptable impacts, except for the bacterial larvicide product, Bti. A handful of studies showed non-target impacts and ecosystem alterations, since Bti kills all aquatic fly larvae, including hundreds of harmless species. Basic ecological principles would suggest that removal of a large component of the base of wetland food webs would impact multiple other species. A recent literature review shows wide- ranging adverse impacts, both direct and indirect, to non-target species and demonstrated ecosystem-wide impacts from Bti use (see Attachment A). In light of this new information, staff and ecological consultants have been reassessing larval treatment protocols. West Nile Virus Risk to People – Our understanding of the epidemiology and risk for WNv has changed since 2003, which should be used to inform the city’s management approach. When WNv arrived in the Front Range in 2003, human cases reached epidemic levels and Boulder County had the highest number of cases in the nation. Cases declined sharply in 2004, and although WNv is now endemic with cases occurring every year, it has not reached epidemic levels since 2003. A recent study modeled the driving forces of WNv human cases in 10 states, including Colorado, under current and future climate scenarios and identified the drivers, which vary 8 5 depending on geographic region. WNv cases in Colorado are primarily driven by two factors—drought and human immunity. The majority—80 percent—of people who contract WNv have no symptoms and are unaware they were infected, but then develop immunity. The authors of this study suggest that population-wide protections from immunity are much higher than expected and their models predict that it is unlikely that Colorado will experience another WNv epidemic. However, it’s important to keep in mind that susceptible individuals can become ill if bitten by an infected mosquito. Appropriateness of Adult Mosquito Control Contingency Plan – The WNv Mosquito Management Plan contains provisions for adult mosquito management that includes spraying/fogging with insecticides in the event of a WNv outbreak. Studies show this approach is ineffective with potentially adverse effects for human and environmental health. A WNv outbreak is also unlikely, and if it or another mosquito-borne disease were to reach concerning levels, staff has outlined a series of escalating risks and associated actions to reduce human exposure (Attachment B). Staff Recommendation for Changes to the Program A team of interdepartmental staff ecologists and ecological consultants have been reviewing data, scientific literature and assessing ecologically-sound practices to reduce mosquito activity. The city’s current program has two major components – 1) larval site monitoring and larvicide treatment and 2) adult mosquito monitoring and WNv testing. In addition to refining larval treatment protocols, there are other opportunities to improve mosquito management. Staff is proposing an adaptive management plan that addresses each site individually, gathers data to assess adult and larval populations, relevant ecological parameters, and reviews the data each year to continuously improve the program. 9 6 The following table provides an overview of proposed changes to the program. Program Component Rationale Keep Unchanged Adult mosquito trapping, monitoring and WNv testing Provides valuable information about overall mosquito activity and WNv risk Modify Larval breeding site treatment − Categorize sites by ecological quality − Pinpoint breeding habitat within each site − Choose from multiple treatment options to tailor most appropriate/effective management for each site − Refine existing field treatment protocols for Bti application − Develop new protocols for ecological field technicians to monitor mosquito breeding, natural enemy presence, and other relevant site attributes Site-specific treatments provide better mosquito management, protect biodiversity and can provide more comprehensive management of mosquito populations based on current research and scientific/ecological principles Modify Adult mosquito control contingency plan The original WNv management plan allowed for insecticide application for adult mosquitoes if certain thresholds were met. The thresholds have never been met. The potential harm of adulticide treatments outweighs the benefit. A chart of escalating WNv risk and associated city actions has been created that addresses risk and protect public health (Attachment B). Modify Improve public education and outreach − Provide more information about city operations to increase transparency and better understanding about the city’s program. − Provide more outreach about the role of personal responsibility and actions to reduce mosquito breeding sites and prevent bites. − Improve complaint tracking to help ID potential mosquito 10 7 Program Component Rationale problem spots and refine management to more effectively address. Add Integrated irrigation management and infrastructure maintenance strategy by interdepartmental team Minimize mosquito breeding sites caused by irrigation by evaluating drainage from fields and trails, modify irrigation water release schedules where appropriate, coordinate between departments responsible for ditch maintenance or relationships with ditch companies to better respond to mosquito breeding issues – both prevention and responding to problems as they arise Add Train urban staff from Parks Operations and Public Works to recognize breeding problem spots in parks, storm water drains and other public areas Crews will receive training to report or manage areas with stagnant water and respond in the field to drain or treat with Bti. Add Develop materials for code enforcement to provide to private property owners with standing water issues. There is no ordinance to address standing water on private property. Code enforcement could provide educational materials in response to neighbor complaints about standing water issues. Most significant change – larval breeding site assessment and treatment options Mosquito breeding sites cover a wide range of types from muddy depressions in soil, stagnant water in containers or storm drains to high quality wetlands. If breeding sites can be eliminated by inspecting and draining artificial sites, cleaning clogged trash gates in ditches or managing flood irrigation, this is the quickest and most effective approach. However, sites with high ecological function can possess built-in pest controlling organisms, such as fish, predatory insects, birds and spiders that can keep mosquito populations naturally low. Bti should be used where appropriate, but alternative treatments should first be considered. Staff is currently assessing the ecological significance of breeding sites and mosquito larval breeding history to develop a site-specific management plan. Breeding sites fall roughly into the following categories: 11 8 General Characterization of Mosquito Larval Breeding Types The most challenging category is 4 – high quality/high breeding sites. Some of these sites may need to be treated with Bti in the short-term. However, high quality/high breeding sites are the most susceptible to damage from repeated Bti applications and staff will be exploring alternative treatments to decrease mosquito breeding habitat and enhance predator populations. The following table provides a range of treatment options. Some may be implemented over time as program changes are evaluated as these treatments are implemented. Mosquito Treatment Pros Cons Bacterial larvicide - Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) − Effective at killing mosquito larvae − Less impactful than synthetic chemical pesticides, surface oils and methoprene (insect growth regulator) − Proven industry standard − Body of literature shows direct impacts to non-target organisms, including amphibians − Indirect impacts to non-targets − Ecosystem-wide impacts − Persistent in sediment − Spores can be transferred to untreated sites − Can replicate 12 9 Mosquito Treatment Pros Cons − Formulations can contain contaminants − Evidence that resistance can develop in some mosquito species Predator complexes that occur naturally All mosquito life stages are prey items for many groups of animals in both aquatic and terrestrial systems. − Can be highly effective − Cost-effective − Part of thriving ecosystem that provides many other benefits, including wetland ecosystem services − Complies with IPM policy and integrated ecosystems strategy − Manages for increases in distribution and abundance of sensitive species − Variable and complex depending on type of site − Highly site specific − Colonization rates vary for mosquitoes and predator groups − Requires resources for monitoring and data analysis Encouraging predators by creating habitat or enhancing existing wetland health − Attracting wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate species provides free, efficient pest control − Provides other important ecological benefits and services − Improves biodiversity − Studies provide guidance for improving habitat (e.g. plantings to attract spiders, birds) − Terrestrial predators reduce adult mosquitoes migrating from outside city properties − Must align with site-specific objectives − Not appropriate for all sites − Takes time to implement - would have to be transitioned over time Introducing predators as biocontrol agents − Option for low or mid-quality wetlands − Can rear some biocontrols (e.g. copepods) − May be able to purchase − Potential to transfer from other sites − Important to source/use native predators − No experience using this method − May need to gather data about a candidate site before initiating − Requires tracking and monitoring − May require special permits 13 10 Mosquito Treatment Pros Cons Vegetation management and prescribed burning − Vegetation management can decrease harborage for adult mosquitoes, breeding habitat for larval mosquitoes and attract predators. − Improves invasive species management and improves overall biodiversity and habitat quality − Advances other city site objectives. − Takes time to learn vegetation management specifically for mosquito management − May not be appropriate for other site management objectives Create new healthy wetlands − Can control large numbers of both larval and adult mosquitoes − Provides other important ecological benefits and services − Sequesters carbon − Provide resilience to reduce impacts from extreme weather events − Expensive − May need to secure water rights - can be costly, lengthy process − Must align with other objectives to justify cost Filling in artificial depressions (e.g. wheel ruts, cattle hoof prints) − Eliminates poor quality sites that readily breed mosquitoes − Reduces Bti application − Labor-intensive/costly − Logistically difficult to implement − At some sites, could adversely impact surrounding area if near sensitive habitat − Depending on cause, may be more cost-effective to prevent (e.g. herd management) − May require permits to fill if in jurisdictional wetlands Herd Management − Minimize the overlap of grazing and flood irrigation to prevent hoof disturbance of wet soils. − Cost-effective and preventive − Reduces Bti application − Requires coordination with staff, lessees (water release management, cattle grazing, etc.) − In some situations, may not be feasible − Heavy rain can create same issue as irrigation Optimize irrigation practices − City staff has worked with OSMP agricultural lessees to alter water release and scheduling to decrease standing water. − Land and irrigation management − In some cases, runoff can create good wetlands, which needs to be balanced with standing water that becomes a breeding site − Can be logistically difficult to 14 11 Mosquito Treatment Pros Cons practices can be viewed through the lens of mosquito breeding to decrease potential breeding sites − Flood irrigation could be tool to decrease floodwater mosquitoes by allowing hatching and then draining to kill larvae before they can emerge as adults. coordinate all players − Water rights are administered by the State of Colorado and there are limitations on what can be achieved regarding modifying irrigation schedules and quantities that may impact mosquito breeding. Drain artificial breeding sites − Train staff to check equipment that can fill with water and store to prevent and dump or drain when holding water − Train staff to avoid overwatering and notice when ground, particularly turf, is saturated − Check gutters and maintain to keep clear and flowing − Train staff to check storm drains and other areas that could become clogged and hold water Requires resources and training. NEXT STEPS − Staff and consultants will complete:  Breeding site categorization  Breeding history analysis for individual sites  Completion of field protocols for Bti application and ecological monitoring − Meet with advisory boards to provide feedback to council from the Environmental Advisory Board (Oct. 3), Open Space Board of Trustees (Oct. 11) and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (Oct. 22). − Council presentation and direction (Nov. 8) − Public engagement – Dec. 2018 – Feb. 2019 − Complete Request for Proposal for program components – Feb. 2019 − Hire contractor(s) – March 2019 − Implementation of revised program – April 2019 − Provide council with update after first year of implementation – November 2019 Attachments: Attachment A: Review of Scientific Literature for Impacts of Bacillus thuringiensis sub- species israelensis (Bti) for Mosquito Larval Control Attachment B: Actions for Escalating West Nile Virus Risk 15 1 Review of Scientific Literature for Impacts of Bacillus thuringiensis sub- species israelensis (Bti) for Mosquito Larval Control Summary The larvicide, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), is the most targeted and least toxic product option for mosquito management. In most situations, Bti is effective at killing mosquito larvae. However, its use should be limited due to direct toxicity to non-target organisms such as frogs and harmless and beneficial insects, as well as indirect effects, which can impact ecosystem function, from water quality to bird reproductive success. Contaminants have been reported in formulated products, including pathogenic bacteria, toxins and endocrine disrupting activity. Although Bti resistance is not known to be widespread in mosquito larvae under field conditions, Bti has been shown to persist in the environment and it can “recycle” or replicate. Bti spores can be transported to untreated sites by adherence to animal bodies or through feces and cause potential non-target impacts at these untreated sites. Bti has its place in mosquito management. Due to the potential for ecosystem-wide impacts, however, other alternatives such as natural population controls, should be considered before Bti application—particularly in high-functioning wetlands and natural areas where Bti can disrupt ecosystem communities. Background Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a gram-positive bacterium that forms toxin-containing protein crystal inclusions. When ingested by susceptible invertebrates, the crystals attack the gut. More than 67 Bt sub-species have been identified that are targeted to specific insect groups. The sub- species Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) was discovered in 1976 and is toxic to aquatic fly larvae, including mosquitoes, black flies, craneflies, non-biting midges (chironomids), fungus gnats, filter flies and others in the sub-order Nematocera. When the Bti crystal inclusions are ingested by the larva, it binds to the gut, releases toxins, and forms pores that disrupt the tissues and osmotic balance, killing the insect. See Lacey, 2007 details. The Bti life cycle has a “sporulation cycle,” that includes vegetative cell division and spore development. The vegetative phase is the living, replicating component of the lifecycle. Each vegetative cell divides into two daughter cells. When starved of nutrients, a daughter cell within the mother cell is walled off into an “endospore.” When the mother cell dies, the spore is released. These spores are dormant and resistant to drying, heat and other environmentally adverse conditions. The protein crystals afford protection for the spores and also provide nutrients for germination when the spores are activated and convert to vegetative cells (Ibrahim et al., 2010). 16 2 Endospore formation and cycle (Attribution) Production Bti is produced by fermentation in large vats using a variety of materials/media that provide nutrients for the bacteria, which can influence its toxic properties and final formulation. For instance, some of the nutritional media can remain when the spores are recovered (Lacey, 2007). A few days before harvesting, nutrients are no longer provided, at which point the bacteria die, leaving dead cells, crystal proteins, and spores in the fermentation broth. The broth is processed into formulations of the final Bti product (Valent Biosciences). Additives are typically not disclosed by pesticide manufacturers and are considered proprietary information, but can include synergists, surfactants, sticking agents and UV protectants. The potency is tested from each batch, which is measured in international toxic units or [ITU]/mg. However, there is no screening for metabolite or microbiological contaminants, and pathogenic bacteria have been found in Bti preparations (World Health Organization, 2009). Screening for endocrine disrupting properties is also not conducted on Bti formulations. However, significant estrogenic properties were found in three of five Bti formulations in laboratory assays, although it was not detected in field testing. These tests were conducted to try to determine the source of estrogenic activity in ground water near areas where Bti was applied. (Maletz et al., 2015). 17 3 Other toxic products, in addition to the protein crystals, can be produced by Bti: During vegetative growth, various Bt strains produce an assortment of antibiotics, enzymes, metabolites and toxins, including Bc toxins, that may have detrimental effects on both target organisms and non-target organisms. Beta-exotoxin, a heat-stable nucleotide, is produced by some Bt subspecies during vegetative growth and may contaminate the products. Beta-exotoxin is toxic for almost all forms of life, including humans and the target insect orders (World Health Organization, 2009). Efficacy Larvicides are considered the most effective and important component of mosquito control programs, since treatments can be applied to known breeding sites where mosquitoes are concentrated, and larviciding prevents the emergence of adult mosquitoes. Bti is also one of the most targeted and least acutely-toxic product options. Different formulations are designed to make contact with mosquito larvae in different types of habitats and include powders, liquid suspensions, granules, tablets, and briquettes. Multiple variables effect the lethality of Bti, including the insect’s instar (age), density, organic content, temperature, susceptibility of the target species, etc. (Laurence et al. 2010). Larvae that ingest Bti die rapidly—usually within a few hours. Persistence, Proliferation and Resistance Problems can arise from the use of all insecticide products, whether synthetic, natural or microbial—broad-spectrum or targeted. As pest managers become more reliant on regular use of pesticidal products, the pesticide can accumulate in the environment and insects can develop resistance. Resistance: Field resistance to Bt sub-species that target beetles or lepidopterans has been reported and the underlying genetic mechanisms have been studied. The changes in genetic expression that allow insects to develop resistance have also been examined in mosquito larvae (Tetreau et al., 2012). Because Bti has four major toxins and additional minor toxins, the development of resistance is complex and requires the involvement of multiple genes (Bonin et al., 2015, Ben-Dov, 2014). This is thought to be the reason why resistance is developing slowly in natural mosquito populations. There are, however, cases in the literature of confirmed resistance. A high level of resistance to Bti was detected in a population of Culex pipiens in New York (Ayesa et al., 2005). Persistence: Insecticides that break down slowly and persist in the environment chronically expose both target and non-target organisms. Persistent pesticides prolong exposure of the pest, and if the pest remains susceptible, the pesticide will continue to control it. But long-term exposure can drive resistance and contribute to undesirable non-target impacts that can alter ecosystem dynamics. Studies show a range of activity for Bti under field conditions. Although it’s generally thought that Bti is gradually deactivated and does not persist, several studies show that it can and does persist and remain toxic. Bti leaves the water column relatively quickly, after which the spores settle out of the water and bind to the soil substrate or particulates. When the soil or particulate substrates were stirred and filtered three weeks later, the suspension retained 18 4 toxicity (Ohana et al., 1987) A study with simulated field conditions showed Bti residual activity for 20 weeks (Marcombe et al., 2011). Decaying leaf litter collected from ponds treated with Bti was found to be highly toxic to mosquito larvae months after application (Tetreau et al., 2012). Bti spores can persist for months in the environment. The number of treatments, the type vegetation, and the presence of organic matter are all associated with persistence of the spores. Change in water level or salinity does not appear to affect spore persistence. “Recycling” or proliferation is when the spores germinate and return to vegetative growth, replicate, sporulate and produce toxins. Bti can kill mosquito larvae and then proliferate from their carcasses (Aly et al., 1984). Pupae can also recycle Bti. Older forth instar larvae that ingested Bti and completed pupation, later died as pupae from Bti infection and the carcasses of the pupae were found to recycle Bti (Khawaled et al, 1989). One study showed no evidence that recycling occurs in sediment or other substrates and found that mosquito larvae must be present for recycling to occur (Duchet et al., 2013). However another study found much higher levels of spores in leaf litter than expected from Bti application alone and the researchers suggest that proliferation is occurring, as well as spore persistence (Tetreau et al., 2012). Bti has even been detected from untreated sites at high levels in decaying leaf litter. A high number of viable spores correlated with toxicity of the leaf litter samples to mosquito larvae. The researchers suggest that the bacteria could be germinating and proliferating in the natural environment (Tilquin et al., 2008). Spores can be transported to untreated sites by animals in two ways. The spores can adhere to the bodies of animals or be excreted after ingestion in the feces. The excreted spores maintain toxic properties and mosquito larvae are killed when exposed to them (Brazner and Anderson, 1986, Snarski, 1990). The variability in studies shows that analytical techniques, field conditions, formulations and many other factors determine the persistence of Bti, and unlike most pesticides, since Bti is a microorganism, it does have the ability to replicate. This raises concerns about resistance developing in mosquito larvae, as well as impacts to food webs and habitat quality. Ecological Impacts Bti is a biopesticide and it is commonly thought to be safe and non-toxic to vertebrates and non- target invertebrates. This assumption is based on a number of studies in the past that found no secondary or indirect impacts from Bti treatments. During that same time period, some studies did record concerning impacts from Bti. One study measured significant losses in biomass at sites treated with Bti. In a three-year study, insect densities were reduced by 57 to 83% and biomass was reduced by 50 to 83% (Niemi et al., 1998). The researchers emphasized the potential impacts from the magnitude of these losses: The prevailing knowledge of wetland ecosystems is too limited to fully assess the ramifications of these declines in aquatic insect communities for other food web components or for the overall functions of these wetlands. The application of these insecticides can certainly be viewed as changing the function and structure of these wetlands because of large reductions in insects, a major component of wetland food webs. It is difficult to believe that reductions of insect density and biomass in the range of 19 5 50 to 80% would not eventually have major effect on these wetlands. Their ultimate effects remain unclear. Direct Ecological Impacts Several recent studies indicate a wide range of impacts from Bti treatments at all trophic levels of wetland ecosystems. Impacts to non-target flies: Bti kills mosquitoes and other aquatic fly larvae from the sub-order Nematocera. Therefore, it would be expected that populations of non-target flies will be impacted from Bti use. The non-biting midges, or Chironomidae, are a diverse group of flies and can make up more than half of the species in wetland systems and dominate flying insects. A recent study that surveyed male chironomids in Colorado’s Fountain Creek Watershed identified 151 different species (Hermann et al., 2016). Although different studies have shown a range of impacts to chironomids from Bti application, some have shown no impacts. One found no difference from Bti treatment for two common chironomid species in natural wetlands (Duchet et al., 2015). Another study cautioned that toxicity to Bti in chironomids varies greatly throughout their development and that many studies likely underestimate risk. Toxicity to larvae of Chironomus riparius was 209 times greater for first instar larvae and 90 times greater for second instar larvae than the lowest field application rate used in mosquito control (Kästel et al.,2016). Another study of temporary flooded wetlands found rich biodiversity of chironomid species with high turn-over between years in these unstable habitats. Bti treatment did not lower species richness. However, treated sites had a significant difference in species turnover and colonization dynamics were affected (Lundström et al., 2009). One study showed a significant decrease in the density of chironomids from Bti treatment (Pauley et al., 2015) and another long-term study in natural wetlands showed a 78% reduction of chironomid and related aquatic flies in treated areas (Jakob and Poulin, 2016). Impacts to non-fly invertebrates: Although no acute toxicity to Bti was observed, the amphipod, Gammarus lacustris, ingested Bti and spores were found in its feces. The amount of time that Bti remained in the gut was much longer than expected. Bti spores were also found in the guts of newborn progeny that were born at least a week past the last Bti exposure of the parent (Brazner and Anderson, 1986). Bti is not just toxic to aquatic flies. A review paper listed an expanded host range of species that are susceptible to Bti that includes terrestrial flies, moths, beetles, nematodes and flatworms (Ben-Dov, 2014). Five species of zooplankton or microcrustaceans that coexist with mosquito larvae in coastal wetlands were exposed to range of Bti concentrations and were examined for acute and chronic effects. Crustaceans were chosen for this study with a range of different feeding behaviors, including predators, herbivors, filter feeders and benthic scrapers. As concentrations of Bti increased and over time, there was a pattern of increasing mortality (Olmo et al, 2016). Another study found Cladocera (waterfleas) were significantly affected by Bti treatment (Pauley et al., 2015). 20 6 Impacts to amphibians: Bti is said to be nontoxic to vertebrates. However, recent studies show direct toxicity to tadpoles (Hyla versicolor). Short-term exposure of tadpoles to Bti affected their locomotion. Compared to controls, exposed tadpoles spent more time motionless, spent less time swimming and traveled shorter distances (Junges et al., 2017). When predators (dragonfly larvae) are present, Bti treatment significantly decreases tree frog tadpole survival (Pauley et al., 2015). Tadpoles (Leptodactylus latrans) showed dose-dependent sensitivity to Bti and 100% died after 48 hours of exposure to the highest dose, which is at the top range of recommended field rates. Exposure to lower doses of Bti induced intestinal damage (See figure below). Changes to enzymes created oxidative stress, leading to genotoxicity, which could be the cause the intestinal disruption (Lajmanovich et al., 2015). From Lajmanovich et al., 2015. Indirect Effects The organisms that are directly affected from Bti are members of complex wetland communities and impacts to one component can have cascading effects that indirectly impact other organisms. Studies that assess indirect impacts are challenging to conduct. The majority of studies related to Bti effects look at efficacy for killing mosquito larvae. There are several studies looking at direct impacts to non-target organisms, but very few on indirect effects or persistence (Poulin, 2012). Impacts to micro-organisms: Very low concentration Bti treatment (too low to kill mosquitoes) in freshwater microcosms caused no measurable impacts to microorganisms, nutrients or suspended particles. Two weeks after application of high dose Bti, mosquito larval and microorganism density were decreased— the most abundant bacteria species were suppressed. After 44 days post-treatment, cyanobacteria was significantly reduced, showing changes in microbial community composition, reduced nutrients and algae (Duguma et al., 2015). In a large study of natural wetlands, Bti application increased the density of protozoans by 4.5 times and the taxonomic richness increased by 60%. Mosquito larvae feed on protozoans and 21 7 both mosquitoes and protozoans feed on bacteria (Östman et al., 2008). A study showed that Bti is not directly toxic to phytoplankton. Mosquito larvae feed on phytoplankton, which decrease in a curvilinear fashion as mosquito density increases. Primary producers are indirectly impacted when mosquito larvae and related species are killed and removed from the ecosystem from Bti application (Duguma et al., 2017). Impacts to macroinvertebrate mosquito predators: A large-scale, five-year study of adult Odonata (dragonfly and damselfly) monitored richness and abundance in natural wetlands. A five-fold reduction in abundance and three-fold reduction in richness was found in Bti-treated sites. This was thought to be due to depletion of food availability from an 87% reduction of aquatic flies from treated sites (Jakob and Poulin, 2016). Impacts to vertebrates: House martins were assessed for three years between control and Bti-treated sites for diet, clutch size, and fledging survival. Insect prey at untreated sites was mainly spiders and dragonflies. Prey items were significantly smaller at treated sites and more flying ants were eaten. Reproductive success was lower at treated sites with decreased clutch size and fledging survival (Poulin et al., 2010). Literature Cited Aly, C., Mulla, M. S., & Federici, B. A. (1985). Sporulation and toxin production by Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis in cadavers of mosquito larvae (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 46(3), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(85)90066-7 Ben-Dov, E. (2014). Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis and Its Dipteran-Specific Toxins. Toxins, 6(4), 1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6041222 Bonin, A., Paris, M., Frérot, H., Bianco, E., Tetreau, G., & Després, L. (2015). The genetic architecture of a complex trait: Resistance to multiple toxins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis in the dengue and yellow fever vector, the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 35, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2015.07.034 Brazner, J. C., & Anderson, R. L. (1986). Ingestion and Adsorption of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis by Gammarus lacustris in the Laboratory. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 52(6), 1386–1390. Abstract. Duchet, C., Franquet, E., Lagadic, L., & Lagneau, C. (2015). Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and spinosad on adult emergence of the non-biting midges Polypedilum nubifer (Skuse) and Tanytarsus curticornis Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) in coastal wetlands. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 115, 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.02.029 Duchet, C., Tetreau, G., Marie, A., Rey, D., Besnard, G., Perrin, Y., … Després, L. (2014). 22 8 Persistence and Recycling of Bioinsecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Spores in Contrasting Environments: Evidence from Field Monitoring and Laboratory Experiments. Microbial Ecology, 67(3), 576–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-013-0360-7 Duguma, D., Hall, M. W., Rugman-Jones, P., Stouthamer, R., Neufeld, J. D., & Walton, W. E. (2015). Microbial communities and nutrient dynamics in experimental microcosms are altered after the application of a high dose ofBti. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(3), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12422 Duguma, D., Ortiz, S. L., Lin, Y., Wilson, P. C., & Walton, W. E. (2017). Effects of a larval mosquito biopesticide and Culex larvae on a freshwater nanophytoplankton (Selenastrum capricornatum ) under axenic conditions. Journal of Vector Ecology, 42(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12239 Herrmann, S. J., Sublette, J. E., Helland, L. K., Nimmo, D. W. R., Carsella, J. S., Herrmann- Hoesing, L. M., & Heuvel, B. D. V. (2016). Species Richness, Diversity, and Ecology of Chironomidae (Diptera) in Fountain Creek: A Colorado Front Range Sandy-Bottom Watershed. Western North American Naturalist, 76(2), 186–252. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.076.0206 Ibrahim, M. A., Griko, N., Junker, M., & Bulla, L. A. (2010). Bacillus thuringiensis. Bioengineered Bugs, 1(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.4161/bbug.1.1.10519 Jakob, C., & Poulin, B. (2016). Indirect effects of mosquito control usingBtion dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in the Camargue. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 9(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12155 Junges, C. M., Maglianese, M. I., Lajmanovich, R. C., Peltzer, P. M., & Attademo, A. M. (2017). Acute Toxicity and Etho-toxicity of Three Insecticides Used for Mosquito Control on Amphibian Tadpoles. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 228(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3324-6 Kästel, A., Allgeier, S., & Brühl, C. A. (2017). Decreasing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis sensitivity of Chironomus riparius larvae with age indicates potential environmental risk for mosquito control. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14019-2 Khawaled, K., Ben-Dov, E., Zaritsky, A., & Barak, Z. ’ev. (1990). The fate of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis in B. thuringiensis var. israelensis-killed pupae of Aedes aegypti. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 56(3), 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(90)90117- o Lacey, L. A. (2007). Bacillus thuringiensis serovariety israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus for mosquito control. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 23(sp2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971x(2007)23[133:btsiab]2.0.co;2 Lajmanovich, R. C., Junges, C. M., Cabagna-Zenklusen, M. C., Attademo, A. M., Peltzer, P. M., Maglianese, Marquz, V.A. Beccaria, A. J. (2015). Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis in aqueous suspension on the South American common frog Leptodactylus latrans 23 9 (Anura: Leptodactylidae) tadpoles. Environmental Research, 136, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.022 Laurence, D., Christophe, L., & Roger, F. (2011). Using the Bio-Insecticide Bacillus Thuringiensis Israelensis in Mosquito Control. In Pesticides in the Modern World - Pests Control and Pesticides Exposure and Toxicity Assessment. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/17005 Lundström, J. O., Brodin, Y., Schäfer, M. L., Vinnersten, T. Z. P., & Östman, Ö. (2009). High species richness of Chironomidae (Diptera) in temporary flooded wetlands associated with high species turn-over rates. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 100(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007485309990472 Maletz, S., Wollenweber, M., Kubiak, K., Müller, A., Schmitz, S., Maier, D., … Hollert, H. (2015). Investigation of potential endocrine disrupting effects of mosquito larvicidal Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti ) formulations. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.053 Marcombe, S., Corbel, V., Yébakima, A., Etienne, M., Yp-Tcha, M.-M., Darriet, F., & Agnew, P. (2011). Field Efficacy of New Larvicide Products for Control of Multi-Resistant Aedes aegypti Populations in Martinique (French West Indies). The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 84(1), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0335 Niemi, G. J., Hershey, A. E., Shannon, L., Hanowski, J. M., Lima, A., Axler, R. P., & Regal, R. R. (1999). Ecological effects of mosquito control on zooplankton, insects, and birds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(3), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180325 Ohana, B., Margalit, J., & Barak, Z. (1987). Fate of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis under Simulated Field Conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 53(4), 828–831. Full text. Olmo, C., Marco, A., Armengol, X., & Ortells, R. (2016). Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on nonstandard microcrustacean species isolated from field zooplankton communities. Ecotoxicology, 25(10), 1730–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-016-1708-9 Östman, Ö., Lundström, J. O., & Persson Vinnersten, T. Z. (2008). Effects of mosquito larvae removal with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) on natural protozoan communities. Hydrobiologia, 607(1), 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9387-z Paul, A., Harrington, L. C., Zhang, L., & Scott, J. G. (2005). Insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens from New York. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 21(3), 305. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971x(2005)21[305:iricpf]2.0.co;2 Pauley, L. R., Earl, J. E., & Semlitsch, R. D. (2015). Ecological Effects and Human Use of Commercial Mosquito Insecticides in Aquatic Communities. Journal of Herpetology, 49(1), 28– 35. https://doi.org/10.1670/13-036 24 10 Poulin, B. (2012). Indirect effects of bioinsecticides on the nontarget fauna: The Camargue experiment calls for future research. Acta Oecologica, 44, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2011.11.005 Poulin, B., Lefebvre, G., & Paz, L. (2010). Red flag for green spray: adverse trophic effects of Bti on breeding birds. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(4), 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01821.x Snarski, V. M. (1990). Interactions between Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis and Fathead Minnows, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque, under Laboratory Conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(9), 2618–2622. Full text. Tilquin, M., Paris, M., Reynaud, S., Despres, L., Ravanel, P., Geremia, R. A., & Gury, J. (2008). Long Lasting Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis Subsp. israelensis (Bti) in Mosquito Natural Habitats. PLoS ONE, 3(10), e3432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003432 Tetreau, G., Alessi, M., Veyrenc, S., Périgon, S., David, J.-P., Reynaud, S., & Després, L. (2012). Fate of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis in the Field: Evidence for Spore Recycling and Differential Persistence of Toxins in Leaf Litter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78(23), 8362–8367. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02088-12 Tetreau, G., Bayyareddy, K., Jones, C. M., Stalinski, R., Riaz, M. A., Paris, M., … Després, L. (2012). Larval midgut modifications associated with Bti resistance in the yellow fever mosquito using proteomic and transcriptomic approaches. BMC Genomics, 13(1), 248. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-248 Valent Biosciences. VectoBac (Bti) WDG Biological Mosquito Larvicide Applications for Control of Zika Vectors. Frequently Asked Questions. 2018. https://www.valentbiosciences.com/publichealth/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/02/faq- vectobac-wdg-applications-for-zika-virus-vectors.pdf World Health Organization. Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) in drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. 2009. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/RevisedFourthEditionBacillusthuringi ensis_Bti_July272009_2.pdf 25 Conditions that Escalate Risk of West Nile Virus to People Actions to Reduce Risk of West Nile Virus to People No infected moquito samples Mosquito sample positive for WNv Vector Index greater than 0.5 by mid-July Multiple positive samples during same week Consecutive weeks of positive samples Vector Index exceeds 0.75 Vector Index exceeds 0.75 in multiple samples and escalates over time Human cases above average City reminds the public to avoid bites and drain standing water City press release when first positive mosquito pool occurs and when first human case occurs in the city City increases signage at trailsheads and Parks and Recrecation facilites City provides mosquito repellent at recreational facilities City increaes NextDoor and social meda posts, newsstories, etc. to remind public of increasing risk Trainings to city staff to recognize and decrease breedings sites Consider "yard audits" to reduce breeding sites in urban areas Neighborhood leaders assist neighbors with yard audits and provide city information to avoid bites Consider additional testing to pinpoint hotspots Map human cases, if occur in clusters, focus on working with neighborhoods to reduce risk 26 2018 Environmental Advisory Board Calendar January 3 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Scoping and Planning for 2018 Joint Council/EAB SS Brett KenCairn New Member Recruitment Board Materials due by noon on Wed, Dec 27, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. February 7 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff RECs Yael Gichon/Kimberlee Rankin Preparing for the Joint Council/EAB Study Session Materials due by noon on Wed, Jan 31, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. March 7 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Updates to the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Associated Programs Rella Abernathy (60 mins) Urban Forest Management Strategy Kathleen Alexander (30 mins) Preparing for the Joint Council/EAB Study Session Board Goodbye and Thank You to Brad All Materials due by noon on Wed, Feb 28, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. April 4 - Retreat May 16 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff/Board Member 6400 Arapahoe Kara Mertz Debrief Retreat Brett KenCairn Preparing for a Joint Advisory Board Meeting on Ecosystem Related Issues Update on the Joint Council/EAB Study Session Brett KenCairn Materials due by noon on Wed, April 25, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. June 6 Meeting Public Hearings Staff 27 Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff GAC Memo Joint Board Meeting Prep Board Joint Council/EAB Study Session Prep Board Materials due by noon on Wed, May 30, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. July 18 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Joint Board Meeting Planning Board Materials due by noon on Tues, July 11, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. August 1 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and Staff Analysis Valerie Matheson – 30 mins Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work Kendra Tupper and Kimberlee Rankin – 60 mins Joint Board Meeting Planning Board Materials due by noon on Wed, July 25, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. August 29 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Joint Board Meeting Board Welcome Justin Brant to the Board Board Joint Board Meeting Planning Board Materials due by noon on Wed, Aug 22, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. October 3 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Muni Update Steve Catanach Options to Update and Improve Boulder’s Mosquito Management Program Rella Abernathy Joint Meeting Debrief Board Annual Letter to City Council Board Materials due by noon on Wed, Sept 26, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. 28 November 7 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Joint Council/EAB Study Session Prep Board Annual Letter to City Council Board Materials due by noon on Wed, Oct 24, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. December 5 Meeting Public Hearings Staff Discussion Items/Updates/Matters for the Board Staff Joint Council/EAB Study Session Prep Board Annual Letter to City Council Board Materials due by noon on Wed, Nov 28, emailed to EAB by 4 pm. 29