HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08152006 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Committee 1, -.1;.„° - J Costa
DATE: June 12, 2006rA �ai;K County
SUBJECT: Implementation of the County's Integrated Pest Management Policy
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ACCEPT the Integrated Pest Management Task Force's Annual Report for 2005 and report on the estimated
costs of implementing various components of an Integrated Pest Management Program (Exhibits A and B,
respectively).
2. DIRECT the General Services Department to extend the pest management contract with Orkin for one year,
utilizing Integrated Pest Management techniques at all County facilities, with review;by the Integrated Pest
Management Task Force after 6 months.
3. DIRECT the General Services Department to as soon as possible begin posting notices at County Buildings
three days before the application of all registered pesticides, except as specified, and"remaining for four days
afterwards. Exceptions are baits, pastes, and gels used in cracks and crevasses, and those registered pesticides
contained on a list approved by the Integrated Pest Management Task Force (Exhibit'C).
4. DIRECT the Integrated Pest Management Task Force to discuss funding and employee education options with
Department Heads at an upcoming Department Head Meeting.
5. REQUEST the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee to continue to monitor the activities of the
Integrated Pest Management Task Force.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
On February 13, 2006 the Contra County Integrated Pest Management Task Force (Task Force) gave their third
annual report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure (TW1) Committee (see Exhibit A). In addition to
providing a review of the efforts of the Task Force for the year, the highlights of the Departments activities, and the
plans of the Task Force for 2006, the report responded to recommendations about the implementation of the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOM DATIO OF OA RD COMMITTEE
APPR R
SIGNATURE(S): upervisor Federal Glover Sup i M iepho
ACTION OF BOAR ON APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED �C OTHER )c
E'er
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT
AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED
CONTACT: Michael Kent, (925)313-6587
JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
CC: Michael Kent,597 Center Ave.,Ste. 100, Martinez
Ed Meyer,2366-A Stanwell Circle,Concord
Steve Goetz,651 Pine Street,North Wing,4`”floor, Martinez C
BY DEPUTY
j REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
CompletL- this form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum re addressing the Board.
Name: 1 �t� Qr�/ Phone:
Address: y1 cot. City: Q, JA_
�JA_
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: 5�- I �� S 3S '` (4o %A'k til� G4a A
CHECK ONE: (��1
ElL
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �« ` ��^-"^I,`'1 Date:
My comments will be: General ❑ For ❑ Against
i
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
I
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostra a ad ressing the Board.
Name: ''c I(i-e- / Phone: _
. Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself L/ or organization: _
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # a "� Date: 8//'S
My comments will be: L 'General ❑ For ElAgainst
❑ I wish .to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
I
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Completo this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum(beZ:a)ddressing the Bogard.
Name: Ja�►h Gra,o�r, Phone: CrZ5,, '
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) II
I am speaking for myself or organization: �� W� UW4 — PEu toca
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 5M 6
My comments will be: P General ❑ For ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: C&Y- ne46_ a�;Oin S
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information,
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form place it in the box near the speakers' rostru ore addressing the Board. , /
Name: Phone:�9 =l ��l/� �/ MVV/
Address: ?y&Z9AIP ,kDA� City: ,a Ziy"�/A 1pG
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: Z _
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
.� 1 wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this/form and place it in the box near the;speakers' rostra ore addressing the Board.
Name: 1/%a�u is Phone: 51-3�s6
Address: n 6 ,-,C(/ C I City: l,�c4 vc r
(Address and phone numb are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: I a e- C7-
CHECK
CHECK ONE: J
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # i Date: /�.
My comments will be: LRGeneral ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
I �
I
I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
I
Please see reverse for instrucfions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
�l
Complete thisformand place it in the boxnearthe speakers' rostrum ore addressing the Board.
Name: Y a J r < ) ,A f-">l— Phone:
Address: _ City: C
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: _
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #��- ( Date: l (�
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
[ I wish to speak on the subject of:
I
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before a ressing the Board.
Name: Q� I Phone: a.5 13 S 3 s
Address: l o c-*— City: Oct. /4 L4,: (54-P�,, �
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: D C
CHECK ONE: !
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ti Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General. ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
I
I
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,--.-
i
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
r
I; REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complelte this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before.addressing the Board.
Name: ( /i I Phone:
I
Address: ��0 �!�� ,f/��S �'�� 1 City: CSN ddLLC/
(Address andl,phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
�( I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My commentswill be: qGeneral LJ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
I�
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,::1--.
1
1'
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
�i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this and placre, it in the box near thr�e,speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: l J� QY I t I'�Z� ��y I Phone: (49'- 5°722
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerkl of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself_� or organization:
1.
CHECK ONE:
L I wish)to speak�on Agenda Item # �— Date: I s
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of:
I.
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,�:,-:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
, (THREE (3) MINUTE. LIMIT) 0
Complete this form and p ace it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing
��the
��Board.
Name: Phone: V1-9 `�CJ`ZJ
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)1�
I am speaking for myself or organization: !r v _
CHECK ONE: J �p
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ( Date: U
My comments will be, ❑ General Fd'r ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: hJ I A& L I/I V11*1
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information.'
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Cnmpiefe this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addr�es/sing the Board.
Name: Rio /ll� T' Phone:
Address: C,� �/ l� �� City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: t/ e&m boor-11,Z11 _
0
CHECK ONE:
E I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: /
My comments will be. ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM f
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �� I
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: ����� Oe4rnznex Phone: (R2.�� �3( -6zoT
Address: /Oy/ &A9 Oa,, City: Pao✓� ��ri'
(Address and phone number re optional; please note that this card will becorne a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself =� or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: A k f-"
My comments will be: ❑ General Arror ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: BAJ�i*& CrAlrOe Je
i-1 I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these cornrnents for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for irrstrructions acrd iniportarrt irrforrrratior►
1
Implementation of the County's Integrated Pest Management Policy
June 12, 2006
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued):
County's integrated pest management(IPM) policy by Parents for a Safer Environment. The report also responded
to comments by the County's Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB), who had been asked to
support the recommendations made by Parents for a Safer Environment.
The annual report responded to eight recommendations submitted by the Parents for a Safer Environment. A
significant number of written and oral comments regarding implementation of the County's IPM policy were
received by the Committee. The TWI Committee directed the Task Force to develop cost estimates to implement
some of these recommendations. They also directed the Task Force to work with PEHAB to develop these cost
estimates and to recommend opportunities to improve public notification, outreach and education as part of the
County's IPM practices. A progress report to the TWI Committee was requested in three months time.
On June 12, 2006, the Task Force gave a progress report to the TWI Committee on their recommendations as well a
a review of the status of the County's contract for pest control services (See Exhibit B). The TWI Committee
directed the Task Force to work with the County Administrator in presenting the following IPM issues at a future
meeting of the County Department Heads: 1)the need for affected departments to work with the Task Force in
identifying potential funding for an IPM Coordinator or and IPM consultant;.and 2) implementation of new
procedures for pest control (e.g. signage and IPM methods) at County buildings. The Committee was informed that
some counties fund IPM Coordinators through a line item in the budgets of the affected departments. The members
of the TWI Committee members expressed their willingness to:participate in this presentation with the Department
Heads. The TWI Committee recommended that the General Services Department extend'their contract with Orkin
with certain conditions as specified in the progress report. The TWI Committee wanted a status report to the Board
on implementation of the County's IPM policy.
FISCAL IMPACT .
None at this time. Participation of County staff on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Task Force relies upon
the existing budgets of the affected departments. The cost of incorporating the IPM techniques into the Orkin
contract does not increase the cost of the contract. The IPM Task Force is proposing that any cost for posting rely
upon the existing budgets of the affected departments. Recommendations for funding additional IPM activities suc
as hiring an IPM coordinator/consultant or IPM training/outreach to County employees would be addressed as part
of a future discussion or action of this Board.
Exhibit A: County Integrated Pest Management Task Force Annual Report for 2005
Exhibit B: County Integrated Pest Management Task Force Follow-up Report,June 12,2006
Exhibit C: County Integrated Pest Management Task Force list of approved registered pesticides
ADDENDUM
August 15, 2006: Agenda Item D.2
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered recommendations from the
Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) on implementation of the
County's Integrated Pest Management Policy(IPM).
Staff's report was presented by Michael Kent of the Health Services Department and Ed
Meyer, Agricultural Commissioner.
Supervisor Gioia cited a lack of reporting on pesticide use from the General Services
Department, saying when one of the largest departments that applies pesticides is not
reporting there is a problem. He noted that despite the progress that has been made by
Contra Costa to reduce the amount of pesticides used and to snake improvements on the
type of products used, Contra Costa still uses,proportionately, more pounds of pesticide
than most other counties. He cited past incidents where Orkin sprayed pesticides at a
Head Start facility, and noted that practice has been stopped, but he said that without
oversight similar occurrences could continue to fall through the cracks. He noted there
has been some discussion about spreading the cost for Integrated Pest management Policy
(►P.m) oversight throughout the departments, with smaller departments having smaller
costs.
Chair Gioia noted that the IPM Task Force does not have the authority to enforce the
Board's policy requiring departments to.submit reports of use numbers.
Mr. Kent said that the Public and Environmental IIealth Advisory Board (PEHAB)
supports the hiring of an tPM Coordinator. He added that if an iiw Coordinator could not
be hired, the County could consider hiring a consultant on a short-terin basis to evaluate
and suggest improvements. He noted that departments could pay for oversight on a pro-
rated basis, based on the amount of services required.
Supervisor Uilkema said she sees a gap that all involved parties are willing to close in
terms of meeting the goal of creating a safer approach to pest management.
The Chair opened the item for public comment, and the following people spoke:
■ Susan JunFish, Environmental Health Scientist and Director of Parents for a Safer
Environment(PfSE), noted several concerns (handout provided) and asked the
Board not to accept the 2005 Annual Report because the reporting is incomplete;
■ Carol Shenon, member of Parents for a Safer Environment, who provided the
Board members with a handout comparing,the County's policies with the realities,
and made recommendations to improve the implementation of the County's IPA4
Policy. Ms. Shenon suggested signs be posted to inform the public as to what is
being sprayed in publicly accessible areas such as parks;
{ D.2
August 15, 2006
Page 2 qf'2
I
■ Rollie Katz, Public Employees Union Local, 1, noted there is some necessity for
pest control spraying and acknowledged a recent mouse infestation;
■ Ralph Hoffman, Danville resident, encouraged measures to keep kids away from
pesticide spraying.
Supervisor Uilkema suggested that Orkin's current contract be modified.
Mr. Meyer responded that Orkin's current contract Ihas been amended, and that in 6
months it could go out to RFP/RFQ. He added that Orkin states they have been following
the iPM Policy since July 1 of 2006.
I
Chair Gioia suggested directing General Services to provide a report to TWIC on the
missing period of time.
Mr. Meyer suggested General Services could combine the missing period with the report
they're planning to provide in October, snaking it a report on a 2-year period.
Chair Gioia was amenable.
By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the.following
action.-
ACCEPTED
ction.ACCEPTED the Integrated Pest Management (ipm) Task Force's 2005 Annual Report;
DIRECTED General Services to extend the contract with Orkin for one year, utilizing
ipm techniques at all County facilities, with reviews by the ipm Task Force after 6 months;
DIRECTED General Services to begin posting notices at County Buildings three days
before the application of registered pesticides and remaining four days afterward, as
specified in the Board Order; DIRECTED the hiring of an ipm Coordinator; and
DIRECTED the County Administrator to work with the IPM Task Force to develop
funding and employee education options, to be discussed with Department Heads, and
return the issue to the Board; REQUESTED the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
C6mmittee to continue to monitor the activities of the ipm Task Force.
ji
�I
I�
EXA
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Task Force
Annual Status Report for 2005
Introduction
This is the third annual report of the Contra Cost County Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) Task Force. The County's IPM policy was developed by the IPM Task Force and
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November of 2002. This action was taken in
response to one of the recommendations in a report published in March, 2001 by the
County's Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board called Pesticides in Contra
Costa County. At the time of adoption, the Board of Supervisors recognized that budget
constraints prevented them from funding the recoinmended IPM program, including the
hiring of a full-time IPM coordinator. The Task Force was directed to focus its efforts on
objectives that could be accomplished within. the County's existing administrative
structure and financial resources. County funding has still not materialized to fully
implement the program.
In 2003, the Task Force:
• Worked with each County Department that uses pesticides to develop a written
IPM policy.
• Worked with representatives of General Services to facilitate the inclusion of the
use of IPM techniques into new pest control contracts for County facilities.
• Developed a list of 12 facilities who volunteered to work with the Task Force as
pilot sites to try and successfully implement an IPM approach to pest control in
the workplace. Grant funding was sought to assist in this process but wasn't
received.
In 2004, the Task Force:
• Further refined the job description and cost for the IPM Coordinator position
identified in the IPM policy. Efforts were made to obtain grant funding for the
position but were unsuccessful.
• Continued to work with the staff at the 12 pilot sites. Department of Agriculture
staff and representatives of Orkin made ;visits to educate staff and review pest
problems and pest modes of entry into each facility.
• Worked to coordinate pest management activities at the 12 pilot sites. The newly
awarded pest control service contract specified an IPM approach at the 12 pilot
sites.
• IPM education programs for County employees and the public were worked on
through projects like the Contra Costa County Watershed Program.
• Members sent staff to IPM training seminars in order to stay informed of new
developments in IPM techniques.
In 2005, the Task Force:
Goals were split between fine tuning/clarifying activities at the 12 pilot sites and
continuing efforts to increase IPM education on dealing with pest management issues. In
2004 the Department of Agriculture lost its IPM Deputy due to retirement and was forced
w1Yy. .t IJ
to cut the position in order to balance its budget. His workload was added on to the
existing workload of other staff so our ability to have direct involvement with the pilot
sites had been compromised. The number of pilot sites is now at 10 due to changes at a
couple of sites. The Task Force decided there was a need to review what was taking place
at the pilot sites. The Task Force:
• Worked with site coordinators to determine their procedures when pest
management service calls were made at the site. We found inconsistent
procedures at each site so an effort was made to address the problem through
more direct Task Force involvement.
• Started to collect specific work orders from the pilot sites so that we could
evaluate how well the implementation of IPM. procedures was proceeding at
these sites and to determine whether service requests intended to exclude pests
were being executed. We found some breakdowns in communication and some
procedures that didn't meet the intent of the IPM program. In some instances we
found Orkin employees making preventive sprays after finding no pests, an
activity that would not be accepted in an IPM program.
• Met with Orkin, the County's Pest Control Contractor, to better understand their
procedures and receive feedback on where communication breakdowns were
taking place. Discussion was initiated emphasizing that baiting for ant control
would be preferred at the pilot sites rather than preventive surface sprays.
Regarding training:
• The University of California has completed an IPM Power Point that can be used
in presentations being planned for County employees by the University Master
Gardeners.
• County Task Force members sent staff to IPM training seminars in order to stay
informed of new developments in IPM techniques.
Additional focus was placed on trying to assess the IPM programs progress in County
Departments that use pesticides:
• The Task Force decided to take a look at pesticide use activity by County
Departments and compare the latest data with use prior to starting the County
IPM Program. For comparison purposes, data from FY 2004/05 was compiled in
the same manner as it was compiled in FY 2000/01. This data only reflects a
snapshot in time, as outside factors can cause natural fluctuations in the amount
and types of materials used. However, the overall trend seems to indicate that the
IPM program is having some success. The data indicates that County use of
pesticides declined by 24% and County use of Pesticides of Concern declined by
63% during the 4 year period. (See.Attaclunent 1)
Annual Department of Agriculture IPM Highlights for 2005
Accomplishments
• Department of Agriculture 4aff attended the'annual Vertebrate Pest Research
Advisory Committee meeting to keep informed about new techniques and
emerging issues in vertebrate pest control.
• The department also participated in the Public Agencies IPM Exchange held in
Oakland on December 6, 2005. Issues addressed included the Regional Water
Quality Control Board's concern with pesticide-related toxicities in Bay Area
urban Creeks.
• Our department made two releases of a rust pathogen, Puccinia jaceae var.
solstitialis, which will hopefully help to control yellow starthistle, a highly
invasive weed of rangeland and right-of-ways in Contra Costa County. We also
monitored sites of previously released biological control organisms to
qualitatively assess their progress in controlling a variety of noxious weeds.
• The Department continued different cultural control methods on sinal] confined
infestations of exotic/invasive weeds.
o After 3 years of hand pulling an infestation of Barbed Goat Grass along
Curry Creek Road, the infestation continues to show a significant decline.
o Kangaroo Thorn was mechanically removed from a location in El Cerrito
and the stumps were treated. It appears we will now be able to hand pull
any returning seedlings.
o Efforts to control Whitehorse Nettle, Perennial Pepperweed and Russian
Knapweed by hand pulling were attempted but all failed.
Pesticide Use
The Department of Agriculture decreased their total amount of active ingredients of all
pesticides applied in fiscal year 2004/2005 by 295.83 pounds from the amount applied in
fiscal year 2000/2001. We attribute this to the general decline in target weed species that
has resulted from our continued noxious weed abatement efforts.
In the same time period, we increased our use of"bad actor" pesticides from 56.40
pounds of active ingredient to 90.64 pounds of active ingredient. This 34.24 pounds of
active ingredient.increase was mainly due to our weed abatement efforts in a large,
heavily infested parcel of rangeland in Moraga where no previous weed abatement had
been performed.
"Bad Actor" Pesticides
The department used three pesticides that are listed in 2005, namely, 2,4-D, diphacinone
and chlorsulfuron.
2,4-D
The herbicide 2,4-D is a relatively inexpensive herbicide with essentially no adverse
environmental impact when used properly in non-crop areas. We have found it to be
more effective than other products when used on young rosette stages of Purple
Starthistle. 2,4-D is applied at a rate of 2 pints/acre and costs $20/gallon. The alternative
material is less effective and is applied at a rate of 3 pints/acre and costs $80/gallon. The
material can be replaced at a higher cost, with a less effective material and with the use of
substantially more pesticides due to the need for repeat applications. We don't feel that
this is wise.
The Department of Pesticide Regulations and the USEPA place signal words on
pesticides based on their hazard and toxicity. The most dangerous materials are referred
to as"Category I" materials and have a signal word of"Danger" as well as a skull and
cross-bones symbol. These materials are highly toxic and have an acute oral LD-50 range
of 0— 50 mg/kg. "Category II"materials are described as moderately toxic and have a
signal word of"Warning". They have an acute oral LD-50 range of 50 to 500 mg/kg.
"Category 111" materials are described as slightly toxic and have a signal word of
"Caution". They have an acute oral LD-50 range of 500 to 5000 mg/kg. "Category IV"
materials are very low toxicity and also have the signal work "Caution". They have an
acute LD-50 range of over 5000 mg/kg. The formulation of 2,4-D used by the
Department has a"Caution" label. All of the areas where we used 2,4-D in 2005 were on
privately owned properties with no public access.
Diphacinone
Diphacinone is the active ingredient in a grain bait used by the Department to control
ground squirrels. It is the most effective and economical material available for use on
ground squirrels in California. All other rodenticide poisons registered for use in
California to control ground squirrels contain an active ingredient that is also listed as a
"bad actor". Diphacinone is on the "Bad Actor" list due to being extremely toxic, its LD-
50 in the technical form is 2.3 mg/kg. However, the highest concentration of diphacinone
grain we use contains 1/100`h of one percent active ingredient. The labeling for the
product we use has a signal word of"Caution"and it's MSDS indicates an oral LD-50 of
23,000 mg/kg.
We applied a total of 25,882 pounds of treated grain in FY 04/05 which contained 2.57
pounds of active ingredient. Much of the work done with Diphacinone is on property
maintained by Flood Control, Sanitary Districts, Reclamation Districts, Cal Trans, Santa
Fe Railroads, Contra Costa Water District, PG&E, and County maintained roads where
ground squirrel populations are threatening the integrity of infrastructure such as levees,
dams, stream beds, settling ponds and roads. The material is also used in areas where
ground squirrels are causing crop damage or in open space areas where they threaten
adjoining property with erosion and other damage.
We can and do use Smoke bombs for control activity in the early spring but the activity
of treating every hole is labor intensive; time consuming and the success rate for control
purposes is greatly reduced. Smoke bombs createa fire hazard at any other time of the
year and become totally ineffective as the soil loses moisture. The Department has used
Diphacinone grain bait for control of ground squirrels for 30 years without creating a
human health incident.
Chlorsulfuron
Chlorsulfuron is the active ingredient in Telar herbicide. No other herbicide is as
effective in controlling the exotic/invasive weeds, Russian Knapweed and Perennial
Pepperweed, as Telar. We have treated an extremely small number of outlying satellite
infestations to slow the spread of these highly invasive noxious weeds. Perennial
Pepperweed may be the single biggest threat to Contra Costa wildlife as the weed has a
characteristic of forming large monoculture areas that displace desirable species and
reduce the value of open land. If allowed to spread, chemical use by rangeland managers
throughout the County will increase dramatically. We applied 0.77 pounds of active
ingredient in FY 04/05. The applications were made on EBMUD right of way and on a
privately owned ranch. Neither site had public access.
Contra Costa County Public Works Department IPM Highlights for 2005
Accomplishments
• The department was able to reduce herbicide use by over 4,000 pounds (25%) in
the past four years (00/01 to 04/05 fiscal years).
• The use of,pesticides of concern, was reduced by over 3,000 pounds (66%) in the
past four years.
• The department spent over$400,000 on manual weed abatement in our flood
control facilities this past year. Additional funds were spent abating weeds at
county airports, along the Ironhorse Trail, and along roads.
• The department has used wood chips generated through our tree trimming
activities to suppress weeds growth and reduce the need for herbicides.
• The department has been able to make significant strides in controlling invasive
weeds, including Arundo donax and Jubuta Grass.
• County flood control facilities functioned according to design.
The above items have been accomplished without additional funding, through the
creativity of our employees. The County IPM Committee has proven to be an effective
vehicle for implementing the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as adopted by the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on November 12, 2002.
Our department has completely eliminated the use of three of the six Pesticides of
Concern that were identified in Fiscal Year 2000/01. The materials that were eliminated
are Simtrol (atrazine and simazine), Predict(norflurazon) and Ronstar(oxadiazon).
We still use three of these herbicides for specific uses:
Telar
Telar is a herbicide that we specifically use where Perennial Pepper-weed (a
noxious/invasive weed) or M.arestail (developing resistance to Roundup) are a concern.
Our use rate is only .5-1.6 ounces per acre.
Weedar 64
Weedar 64 (2,4-D) is an aquatically approved herbicide that we have been using to try
and control Purple Loosestrife (an invasive/noxious weed found in aquatic
environments). This weed is relatively new to our county and we are attempting to
prevent its spread to other watersheds.
Direx
Direx 80 DF is a pre-emergent that we use primarily in the eastern portion of our county
where agricultural production takes place. This herbicide is approved for use on many
crops grown in this area. It reduces the need for spraying in the spring and summer,when
high winds in the area make spraying more difficult.
Response to Parent's for Safer Environment (PfSE) request and Public and
Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) recommendations:
1. PIS'E requested the Board to work quickly to cease use of"bad actor"
pesticides in high risk locations. PEHAB recommended hiring a consultant
to provide input on the further implementation of the County's IPM
Program with emphasis on the elimination of"bad actor"pesticides and the
further reduction in the use of all pesticides. This consultant would work
closely with the County departments, their contractors and the IPM Task
Force to:
i. Provide expertise on IPM methods and applications to County
departments and programs to reduce the use of pesticides.
ii. Assist in the development of a data tracking system including
what data to report.
iii. Develop a system for periodic review of the progress of the IPM
policy implementation and decrease in pesticide use.
iv. Recommend strategies for resolving disputes related to the
interpretation of the IPM policy implementation.
The IPM Task Force has actively supported establishing an IPM Coordinator position
to function as recommended in the County policy. Funding for this position has been
difficult given the fiscal restraints the entire County has experienced. The Task Force
agrees that a consultant would be appropriate and benefit the program. However, the
IPM Task Force is concerned that emphasis on elimination of all uses of`Bad Actor"
pesticides will become the primary measurement of success for our program and does
not feel this is appropriate. The "Bad Actor" list is terminology used by the Pesticide
Action Network and Californian's for Pesticide Reform. It is comprised of a variety
of lists that were developed for different critcria. Our concern is that placing such
emphasis on the list is creating an expectation that all bad actor use will be
eliminated. We feel this is problematic:
• The Bad Actor list ignores other important information including: formulation
(as explained when discussing Diphacinone),method of application, location
of use, the availability of reasonable alternatives, fiscal restraints and benefits
from use. Chlorine is a registered pesticide and is on the "Bad Actor" list. Is it
justified to make it a priority for public agencies and the Health Department to
eliminate all use of Chlorine?
• It is extremely difficult, even using the PAN website, to generate a list. The
Agriculture Department spent over two hours trying to develop a list without
success and regulatory agencies can only provide bits and pieces of
information since they don't recognize "Bad Actors".
• Creating expectations that all "Bad Actor" use will be eliminated places the
IPM Task Force and County Departments in a no-win situation. The Task
Force is already being criticized for failing to Iimplement the County IPM
Policy despite generating over a 60%reduction in "Bad Actor" use with no
support funding being provided. Some Departments have no fiscally viable
alternatives for"Bad Actor"materials they currently use and would either be
forced to abandon programs that protect the public or fail to meet the stated
goal of no "Bad Actor" use.
• All materials being used by County Departments, whether bad actors or not,
are legal and registered for use in California by the USEPA and CaIEPA.
Some of the materials listed are of very little hazard to people and nontarget
organisms when they are used correctly according to their labels.
The IPM Task Force does agree that it is valuable to continually review all pest
management materials with a goal of selecting the least toxic effective alternatives.
We have no problem looking first at materials that generate public concern, such as
those on the "Bad Actor"list. Emphasis should always be made on selecting materials
that are appropriate for the site and the conditions, but all information should be
incorporated in a decision making process.
2. PfS'E requested that information should be posted when pesticides are used.
PEHAB recommended signs to be posted indicating pesticide spraying by
the County departments and contractors, whenever they are spraying in
public access areas. "Public access".is defined as areas where the public
walks.
The IPM Task Force has indicated they would work with PEHAB on further defining
their recommendation but points out that posting was considered when the Task Force
was first formed and the Task Force recommended against it. Some of the issues we
identified in our discussion:
• In an agricultural setting a grower can be accessed a monetary fine for
leaving re-entry signs up when there is no restriction on entering a field.
The reason being, that workers need to take posting seriously and know
that if a supervisor mistakenly tries to send them into a field that is
posted... they still should not enter.
• Placing a sign on a door of a building that was sprayed but has no
restriction for re-entry leaves a mixed message. If an employee refuses to
enter the building, even though told that it is "safe", what is a supervisor
expected to do?
• Posting what materials have been used on a bulletin board might be one
alternative but those postings will tend to be ignored like Prop 65
warnings at the entrance to a grocery store.
3. PfSE requested using IPM experts to conduct site assessments to find safer
alternatives at high risk locations. PEHAB recommended hiring a
consultant to provide input on the further implementation of the County's
IPM Program with emphasis on lite elimination: of"had actor"pesticides
and the further reduction: in the use of all pesticides. This consultant would
work closely with the County departments, their contractors and the IPM
Task Force to:
i. Provide expertise on IPM methods and applications to County
departments and programs to reduce the use of pesticides.
ii. Assist in the development of a data tracking system including
what data to report.
iii. Develop a system for periodic review of tl:e progress of the IPM
policy implementation and decrease in pesticideuse.
iv. Recommend strategies for resolving disputes related to the
interpretation: of the IPM policy implementation.
The IPM Task Force has actively supported establishing an IPM Coordinator position
to function as recommended in the County policy. Funding for this position has been
difficult given the fiscal restraints the entire County has experienced. The Task Force
agrees that a consultant would be appropriate and benefit the program.
4. PfSE requested the Board to report on the site assessments and studies
conducted by the County on the use of "bad actor"pesticides .since adoption
of the IPM policy in 2002. PEHAB provided no recommendation.
The IPM Task Force has reported on current "bad actor" use in this report.
S. PJSE requested the Board to make pesticide usage information accessible to
the community in a timely manner and cooperate with PJSE who has asked for
public notification of County-sponsored IPM meeting, training and seminars.
PEHAB recommended to further improve public access to pesticide use
data, data from sites that are posted should be posted on the County web
site.
The IPM Task Force has worked to provide all data about pesticides that they had in
their possession. Most requests ask for data in a format that we don't have or request
specific data that we don't have. The Task Force has indicated to PEHAB that we
would be happy to work with them to clarify their request about what data should be
collected. This may require additional workload for Departments to gather
information and data that they currently don't collect.
6. PJSE requested the Board to provide relevant parties with detailed and
regular reports on all pesticides used.
The IPM Task Force has indicated to PEHAB that we would be happy to work with
them to clarify what data should be collected. Requests from Task Force members
from PfSE have included requests for information that the Departments do not
maintain. Records kept by the Departments are generally focused on what is
necessary to file reports with the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Maintaining additional data will increase
workloads.
7. PJSE requested the Board to hire a full-time IPM Coordinator. PEHAB
recommended hiring a consultant.
The IPM Task Force would support either recommendation.
8. PJSE requested the Board revise the IPM policy into a more comprehensive
ordinance. PEHAB did not endorse this recommendation.
The IPM Task Force feels the IPM policy has made progress given the fiscal
restraints that the County faces and does not recommend changes at this time.
2006 Task Force Goals
1. The Task Force has already initiated discussions with General Services on either
modifying the existing pest control service;contract or place it back out to bid. We
are working on strengthening the language in the contract to address problems
that our evaluations have identified.
2. The Task Force will work with PEHAB to further define and implement some of
their recominendations.
3. Now that the IPM training program has been developed by the University, the
Task Force will work with the UC Extension Master Gardeners to provide
training in designated County facilities.
O c
N ,
'7
Ln_
O (D r f- Cl) Lf) 00 r-- O L G
•� 0 0 0 (D N O N N 00 O M O O LO Cl) Orl- ,O
O d N O 0 C) Qj O (D � � O N00 O dj O M
0 N O O O O Ln ~ O N L() r- (D O LO r 0 0 M r O O LO
LO M V O r N (D N M Cl) r N C)
(0
r
� Q
O O
N ,
Cl r (D M O) (O
M 00 CD CD V � 00 (D ti (D (D N 07
p (D N (D ti O O O O O � N O Cl O
Z y (D r Lc) O N O O O M r 0 (D 0 CA.
O a N r w 0 (D r- M O O O O p c) � (D O) r� O O ti
� LO N N r O �- r � (D Cl)
r N r r
a � Q
a
Qo v (D v r` v ao r N cD o - v r ao ao o')U r 0) L(") r O 00 r V M .� O r� p O cM M (D (D 00
it"1'. Q �f (D r Cl) � U) L() N r 't L(1 Ln LO (?')
} O ;=:
Q Nr
CC le �,. N v >,
G O Y !� to N LO Ln Lo Lo N Lo M Lo � 00 00 r
C O L •' r p (D O M CO 0) r- m O p 0 CO 11) p O r (D LO LO (O
N R O p (D p r O O r p � N � p p 04 O r r r N N �-
Q � Q. 0
W Q W v
Q m o v
0
W o �:: a N N Ln r` r- LO LO o
Q N , C L() ti LO M M � N L() r-
V C = 0 p 0 0 0 C) CM O c(') V LL') N p Q) r O Or 0p N p 00 Lo N
U ..Z O N (o r r (D (N (D � Cl) ti N
H o :O.: O ice.
CO N U" U Q U-
0
W Cl) U,
a O
rn O
H W WLO LO
: -a
c 0 Ln LO r r- LO N LO p ti
U U C O M r (D N ((D = N O O O N p 0 (ND O (y M O CO
W% O 7 0 R r r LO N L() Lf) r Cl) N N t1�
LQL T a`` U Ooc c'' (D
1� � 3` C
Q 0 Q LL
U
m
Q o
7 r r (D m N M ' p) ((D.
Z O O O , O --T (D 00 M N m 00 O r `- L() CD ' (y
O O O ' O r- rl r Ln CD V N O O r O N CO
dO L�? U? Ln co C6 V C6 M L() C? In CA O Q) (` 00
W r
00 00 00 O � r (D M 'T 'T V r 00 r r m p r00
U 0 0 CD •- N O d' O 0) N � N qt O ti I- OCD
CC LO V N N p N (D N r LO N LL) N N N p N � r .co
N (D (D00 (D N (D (D M (D r
M M M (D (N M r,,.
co
(D co
LL U
.... yy, •Qa Oo co Il" C m M dO O
O O2 (D Q :3
o
co
O Q o C n N
a) 1
O O (0 °�0c>3 :3 O r>3
..
Z O > U N � 5 d aa) j u) .3 � (n F` N (�0
LL
O O p
O 00 LO a. U') I--
C)
<[`
C � 0, N M O) 00 N V: Q1
a) O.. N � Cl M ti r, �': r
Cl) ti O LO
M r r r N
� r
� a
O �
U) {
'a O
C O r: LO M ."ti C-
O -a O .O V' O u') O C) O
Z O 'O O O 'O M " . . 0)
p d ;M M O O OD, w
cc
a
a w ;
O �� .C) O LO LO LO LO `� � O O O Ln.
U o Q oo co co (.c) ;' Ln .,rn oo ,
m3 F-
D .V.. Q. ` Z Z Z Z Z Z 'Z: Z .Z -Z Z ,Z.
N N N 0
w
D -a Ln '
a) o :. v
LU v,
Q .2 m N .a O' N �M O
C C .:L0 O LO N00 O s .O O O N
U O 7 Gln 00 Ln L1) r .. r.'0: x O) sM a)
F- n ' o ° m
O N Q ' � f0
C0 } a
w = Q U-
cc to CD
J '.
cV .� :; . M Ln LIQ.
O N r O C ti r ICTt ;L(') O O �.
U C O 7 00 O LC) O LO M O).:O aN M � .M
r ..z
Q U 7 0 O N .p r 1� � ;;.;.. Ln
O N CL
ca }
Na w
O o
co
G N % CO
m tov'F .O. 1,
Z .— C) c0
00
N
U W a:+ O r N O r N'
(a I OD LO LnO ';(fl r— Ln
w
U) M Lf.).
M.
O
O
LLfn LLm LL IL 0 cl LL
CC _ U) d
Z o L' p :pwwm o �
:
IL
o
= OLO 00 O 00 N r
-�y r N M O u) CF) y r (p 00 f-- N 00 Cl) O O O LO (7)
O y 00 r- M O L() 00 :(0. O O r o6 r 0 N Cl 0 0 'd O N ..�
a ? M 0 0 0 0 O :'O. O O O Ln 0 0 O 0 0 "fir 00to
N M ;�. .
N
0 Q LL
o c
H c
= O O 00 M ti N 0R (Q
•p o O O Cl) O O 'O: O O o 0 0 (O O O N LO 0 M O pj
Z O d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 (6 O O) O .W 00 ;00 O O
0 p„ U) 0 0 6 0 6 .O O O o L5 O r O O co mom. � N Q)
=), 00 00
0 LL
a, :
rvOC) (O Lo .In Lo C) H ...2
U = Q N. N M m r N :oro, o o (m N (o r- .aoi r-.- ti `n O W L
L
V :::.K
C , = r O M m- N 00 N (D Q :Q: Q. Q Q a uj
a o o r . Z .Z Z. Z 'Z: .
cn U LU
•� .. . Z
O
LU N o o
(M: Op 0 :Ln �0) 00 1- (O 00 = U")
a+ O N r O M O N CO. O r (O r O O N
CD cc r CY) OD
O O O.''O r CD to O O
C1 O N ImN
.y w
LU � o
a = = ;w
Z V m c
_ w z
V) W
O , _ 0 00 'O N U
++ t. (O o M
O O O O O O O:.O O O O O M C 6 O W ` Z
O j O O 3 N :. O: ((7 O Q
Q N ct O 04
U o a r U. U
0 LL
LL
O c o •�
U O z w
CDfl- ' 010
E 01-1-
Z Z „� ' v � , co N c0 ,n 00 J N
Zo
0 u o. `r' r- Q La a� rn � 00 N o co Q W
a O r ^� CO; CV � •fes. r i- ,. �.. ...
.M:;, s:r sM
N 1- �.,. M Lf) ,. cr r N 4 O
U W O 00 O �t "(O
(p. 00 r O r r O Ln I� (O N r Ln O LO (O
i r � '� CO O. O (O N '�7 N .0). M N F- 0:
y N O LC) NLO
O N O ;LL
(O d (O N:
d MO y ,
LLJ N LL Q c . U ` l_p ;a. n
w Q :.N Y .N O O .N d J C .L aj .N
41 (dIL
rL
' u L O 7 r 7 C *. � e:(0 >'N cn
O J
:E v N o ( .O .� c m ...m -a (o o c
cn
m a . � u U x c _� N E- C7 c
Z LLJ :O ,J O. O (n J O: p. 0
a
O Ln
0
U) '
v o
o o
LO Co O C). 00 O N � O (D O D O r....(o O I-- co T
d ? • O �. O O O O N O O O O N O 'O. O T
T
0 d
0 0
U) '
o Co. Ln LO m o
C C) i j N O 00 co O c7 LO O N ,'ct..� O O. O O
Z 0O d O r O N O O LO I` O O .LO. O: O M
O d = o N (D 0 O M 00 O r N M N N O O O
Cl) T
Q � Q
a
O c 00 NL-0 p ::N 00 (O O r M r T M CO O Q
V i o
M06 ':CO O T (p r O l0 M O ti :I r
V O (O Lf) V' r Lo (O "Cr LO N V LO 'O r 0
o N
C) In CD r
•� N N o r O o o co Q. Q
Z Z.
Cf) Z
W N O Ny v-
Q co O r (n N a •O f 7: O
tG r. p C) C14
N M. ch Ln O r ,O. ,. Cl)
CL 40 —
00 06
O N N O cV Lo
u-
a �
CL
N O N �.
O N N c Cl) ..,O co Lo Ln LO 't M N � .° ,... :::r`' 00 (0
..� o O m 0) LO _ :'Lo,'.cO LO LO
(� O C O O .Ln O '�. O N O N (A r 0 0 p - (O M .O a0
Q V O m r (O I- LO O U-)
O N r
LL
O U `
1— rn (O (h. rn
Z Z ' `i .:ui tf Ch a (7 N N V O...O ch .N O
Q C ..� r LO LO r ' M 'T C`") ' :-0: 'O V ..LL)04 M
O d p (0 O' O 'O i (A i 0) C) :,C) CV �,
V W �+ d7 '� � � V �- r LO. Ln LLQ
m O LO .�f' (A (fl i � N N (O r- LC) ;Ln r :.110 O
N to Cl). 110 'LIO LO N LO LO V N LO (O: -LO, c0 :(h
N N 0) . : .. 0) O (O a) rn
O O
� N N � .r-
'
:-09,
Q (6 I� d N (ll L ,LO O. .' . U) O
O Q w N N .Q. C r O it N C to L ;'N N: ..`: r
Q ro Z > i > 'L p r LU - C U)ooc u ��.. C. ,.
�p D pp N oo U Lo a) CCD Of Z, -0 ;c•; H _0
(L J CL
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Task Force
Follow-up report to the 2005 Annual Status Report
For the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
June 12, 2006
Background
On February 13, 2006 the Contra County Integrated Pest Management Task Force (Task
Force) gave their third annual report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Committee. In addition to providing a review of the efforts of the Task Force for the year,
the highlights of the Departments activities, and the plans of the Task Force for 2006, the
report responded to recommendations about the implementation of the County's IPM
policy by Parents for a Safer Environment. The report also responded to continents by the
County's Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB), who had been
asked to support the recommendations made by Parents for a Safer Environment.
The annual report responded to eight recommendations. The Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee directed the Task.Force to develop cost estimates to implement
some of these recommendations. They also directed the Task.Force to work with PEHAB
to develop these cost estimates and to recommend opportunities to improve public
notification, outreach and education as part of the County's IPM practices. In the last
three months, PEHAB met twice and the Task Force met three times to develop these
cost estimates and recommendations.
Cost estimates were developed for the following recommendations:
1. Hiring an IPM coordinator for the County, as described in the County's IPM
policy.
2. Contracting with an IPM consultant on a short-term basis.
3. Posting notification signs in public access areas where County Departments and
contractors use pesticides.
4. Developing a publicly available database of pesticide usage by County
Departments and contractors.
5. Developing a web page and other outreach materials to improve public
notification, outreach, and education opportunities.
This report also contains recommendations from the Task Force concerning the renewal
of the pest control contract with Orkin and compliance with the County's IPM policy by
other pest control contractors.
Cost Estimates
1. IPM Coordinator—The role of the IPM coordinator position was described in the
original IPM policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2002. The County IPM
Coordinator will serve as a resource for Department Heads to insure compliance with the
County IPM policy. The County IPM Coordinator will also chair an IPM Advisory
Committee to assist Department Heads in identifying priorities and in acquiring data to
properly evaluate pest control needs and appropriate solutions. The IPM Coordinator will
also serve as a liaison to pest control contractors to ensure they are following the IPM
Policy.
The cost estimate for the Coordinator position was developed by analyzing the cost of
County positions with similar skills and qualifications, and the cost of the IPM
coordinator position for Santa Clara County. The range of cost estimated for salary and
benefits for a full time employee would be $120,000 to $150,000 per year.
2. IPM Consultant—PEHAB recommended hiring a consultant to provide input on the
further implementation of the County's IPM Program with emphasis on the elimination
of"bad actor" pesticides and the further reduction in the use of all pesticides. This
consultant would work closely with the County departments, their contractors and the
IPM Task Force to:
a. Provide expertise on TPM methods and applications to County
departments and programs to reduce the use of pesticides.
b. Assist in the development of a data tracking system including identifying
what data to report,
c. Develop a system for periodic review of the progress of the IPM policy
implementation and decrease in pesticide use.
d. Recommend strategies for resolving disputes related to the interpretation
of the TPM policy implementation.
e. Develop a"Request for Qualifications" proposal that could be used to
identify a pool of IPM-qualified pest control contractors to bid on future
pest control contracts.
The cost estimates were developed by soliciting estimates for tasks listed above from four
IPM consultants recommended by Parents for a Safer Environment and County Staff. The
four cost estimate provided by the consultants to complete these tasks were:
$10,000 - $12,000
$10,000 - $20,000
$15,000 - $30,000
$30,000 - $50,000
2
3. Notification Posting—Parents for a Safer Environment and PEHAB recommended that
the County or its contractors post signs three days before a pesticide is applied in a public
access area and ]cave it up for four days after the application. These signs would .notify
the public of the intended pesticide application and provide contact information. These
cost estimates were developed based on the costs of producing the signs, and the labor
cost involved where significant extra staff time will be needed to post signs before an
application and remove them after an application.
Costs estimates for County applications were developed based on the number of pesticide
applications the County Departments currently make per year in public access areas.
These areas include County-controlled buildings,parks, grounds and roadside areas
where the public would be expected to congregate, such as bus stops. In all likelihood,
the number of applications some Department makes each year may decrease as IPM
practices continue to increase. However, there is no way to predict the rate of decline or
the eventual level at which the application.rate stabilizes.
Two costs estimates were developed; one for if signs were posted three days before an
anticipated pesticide application and one for if signs were posted the day of the
anticipated application. In both cases, signs would be removed four days after the
application. Posting signs the day of applications would eliminate the labor cost of
making trips to an area just to post a sign for an anticipated spraying.
The cost of producing a generic sign was estimated to be $500. Costs for posting signs at
the entrance ways of county buildings where pesticide applications are to occur was
assumed to be zero. The assumption was made that County staff located at those
buildings could post these signs at de minimus cost.
The Agricultural Department assumes none of the areas where they anticipate applying
pesticides are public access areas, and so there are no posting costs estimated with their
applications.
The Public Works Department estimates they will apply pesticides at or near
approximately 20 public access areas a year where significant extra staff time will be
needed to post signs before an application and remove thein after an application. These
costs were calculated using a labor rate of$100 per hour and requiring two hours of labor
per posting. This results in an estimate of$8000 per year if signs are posted three days
before applications and $4000 a year if signs are posted the day of the application.
The General Services Department estimates they will apply pesticides at 135 publicly
accessible county-maintained grounds approximately 600 times per year. They assumed a
labor rate of$62 per hour and approximately one hour of labor to post and remove the
signs per site. This will be an estimated cost of approximately$37,000 per year if signs
are posted three days in advance of applications, and $18,500 if signs are posted the day
of.applications.
3
4. Database Development—Parents for a Safer Environment requested that pesticide
usage information be made accessible to the community in a timely manner, and that
relevant parties are provided with detailed and regular reports on all pesticides used.
PEHAB recommended the County further improve public access to pesticide use data.
Both of these requests led to the consideration of developing a database to compile
detailed information concerning pest management activities that could be used to create
detailed reports for the public.
Both San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties are developing databases to compile pest
management data that can generate the type of reports recommended. The IPM
coordinators of both jurisdictions offered to provide Contra Costa County with the
software for their programs at no cost. County staff determined that it would be easier
and more cost effective to use and operate one of these databases independently of
existing data collection efforts rather than try to merge all data collection efforts into one
database. The estimated cost associated with installing, networking, testing and training
staff in the use of one of these programs is between $10,000 and $30,000, though it may
be higher depending on the final configuration of the software chosen.
There will also be costs for entering data into the database. The cost estimates developed
are for current pesticide application rates. The number of applications some Departments
make each year may decrease over time as IPM practices continue to increase. However,
there is no way to predict the rate of decline or the eventual level at which the application
rate stabilizes.
The assumptions made to develop these cost estimates are as follows. Each data entry
point will take three minutes. The labor rate for data entry for the Agriculture Department
is $18 per hour and the labor rate for the Public Works and General Services Departments
is $100 per hour. The Agriculture Department estimates they will need to make 500
entries per year, the Public Works Department estimates they will need to make 325
entries per year and the General Services Department estimates they will need to make
600 entries per year. At the above hourly rate, the estimated cost for Departmental annual
data entry will be $5075. Orkin, the main County pest management contractor estimates
their annual data entry costs will be $340.
5. Public Information - PEHAB recommended developing a web page and other outreach
materials to improve public notification, outreach, and education opportunities. The cost
estimate developed for a web page assumed that the page would be hosted on an existing
County web site, so the only costs would be for page development and annual
maintenance. These costs are estimated to be $1500 - $2500 for web page development
and $200 for annual maintenance.
The other public education piece the Task Force and PEHAB thought should be
developed immediately is a fact sheet for County employees about the County's IPM
policy. The cost estimate for developing and distributing this fact sheet ranges from $300
- $1100 depending on its style and composition.
4
Pest Control Contracts
The County's IPM policy requires that IPM policies and practices be incorporated into
county pest control contracts. The contract established with Orkin three years ago to
conduct the primary pest control activities for county buildings called for implementing
IPM techniques at 10 pilot sites. The intent of using the pilot sites was to develop
information regarding the costs of converting to IPM and examine the best approach to
expanding the program to all county facilities.
This contract will soon expire, though it allows for one-year extensions. The level of IPM
techniques practiced at these 10 pilot sites over the last three years has not met the Task
Force's expectations. This "failure" was due primarily to not having an IPM Coordinator
who could actively monitor work orders and modify activities as they were occurring, a
lack of sufficiently specific contract language, and the contractor not being as aggressive
as possible in implementing IPM techniques. Over the last three years, other jurisdictions
have successfully developed contracts for comprehensive IPM services at all of their
facilities. Orkin currently operates under one of these contracts in Santa Clara County.
The Task Force reconunends that Orkin's contract be renewed for a one-year extension
with the following provisions clearly incorporated into the extension:
1. Orkin use IPM techniques to control pests at all County buildings, not just the 10
pilot sites, at no additional cost to the County, and that all buildings receive
monthly service.
2. Orkin only use pesticides that are on the approved list developed for the Santa
Clara IPM program, except with permission from the General Services
Department.
3. Orkin provide clear, written documentation to the General Services Department
for when they think building or grounds modifications are needed to successfully
implement IPM control strategies at specific locations.
4. Orkin provide clear, written documentation to the General Services Department
for when they think occupant education is needed to successfully implement IPM
strategies at specific locations.
5. Orkin's performance be reviewed in nine months to determine if they are
successfully implementing an IPM program.
If a review after nine months finds that Orkin is not successfully implementing an IPM
program, the Task Force recommends that the contract be put out to bid at the conclusion
of the one-year extension.
The County also holds three smaller pest control contracts. The Task Force also
recommends that these contracts be modified at the earliest possible time to require the
implementation of IPM practices.
5
Summary of Cost Estimates
Task Cost Estimate Notes
Ranges
IPM $120,000 - Based on comparable full-time positions
Coordinator $150,000
IPM Consultant $10,000 - Based on Estimates by four IPM consultants
$50,000
Sign Posting $23,000 - Based primarily on extra labor costs of posting and
$45,500 removing signs. Costs estimates provided for
posting three days before pesticide applications and
for the day of applications. Costs may come down
significantly over time as fewer pesticide
applications are made due to continued use of IPM
techniques.
Database $10,000 - Cost estimate assumes the database software will
Development $30,000 be received for free. First cost range is for the cost
of installation and training.
$5415 Second cost estimate is for annual data entry.
Annual data entry costs may come down
significantly over time as fewer pesticide
applications are made due to continued use of IPM
techniques.
Public $1500 - $2500 The first cost estimate is for development of a
Education hosted web page.
The second cost estimate is for annual maintenance
$200 of the web page.
The third cost estimate is for the development of a
$300 - $1100 IPM fact sheet for County employees.
6
F x.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY /ORKIN PRODUCT LIST
NAME EPA# DESCRIPTION
Avert Dry Bait 499-294 Abamectin B1 0.050%
Borid 9444-129 Orthobolic Acid 99%
Contra All Weather Bloc 12455-79 Bromodiolone 0.005%
Drax Liquid Ant Bait 9444-206 Orthobolic Acid 1.00%
Eco Exempt D None Required 2-Phenethyl Propionate 4.5%
Clove Oil 1.75%
Eco Exempt 1C None Required RosemaryOil 10.0%
Mineral Oil 10 to 70 %
Wintergreen Oil 10 to 70%
Gentrol IGR Concentrate 2724-351 Hydroprene 9%
Maxforce Ant Bait Gel 432-1264 Fipronil 0.001%
Maxforce Ant Bait Stations 432-1256 Fipronil 0.01
Maxforce Roach Killer Gel 432-1254 Hydramethylnon 2.0%
Maxforce Roach Killer Stations 432-1251 Hydramethylnon 2.0%
Niban FG 64405-2 Orthoboric Acid 5.0%
Perma-Dust 499-384 Boric Acid 35.50%
Victor Wasp and Hornet Killer None Required Mint Oil 8.0%
Trapper Glue Board None Required None Required
Opening Statement for Board of Supervisors Meeting
August 15th, 2006
Susan JunFish
Parents for a Safer Environment
Good morning members of the Board of Supervisors. I thank you for your time
and attention to our concerns this morning. I am a resident of Moraga, an
environmental health scientist with my bachelor of science and masters of public
health degrees from U.C. Berkeley, and have worked in the past 6 years as a
research scientist and in more recent 11 years for private firms, the State of
California and now as Director for Parents for a Safer Environment. I wish to
address the Transportatic.n, Water & Infrastructure Committee's Board Order for
implementing the County's IPM Policy, which I believe was drafted by the IPM
Task Force Co-chairs on behalf of Supervisors Glover and Piepho.
Before I go over the 4 concerns, I wish to mention 4 highlights from our research
which was in part, funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Most of this information have been presented to the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee and copied to you in the past 7 months but which may
have not caught your attention.
1) We received 850 endorsements from County residents to date who support
an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy for the County in full cooperation
with community members. Expert testimonials have been submitted by
environmental health advocacy groups as well as public health researchers,
public agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Board, and even from the
County's own physicians, including from the Oncology Department, urging the
Board of Supervisors to take immediate steps in protecting public health and the
environment from excessive use of pesticides.
2) Our three County Departments of Public Works, General Services, and Dept
of Agriculture applied over 21,500 lbs of pesticides in the fY04-05 (not including
rodenticides or bait stations). If we included all the contractors' pesticides
applied, whose information is still missing, we would likely add several more
thousand lbs annually. Just Public Works Department alone sprayed over 16
times the amount of pesticides applied by all the Departments of Marin and San
Francisco Counties combined.
3) Santa Clara County and San Francisco Counties have eliminated the use of all
bad actor pesticides in all urban landscapes, while our County still applies bad
actor pesticides in urban landscapes and hires a contractor, Tru Green Chem
Lawn, who sprays bad actors on a scheduled basis where kids play.
4) Why should Contra Costa County residents be subject to higher health and
environmental risks while our neighboring counties have moved into the 21st
century and embraced safer methods? Why should cost be the only factor for
making change? Our neighboring counties are placing the protection of public
health and the environment as a priority. It's about time our County did, too.
Parents for a Safer Environment's (PfSE) .Response to the Transportation, Water&
Infrastructure Committee "implementation of the County's Integrated Pest
Management Policy" document dated June 12, 2006.
1. PtSE request that the .Board of Supervisors not accept the IPM Task Force's
Annual Report for 2005 and the report on the estimated costs of implementing
various 11'M components.
A. The Annual Report FY04-05 is not complete, in part due to no report from the
Department of General Services and miscalculation by Public Works
Department on the mass of 2,4-1) applied by over 25%, resulting in an
underestimate of _lbs of this known human reproductive toxin. In
addition, General Services had not included information on pesticides applied
by its three contractors in the Total Pesticides Applied in Contra Costa
County. Tracking pesticide usage is fundamental to an 113M program such
provisions are in Contra Costa County's i.PM policy. There is also no
information of the. series of problems that ensued from at least 2003-2005, of
Orkin spraying indoors in presence of babies/children/staff after repeated
directions not to do so.
B. The Estimated Cost Report should be amended to reflect that when IPM is
implemented, costs will go down for posting as an example since spraying
will be significantly decreased. In addition, Public Works Department claims
$125/hr for posting a sign and is charging four times as much as other
Departments, and this inflates overall costs for posting.
11. Posting should be extended for all pest control products for freedom of right
to know. For containerized, inaccessible bait stations, posting could be in just
one location in the building. For all non-containerized products, posting
should be requires: additionally in the same room where treatment is taking
place to alert office, custodial, and repair staff of treated areas to help preclude
accidental exposure. Just because a pesticide is of lower risk, it does not mean
we shouldn't encourage staff to decrease their risk of'exposure, particularly to
products that are "bad actors"and are not contained.
I11. IPM Task [Force should provide a final recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors after .receiving input on funding & employee education of IPM
goals from all Departmental Heads, and not just discuss the issue with
Departments as stated in the Board Order.
IV. The Board of Supervisors should monitor the activities of the IPM Task Force
until they are satisfied that the Task Force is performing its duty as outlined in
the County's IPM policy.
Contact: Susan JunFish
Parents for a Safer Environment
Jud ntishpfseL&hotmail.com
D. 2.
Statement submitted and read by Carol Shenon at the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisor's Meeting on August 15, 2006.
Hello, my name is Carol Shenon, and I'm a resident of Mora ga and a member of Parents
for a Safer Environment or PfSE.
I have been working with Ms. JunFish on the review of the County's efforts in
implementing its IPM Policy, and. unfortunately, we have discovered poor adherence to
this Policy. For your review, I have prepared a document that I would like to submit that
shows what the County's IPM Policy requires and what in reality is taking place. While
the County is reviewing its IPM efforts and making some positive changes, we believe
there are numerous other areas where improvements are needed.
PfSE has made recommendations to the County to improve the implementation of its
IPM Policy, and the PEHAB has agreed with most of them. I'd like to take a moment
and review some of these items. It is important to note that many of these
recommendations could be implemented in the very near future:
(1) Draft a County IPM Ordinance to provide more accountability for each
Department using pesticides. All of the successful IPM Programs of
neighboring Counties have IPM Ordinances.
(2) Cease the use of the more toxic pesticides, known as the "bad actors", in
non-containerized forms and experimental pesticides in publicly
accessible areas. Public access is defined as areas where the public walks.
This has been accomplished by other Counties. Contra Costa County staff
and contractors have used "bad actors"throughout the County in parks, on
lawns, and along roadsides.
(3) Post signs indicating pesticide spraying by County employees and
contractors whenever there are applications in publicly accessible areas.
This would include applications in and around buildings and on
landscapes and lawns. The public has the right to know what they may be
exposed to. As the IPM Policy is implemented and pesticide use is
decreased,the need for posting and its associated costs will also decrease
dramatically.
(4) Recruit community members to serve on the IPM Task Force to strengthen
community participation, and provide feedback and oversight of the IPM
Policy.
(5) Hire a full-time, dedicated IPM Coordinator who would assist in
developing, implementing and monitoring the IPM Policy. The IPM Task
Force has failed to adequately oversee the pest control activities of the
County Departments and their contractors, and there is no entity or
mechanism to determine adherence to the Policy. All of the successful
IPM Programs of neighboring Counties also have .IPM Coordinators.
(6) And finally, hire.an IPM consultant to work with County Departments and
develop strategies to eliminate the use of non-containerized "bad actor"
pesticides and reduce the use of all pesticides.
The County's IPM Policy was developed "to protect public health, county resources
and the environment". Unfortunately,the County is currently failing to meet many of
the requirements of its own Policy and is, thus, putting public health and the
environment at risk. Without implementation of these recommendations, we are very
concerned that the County will fall short of meeting the goals of its IPM Program.
Thank you.
Submitted by Carol Shenon, Parents for a Safer Environment,Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors Meeting, August 15, 2006.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IF POLICY REQUIREMENTS V. REALITY:
The County's IPM Policy was developed "to protect public health, county resources and the
environment". The County is failing to meet many of the requirements of its own IPM Policy
and, thus, is putting public health and the environment at risk.
POLICY: "Integrated Pest Management is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on
long-term prevention of pests or their damage...Pesticides are used only after
careful monitoring indicates that they are needed according to established
guidelines... Pest control materials are selected and applied in manner that
minimizes risks to human health..."
REALITY: Departments and many of their contractors depend primarily on pesticides and do
not utilize long-term prevention methods. Routine spraying occurs throughout the
County. The Departments and many of their contractors have not established
monitoring protocols that include scheduled and documented observations of the
pest, its predators, and beneficial organisms. Monitoring is a seminal part of any
IPM Program.
POLICY: "The Agriculture, General Services, Health and Public Works Departments who
use pest management techniques when providing services will be required to
develop a written IPM Program..."
REALITY: Neither the General Services nor the Public Works Departments have a written
IPM Program.
POLICY: "Create an IPM Advisory Committee to assist Departments in reviewing pest
control alternatives and related costs or impacts...The Advisory Committee will
serve as a resource to help both Department Heads and the Board of Supervisors
review and improve existing programs and the processes of making pest
management decisions.
REALITY: An IPM Advisory Committee has not been created. The IPM Task Force is
playing the role of the Advisory Committee, but usually only County Departments
(and not all representatives) are participating at the every- other-month meetings.
The existing IPM Task Force does not include individuals that have the technical
capability to assess whether or not the Departments are implementing the best IPM
practices."
POLICY: "Department IPM Cloordinators will prepare annual reports on department pest
control activities to the County Administrator...The department annual reports
will be reviewed by the IPM Advisory Committee. The IPM Advisory
Committee shall compile the information into an annual report that will be
submitted to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors."
REALITY: On February 13, 2006 the IPM Task Force presented the annual reports for each
Department except for General Services: The TWIG did not question why this
Department's report was missing and, to date, this report has not been completed.
i
POLICY: "Promote availability,public awareness'and public input into written county pest
management programs and records."
I
REALITY: Access to pesticide related records and information regarding what. how much,
and where pesticides are being used is spotty and incomplete. County
contractors' pesticide use reports have not been readily accessible.
POLICY: "In recognition that development, implementation and oversight of a County IPM
Program require allocation of resources,!the position of County IPM Coordinator
should be established and funded. The County IPM Coordinator will serve as a
resource for Department Heads to insure compliance with the County TPM
Policy..."
REALITY: An IPM Coordinator position has not beien created, and the IPM Task Force has
failed to adequately oversee the pest control activities of the County Departments
and their contractors. There is a dire need for a County IPM Coordinator to
protect public health. Furthermore, there is no entity or mechanism to determine
whether the Departments are implementing the IPM policy.
I
POLICY: "General Services 1 till work with the IPM, Advisory Committee to develop Pest
Control Contract Specifications that will insure the County's IPM Policy and
Practices are adhered to by all licensed pest control contractors performing work
on county maintained properties and facilities."
i
REALITY: To date, such language has not been incorporated into county pest control
contracts. General Services has had contracts with Tru Green Chem Lawn and
Terminix for over 2 years, and the IPM Task Force was not aware of these
contractors until PfSE brought them to its attention. Tru Green Chem Lawn
continues to unnecessarily apply pesticides that are known human.reproductive
toxins and possible human carcinogens on a scheduled basis. Application
locations include lawns used by a public school, lawns used by staff and patients
at the Pittsburg Health Clinic, a local ball field, and lawns surrounding various
County office buildings.
i
Another contractor, Orkin Pest Control„had sprayed over a 2 year period both
inside and outside various Head Start school sites while babies, children, and staff
were present. This activity continued even while Head Start staff repeatedly
complained. Orkin not only violated their County contract, but failed to comply
with the Healthy Schools Act that requires public schools to inform parents and to
post prior to pesticide applications. Accbrding to the Co-Chairs, the IPM Task
Force was not aware of these activities.; Moreover, Orkin's contract only called
for IPM practices at specified "pilot sites", but even at these sites, Orkin failed to
provide IPM services. Only after the involvement of PfSE did the County begin to
develop appropriate contract language to cover all of the sites serviced by Orkin.
I
'� ca
t0 ti.- G
O
AC-0
O 0
71
9 N `, T Q N � Off•+
'Q N Is
aN �• \ ,O � eL d ca �'
7
O (o N T G CO
N tU T N =
O tz co G 0 m
N O
G N �� � 7 •t� -- N C O
CL O
CD
CL
Ulf-
0)
0) Ul)
S
,J)
0 SO
N y
0- CD
0 0
CD (13
ISO -0 -0
to 0
0
cd 0
0
-54 10
z 0
0
-Ao
.0
0)or
C- a) :LA v
U) 0
Cj) O v (D
0 (D (n 0
0 lal N `
ve�
culk
o m5
- ot
A\
\ d- o ci o
O
GO 00 \ 9 9 N
tl
O T _
4- O
N � c4 \ N' tG N •� �
p O \ 0 G Q`-
N
� � N � \ .,� N .✓G O N
'd Nct1
y a
*- `s' o- m
NN
N
O O
r
0 O -00G \ � m
O G N@ \ O
2 d Q \ N v @ O
r Q O 7 C \ y N N U
G
�+ O 7) o \ 7 ✓ pL
O vnG
y N
r N f �3
G
OU- O Om
-
\
o � co \
ri \
co
U) -0
CCO
'Lo)
-0
(D
0
U c
a) 0,
4-
0) Un
ou)-
co
08 34- 0 0
ca
.eA
co Ot
07, W
CD
s .0" 0; COO
co co 0
; 0) -n
CD
cavo 7p.
ci)
rt
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this
form and plaice it in the box near the speakersrostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: (.�� l S�IPi�! vyl Phone:
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization.
CHEC ONE: f /
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # y 2 Date: F s o f�
vaPm,� My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For El Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comment;for the Board to consi,':_-:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: g�Q InIl� 4��Phone:
� h,(-7U
Address: - �UX City: MOVA-"
(Address and phone number are optional;please nore that this card will become a public r ord kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) ! f
I am speaking for myself or organization: Vt.�� '�rg, r �yi VDhLAY '
CHECK ONE:
El wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: G�
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: vw Gf Gc.
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,1,1-:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 1Phone:
Address: U y 6/y M �S City. IN,�Ov I�
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
/ Zv !
I am speaking for myself or organization: ✓fEll
CHECK ONE:
p� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # L ` ,Z Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �LJ.
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
Address: City: 0,1;
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: _
CHECK ONE:
Cpl I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:.
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information