HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01152008 - D.3 TO: Board of Supervisors E:
p 0tra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee '=_
(Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair) Costa
DATE: December 10, 2007 �K� `� County
SUBJECT: Report on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Task Force
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . ACCEPT the report of the County Administrator on steps to fill the role of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Coordinator, which include revising the job specifications for a vacant
Grounds Maintenance Supervisor position in the General Services Department to include
knowledge and experience of IPM programs, and directing the IPM Coordinator to
establish a Technical Advisory Committee to supersede the IPM Task Force;
2. ACCEPT the 2007 Annual Report from the IPM Task Force, and the Bio-Integral
Resource Center's review of the County's IPM program;
3. DIRECT the IPM Task Force to report on its transition to the IPM Technical Advisory
Committee, as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee;
and
4. REQUEST the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee to continue to monitor
the activities of the County's IPM programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The vacant Grounds Maintenance Supervisor position that will assume the IPM
Coordinator role is a budgeted position in the General Services Department.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S ervis r ale B. Uilkema, Chair S pervisor Federal D. GLover
ACTION OF BOARD ON OTHER)
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENTAND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKE
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: / (925/)
cc: ATTESTED
N CULLEN, CLERK OF
E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
\\lsserver1\cw&pp\CW&PP Users\mkent\Docs From Old PC\IPM TWIC board order, 12,07.doc
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The County Board of Supervisors adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy in
November of 2002. At the time of adoption, the Board of Supervisors recognized that budget
constraints prevented them from fully funding all the recommended IPM programs, including the
hiring of a full-time IPM coordinator. The Task Force that developed the policy was directed to
implement the IPM policy, and to focus its efforts on objectives that could be accomplished within
the County's existing administrative structure and financial resources.
On August 15, 2006, in response to concerns about the implementation of the IPM program, the
Board of Supervisors ordered the hiring of an IPM coordinator. John Gregory, Deputy County
Administrator, took responsibility for coordinating the County's IPM program. Mr. Gregory left
County service in April of 2007 and the responsibility for co-chairing the IPM Task Force County
went to the Departments that manage pests — Agriculture, General Services and Public Works. In
March, 2007 the Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) was hired to review the practices and
programs of the County Departments and its contractors managing pests to make possible
recommendations for improvement.
The IPM Task Force made gave its fifth annual report to the Transportation Water and
Infrastructure Committee on December 10, 2007. Their primary activity for the year was to monito
the progress of, and provide input into, BIRC's review. One of the key recommendations in BIRC's
report was that the County hire an IPM Coordinator. They also recommended the creation of a
Technical Advisory Committee to replace the IPM Task Force.
This report includes correspondence received at the Committee meeting and supplemental
memorandums offered by several of the departments participating in the IPM Task Force.
\\lsserver1\cw&pp\CW&PP Users\mkent\Docs From Old PC\IPM TWIC board order, 12,07.doc
ADDENDUM
D.3 January 15, 2008 Integrated Pest Management
Supervisor Uilkema, Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) member, introduced the
item. She said TWIC has met a number of times on the issue of Integrated Pest Management(IPM) reports
and have also met with the IPM Task Force to address community concerns about the important issues of
pesticides and pest control. She said the Task Force recommended a full time Pest Management Coordinator
to direct and oversee the whole program. She added that the County Administrator's Office (CAO)
recommended a part time position from the General Services Department to fill that role, out of a
consideration to upcoming budget constraints.
Jason Crapo, CAO, reiterated the CAD's position that the Board designate an already funded position for the
IPM Coordinator.
Supervisor Gioia noted the CAO's recommendations today do not incorporate all the recommendations in the
IPM Task Force's annual report. He said that in addition, he does not believe that the position should be
located in the General Services Department because they are the ones doing pesticide spraying. He said that
ideally,the Coordinator would be someone with a health background, and he suggested shifting this position
to the Health Services Department. He also said that shifting the cost for the position to those departments
that do the spraying would spread out the cost obligation.
Supervisor Uilkema noted that TWIC supports the establishment of a full time position, and that where that
position goes is less important than making sure we establish it.
Supervisor Piepho asked if the IMP Task Force is one and the same as the proposed IPM Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC).
Mr. Crapo said that the TAC is a transition of the Task Force into an advisory body, compliant with the
Board's IMP policies. He added that there is currently a vacant and funded position in General Services that
could be tapped to be the Coordinator.
Supervisor Piepho said that if we want honest unbiased oversight the position should not be in General
Services.
Supervisor Bonilla requested insight from Mike Lango, General Services Director.
Mr. Lango said General Services supports the Board's policies and doesn't feel it is necessarily the right place
to put oversight of the IPM policy. He noted that almost all pesticide application is done by contract, and
those contractors are required to comply with the IPM practice guidelines.
Supervisor Piepho asked if there was a better way to evaluate the quantity of pesticides used by the
contractors.
Mr. Lango responded that there is a provision for collecting that data, but added that those procedures could
be improved.
Chair Glover called for public comment on the matter. The following people spoke in regard to the
appropriate departmental location of the IPM Coordinator position. All were in support of the position being
full-time.
David Ciskow, resident of Bay Point;
Whitney Dotson, Earth Team;
Susan Junfish, Parents for a Safer Environment;
Joanne Genet, Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board(PEHAB);
Lori Anders, Parents for Safer Environment;
Carol Shenon,resident of Moraga;
Cynthia Mantel,Orinda Community Church.
Written materials were received from the following (attached);
Clyde Trombettas, Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Public and Environmental Advisory Board
Carol Shenon,resident of Moraga;
Judy Adler,resident of Walnut Creek;
Lynda Descheambault.
Chair Glover returned the matter to the Board and said that in summary,the Board seems to support locating
this position in a department outside General Services, and he suggested returning the item to the CAO to find
a different location for the position.
Supervisor Gioia added that it should also not be Public Works or Agriculture, as they also spray.
Supervisor Uilkema said she felt an ordinance regarding pest management would be appropriate and could
provide strength a policy does not.
By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present, the Board took the following actions:
HEARD the report on the Integrated Pest Management; ACCEPTED the 2007 Annual Report from the IPM
Task Force, and the Bio-Integral Resource; DIRECTED the IPM Coordinator to establish a Technical
Advisory Committee to supersede the IPM Task Force; REQUESTED the Transportation Water and
Infrastructure Committee to continue to monitor the activities of the County's IPM programs and report to the
Board every six months; DIRECTED the County Administrator's Office to review making the Integrated Pest
Management Coordinator position full-time, moving the Integrated Pest Management Program and staff to a
department other than General Services, Public Works or Agricultural Services, and report back to the Board;
DIRECTED the Technical Advisory Committee to assist in the drafting of an Integrated Pest Management
ordinance to be considered by the Board's Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee.
Statement submitted and read by Carol Shenon at the Board of Supervisors'
Meeting on the County's Pesticide Use and IPM Activities,January 15, 2008
Hello, my name is Carol Shenon, and I'm a resident of Moraga. I work with the Contra
Costa Asthma Coalition and manage and teach asthma management programs for the
American Lung Association. Over the last few years, I've also worked with Parents for a
Safer Environment on issues surrounding the County's implementation of its IPM Policy
and Program.
Recently, Naresh Duggal, Santa Clara's IPM Coordinator wrote a statement to Parents for
a Safer Environment outlining the complexities of his position and his many areas of
responsibility. He stated that"Establishing a Countywide, multidisciplinary integrated
pest management program is an enormous task." Mr. Duggal' position is full-time and
he more than justifies this status. A copy of his statement for your review is attached to
mine. His take home message is that a full-time IPM Coordinator was vital to the start up
and is imperative to the success of Santa Clara County's IPM Program. Other
neighboring counties with successful programs also started with or currently have full-
time Coordinators, and it is essential for Contra Costa to follow this model.
In addition,the full-time IPM Coordinator position for Contra Costa County needs to be
housed in the County Administrator's Office. As Mr. Duggal discusses, an IPM
Coordinator must coordinate the activities of numerous departments that are responsible
for pest problems and their management. He states that, "Each group may have different
priorities and a different way of doing business. There may not be effective
communication between [the] departments." An IPM Coordinator must have the
independent authority to oversee and manage the county's program, make necessary
changes, and remove divisional barriers so that all employees can work together to
effectively achieve the County's IPM goals. Mr. Duggal's position is placed under the
Office of the County Executive-Administration in Santa Clara County.
More and more studies are published each day showing the link between pesticide
exposure and conditions and diseases including asthma and cancer. As the mother of an
asthmatic and an individual who works with children and adults faced with a lifetime of
having to manage their asthma, I strongly believe that the County owes it to its residents
to hire a full-time IPM Coordinator that is housed in the County Administrators Office
and, thus,has the ability to fully and successfully implement the County's IPM Policy
and Program.
Thank you.
Need and Benefits of having Countywide IPM Manager
Naresh Duggal, Santa Clara County IPM Coordinator 2003-current
Establishing countywide multidisciplinary integrated pest management program is
enormous task. Such public agencies face infrastructure complexities and public relations
issues. Pest management in public agencies rely on the coordinated activities of many
individuals. Often, several different departments and supervisors are involved in activities
that affect pest problems and their management. Each group may have different priorities
and a different way of doing business; there may not be effective communication
between departments. To remove these divisional barriers so that all employees are
enlisted in a countywide program and share common goal and approaches to achieve
success, requires a countywide coordinator—an accomplished problem solver and
creative professional, a critical thinker and visionary who understands where an
organization is going and how it fits into the larger framework of protection of public
health and environment, with demonstrated success in translating management
philosophy and strategy into effective business plans, innovative solutions, efficient
business processes and methods of operation.
The suitable candidate for such position also need to have solid technical & business
cross functional background and broad industry experience, strong general business
perspective and strategic acumen, with extensive hands on experience in key
management assignments with variety of IPM disciplines in an ample variety of
operational fields and functional areas. The person should also have experience in cross
referencing & interpreting various laws, act and regulations affecting pesticide related
business& processes such as FIFRA, CA DPR Pesticide Act& Regulations etc. Food
Quality Protection Act, Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), CFR Title 40 Pesticide
Programs, California Food and Agriculture Code Division 7 Chapter 3 Article 1.5
Pesticides, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Prop 65, Clean
Water Act(CWA), Clean Air Act(CAA), California Pesticide Contamination Prevention
Act, Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), Waterways/Bioswale & riparian protection,
California Fish& Game codes, Fire Marshall Codes and right of way safety codes,
Riparian Corridor protection ordinances etc.
The job also requires a high-energy team-worker, who inspires confidence at all levels of
the organization, obtaining commitment and motivating other people with well
articulated plans, initiatives and participate hands-on, team work and results oriented
management style, a resourceful negotiator, facilitator and consensus builder.
In 2002, while passing IPM and Pesticide use ordinance by 5-0 vote, the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors and the County Executive Administration also envisioned
the same as mentioned above and agreed upon to hire a County IPM Coordinator in a
classified Program Manager II position as County IPM Manager, empowered and placed
under the general guidance at the Office of the County Executive-Administration. Since,
this position benefits public health and environment and county as a whole, the budget
for this position (object 1&2)was carefully crafted by charging each department dividing
total number of county employees by department and charging back to general &non
general fund categories. Budgets for specific IPM operational activities& projects are the
responsibility of individual departments. All (36 departments) were classified into 6 (six)
User Groups based on the broad IPM categories and budgeting systems. Each group
assigned a Department IPM Coordinator(a go-to person who has other responsibility
within the user group)who reports and coordinates the user group activities with the
County IPM Manager. The six user groups assigned key decision makers as department
IPM coordinators as follows:
Health and Hospital Systems—Two department IPM Coordinators: Director of
Facilities (responsible for facilities and ground mntc.), Director of Environmental
Services (responsible for janitorial/sanitation services)
Facilities and Fleet (formerly known as GSA)—One department IPM Coordinator:
Building Operation Manager(responsible for facilities sanitation, housekeeping, mntc.
Services)with two designee one Facility Project Manager and second Grounds
Superintendent
Parks and Recreation—One department IPM Coordinator: Area Operations
Manager(responsible for park mntc. and operations) or(Parks's Mntc. Supervisor/Mgr.)
supported by each Regional Park Mntc Supervisors and Natural Resource Management
Supervisor and Technicians
Roads and Airports—Two department IPM Coordinator: Roads Yard
Superintendent(responsible for roads mntc.) coordinating activities for all other yard
superintendent; Other department IPM Coordinator: Facilities Manager(responsible for
building sanitation, housekeeping and mntc.)
Airports—One department IPM Coordinator: Director of Airport with one designee
Airport Supervisor who coordinates all activities from all three airport's supervisors
(responsible for grounds and building sanitation, housekeeping and mntc.)
Social Services Agency - Two department IPM Coordinators: Facilities
Administrative Services Manager and designee Administrative Services Officer who
coordinates satellite office buildings throughout the county (responsible for building and
grounds sanitation, housekeeping and mntc.)
Libraries—One department IPM Coordinator: Administrative Services Manager
and designee Facilities Mntc. Officer who coordinates all libraries sites for grounds and
building sanitation, housekeeping and mntc.
Department of Agriculture and Environment: Agriculture Commissioner and
designee (Two Deputy Ag. Commissioners and their staff) provides general guidance on
laws and regulations related to pest management
Santa Clara County's Manager- Integrated Pest Management: FUNCTIONS &
RESPONSIBILITIES
Advise the County Management and provide assistance to all county staff to achieve
compliance on IPM Ordinance objectives by providing technical support, supervision,
coordination, facilitation& management on:
§ Preparing administrative &procedural guidelines to various policy decisions with in
the County IPM& Pesticide Use Ordinance;
§ Working cooperatively with all county agencies, department administrators, managers,
commissioners, and Board to effectively achieve county goals;
§ Management of County IPM Ordinance compliance; Assistance to the County
Administration in managing interdisciplinary IPM team by providing operational
direction; County wide IPM Document& Data Control of Structural &Non Production
Agricultural pest problems;
§ Managing countywide pesticide inventory, provide appropriate disposal
recommendations and maintain pesticide use records; submit quarterly & annual status
report to Board. Perform a variety of analytical studies and/or projects in support of the
improvement of management functions, practices and services or the implementation of
program objectives.
§ Draw strategies and projects using the Integrated Pest Management(IPM) concepts for
Non Production Agriculture& Structural settings.
§ Development& Maintenance of Pesticide Screening Data base: Provide analytical
studies(objective & subjective) on pesticide formulations, active ingredients through
product information research, evaluation& alternative strategies. Prepare &review
"Approved List of Pesticides"as needed. Investigate & provide direction on non
chemical alternatives to the approved list of pesticides with an objective of overall
pesticide use reduction strategy;
§ Development of web based electronic Pesticide Use Reporting data base system,
Maintenance of Central pesticide purchasing, periodic pesticide use analysis (trends,
plots, reports), manage pesticide use exemptions process; to work with the departments &
agencies to develop and implement procurement policy,procedures and technology for
the IPM contracts, compile documentation, analyze, evaluate, negotiate and manage these
contracts in a way that delivers best value;
§ To work with the departments & agencies to develop and implement procurement
policy, procedures and technology for the IPM contracts, compile documentation,
analyze, evaluate, negotiate and manage these contracts in a way that delivers best value;
develop IPM Vendor Contract Qualifications, Selection Criteria; assist purchasing
department in RFP process; Assure that potential bidders for County contracts are aware
of the County's IPM program, policies and practices; Administer and inspect contracts
awarded by Purchasing to assure quality; provide periodic contract review to economize
& direct contract management by various County departments; Establish a warranty
database and monitors warranty callback of contractors, and perform other duties as
required.
§ Development of informative, interactive IPM website, Providing ongoing Web Content
maintenance through Web Content Management Software application
§ Development of Pesticide Applicator Safety Education Program
§ Development of IPM Brochures,Newsletters, Training& information manuals
§ Providing Technical Assistance to departments in setting New concept adaptability
Trials, monitoring and evaluation
§ Research & Development of Environmentally friendly, economic IPM models as
needed for County Parks & Right of Way Vegetation Management, Landscape Pest
Management, Aquatic Pest Management, Structural Pest Management, Wild Life Pest
Management Conduct Field inspections and surveys to determine infestations of
designated pests; Develop GIS/GPS designs& mapping system to track pest management
activities& pesticide use; conduct periodic reviews and appraisals of the situation of pest
problems in the County & advise Departments on necessary actions to implement
Integrated Pest Management(IPM) strategies.
§ Assisting department budgeting units in understanding Economic IPM models with
short& long term cost& environmental benefits; Assisting in preparation of
departmental budgets of the specific IPM projects;
§ Development and implementation of consolidated department, agency or county wide
IPM programs on selected sites by using the recognized components to build and operate
IPM programs;
§ Establishment of decision levels; Review optional strategies, methods, products, tools
&techniques for pest management
§ Determination of operational requirements; Implementation/monitoring
/communication/evaluation of departmental/management IPM plans;
§ Training of County staff in the whole process of the IPM system; Providing On-The-
Job IPM&related training, coaching and monitoring to the County IPM Staff, Facility
Managers, Department IPM Coordinators
§ Design of IPM programs;
§ Running of IPM programs;
§ Evaluation and modification of IPM programs;
§ Preparation of IPM programs, budgets and project proposals;
§ Safety Training
§ Liaison with private, municipal, state & federal national & international organizations,
institutions and universities involved in IPM to explore new technology, funds, grants,
joint projects& initiatives; Preparation, presentation of project proposals for obtaining
f ind/grant support for the IPM program of the County; Represent County on
international,national, regional, and local meetings to stay informed so that IPM Program
are based upon scientific facts and current technology.
§ Liaison with public, media on County IPM initiatives. Provide educational information
to community groups relative to the County's programs; Cooperate with state and Federal
agencies in programs designed to educate all county residents pertaining to designated
weeds and pests.
§ Develop approaches to educate the public about pest management; arrange for
information booths at public activities; publish pest identification and control
information; conduct information seminars for groups of citizens.
§ Monitor pest control activity on leased facilities, liaison with landlords through GSA
Property Management; educate&pursue IPM practices, adoption on leased facilities.
§ Supervise & assist GSA Property Management that IPM Ordinance is included on
Lease contracts as and when new leases are signed or existing leases are renewed or
renegotiated. Ensure compliance to IPM & Pesticide Use Ordinance.
§ Explore&Negotiate with other jurisdictions for the provisions of IPM development
services; insure effectiveness of communications with other jurisdiction to assure
adequate and non-duplicative service thus economizing program investment.
§ Act as staff for any Board Commissions or Committees that may require expertise in
this area
Conclusion
The IPM program provides non-production agriculture and structural pest management
users with pertinent information obtained from research, demonstration and
implementation projects addressing priority pest problems identified by users and by the
IPM-Technical Advisory Group. IPM User groups are encouraged to maintain structures,
roads, airports, parklands and urban turf and landscapes using a combination of
alternative control strategies that reduce or replace the application of pesticides. The
assistance provided to the User groups through the IPM Program has become of even
greater significance with the recent enactments/injunction brought under Endangered
Species Act, which will undoubtedly influence the future availability of a number of
pesticides currently in use by Non-Production Agriculture maintenance groups. The
ability of the program to research and develop needed alternatives and new strategies will
continue to be enhanced through the funds, partnerships, and collaborations as made
available.
The last five years were certainly a challenge in terms of pest management. California
ground squirrels to commensal rodents like rats and mice, birds like swallows, pigeons,
sparrows, insect such as ants, fruit flies, fungus gnats, drain flies, fleas, midges, yellow
jackets, feral honeybees termites and also feral pigs, algae and weeds all had banner
years. Fortunately there were IPM efforts underway that helped user groups manage
some of these pests effectively. Damage from others was at least mitigated by steps taken
toward developing new IPM methods. For two, the termites and vegetation management,
significant results will only come through a long-term effort exploring new options.
Teamwork is the primary reason why the Santa Clara County's Integrated Pest
Management Program completed its fifth year of activity on a note of success and
accomplishments. Significant progress was made because the user groups continue to
value the work of the IPM Program. They showed it by their participation as full
members of the team of people who make IPM happen in the Santa Clara County.
Working with the building occupants, public, IPM Technical Advisory Group and
guidance from the County Executive and Board of Supervisor has helped us gain a clear
understanding of the priorities that user groups have for the IPM Program. The IPM-
Technical Advisory Group serves as a sounding board, enabling user groups to react to
the way the program is progressing. It also plays a significant role in shaping the future of
the Program. This group carefully reviews the need for educational outreach and for the
development of new IPM methods and recommends certain actions. It recognizes that
level funding for the past five years is beginning to create some unique constraints for all
portions of the Program. However,through a strict accountability process, we have been
able to determine that the bottom line was that IPM efforts continue to provide economic
solutions to many pest problems facing the Santa Clara County owned/managed facilities
and land; result in improved environmental stewardship on the part of Santa Clara
County, mostly through reduced use of pesticides; and increase the availability of
alternative measures for managing pests so that user groups are not caught in a squeeze
due to pest or regulatory pressures; obtain and disseminate information that reduces
society's concerns over risks to health and the environment; demonstrate that Santa Clara
County's IPM activities can be more sustainable and be in concert with concerns related
to health and the environment and document user groups' progress in adopting IPM
methods.
A well thought out, carefully placed and funded position of the County IPM Manager at
the Office of the County Executive Office has helped multifold, as work of the Santa
Clara County's IPM Program ushers in a new era of increased visibility and impact of the
program on Santa Clara County's environmental stewardship. Since 2002, with the
support of Board of Supervisors to this vital program, all of us have learned the "ABC's
of IPM: In Partnership with Nature".
Consider with item D.3
01/15/2008 Board of Supervisors meeting
"Lynda Deschambault" To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
'a* <huskyhollow@yahoo. cc:
com> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
01/14/2008 09:12 AM
Please respo q to
"Lynda Descha Nbault"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendaco=ents_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Lynda Deschambault
Address of sender: 2066 Donald Drive
Phone of sender: 925-708-9686
Email of sender: huskyhollow@yahoo.com
Agenda Date: 01/15/07
Agenda Iteml: D.3
Agenda Item2:
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
January 14, 2007
Dear Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors,
During you consideration of tomorrow's annual report from the Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Task Force and the review of the County's IPM programs by
Bio-Integral Resource Center, I urge you to champion a Board Order for the
County Administrative Officer to hire a full-time IPM Coordinator.
It is my understanding that this was recommended by the Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee. (Jason Crapo, County Administrator's Office, All
Distri,cts) , and that the IPM Task Force provided a consensus statement that
they agree a full time IPM Coordinator is necessary to fully implement the
County's IPM policy.
The Town of Moraga has championed this important effort to protect human
health, by passing our own Integrated Pesticide Management plan. It is clear
from talking with staff and the public works department, that this is not a
part time job.
Members of the public want to ensure that public health and the environment
are protected, and that a robust program that includes proper notice, outreach
& education, and full program implementation is in place.
I would urge you to take the County' s Public & Environmental Health Advisory
Board's recommendation, to hire a full time IPM Coordinator.
Lynda Deschambault
Moraga, CA 94556
------------------------------------------------------------
"Judy Adler" To: comments@ cob.cccounty.us
<jadlermtnmama@sbc cc:
global.net> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
01/14/2008 10:50 AM
Please respond to"Judy
Adler"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Judy Adler
Address of sender: 860 Bellows Court, Walnut Cree
Phone of sender: 925-937-3044
Email of sender: jadlermtnmama@sbcglobal.net
Agenda Date: 01/15/0
Agenda Item1: IPM
Agenda Item2 :
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
re: Creative, not Chemical Solutions
As a County resident for over 40 years, an environmental educator honored by
both the Contra Costa County Commission for Women and its Watershed Forum, and
as the initiator of one of the first on-the-ground attempts to implement the
County's IPM policy, I would like to reiterate a few thoughts pertinent to the
IPM discussion set for Tuesday's Board meeting.
First, I applaud the Board of Supervisors for calling for a full-time IPM
coordinator to implement the County's IPM plan. It is certainly needed.
I concur with the idea of housing the IPM program in a neutral department such
as Environmental Health, a new Department of the Environment, or whatever. In
other words, the IPM program should not be controlled by those in the business
of applying toxic chemicals to County lands and buildings as currently exists.
Not only must the IPM Coordinator position be full time, as the BIRC report
indicates, but the coordinator must have authority to implement (not merely
advise) on IPM policy.
Much staff time and County money has already been wasted since the board order
was issued. Meanwhile, the spraying continues at a dangerously high level.
This is true despite mounting evidence of the health dangers associated with
their use and their overall effectiveness.
Certain departments, ignoring medical and environmental consequences of their
actions, have actually been undermining the Board Order. Their failure to
follow public policy in the IPM realm ends up costing other County
departments, those responsible for protecting ecosystem function (watershed
protection, clean water) and human health, dearly. It is time to recognize
the reverse economics of this situation and put an end to "same old same old"
A funded coordinator responsible for implementing IPM policy with real
enforcement power, would be a great start. The position will quickly pay for
itself through a smoother integration of the operations of diverse departments
with different priorities (e.g. food safety or weed abatement) .
In terms of job description, the coordinator should be able to work with
community groups on innovative programs to reduce pollution, should be
educated in the principles of ecology and be knowledgeable about the health
issues related to the use of pesticides and herbicides.
I have had personal experience working with certain members of the Public
Works Maintenance Department as a sponsor under the Adopt a Corridor program.
While lip service has been give to supporting our IPM based program, a number
of department actions have actually stymied it
The Adopt a Corridor program has the potential to save the County $3000 per
mile of trail while applying IPM principles . This is accomplished by
eliminating the need for spending on chemicals, fossil fuel and associated
labor. This innovative program, too, could fall under the auspices of an IPM
Coordinator or Sustainable Practices Coordinator as I prefer to call him/her.
Please establish a funding mechanism for the full-time IPM coordinator and
implement the strategy now. After five years of deliberation.the IPM task
force has still not been able to achieve consensus on a funding
recommendation. Perhaps this is because the stakeholder group for the task
force is too narrow.
Nevertheless, The situation is urgent and demands leadership on your part. As
a citizen and County resident I am alarmed by the volume of chemicals used in
the County and by the apparent unwillingness of selected departments to make
more sustainable practices REAL.
We can certainly look to other Counties for solutions, in the same way that
other Counties look to us for guidance in watershed protection matters.
Please do whatever it takes to make the mentioned changes and Please Do it
Right Away! Thank you. Sincerely, Judy Adler
------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Task Force
2007 Annual Status Report
For the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
December 10, 2007
Background
This report is the fifth annual status report on the County's Integrated Pest Management(IPM)program
since the Board of Supervisors adopted an IPM policy in November of 2002. The Board adopted the
policy in response to one of the recommendations in a report published in March, 2001 by the County's
Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) called Pesticides in Contra Costa County.
At the time of adoption, the Board of Supervisors recognized that budget constraints prevented them
from fully funding all the recommended IPM programs, 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.
The 2005 annual status report responded to concerns about the implementation of the County's IPM
program by Parents for a Safer Environment and the County's Public and Environmental Health
Advisory Board. In response to these concerns, on August 15, 2006 the Board of Supervisors, in part,
directed General Services to extend Orkin's contract for one year utilizing IPM techniques at all County
facilities, directed General Services to begin posting notices at County Buildings for the application of
registered pesticides, directed the hiring of an IPM coordinator, and directed the development of funding
and employee education options.
At the presentation of the 2006 annual status report on December 11, 2006 John Gregory, Deputy
County Administrator, reported that he had taken responsibility for coordinating the County's IPM
program. He also reported that the County would be hiring a consultant to review the practices and
programs of the County Departments and its contractors managing pests to make possible
recommendations for improvement. On March 13, 2007 the Board of Supervisors approved a contract
with the Bio-Integral Resources Center(BIRC) to perform these services. The IPM Task Force
participated in the selection process. In April of 2007 John Gregory retired, and the three County
Departments represented on the Task Force that manage pests - General Services, Public Works and
Agriculture were asked to co-chair the Task Force by the CAO's Office.
The primary activity of the IPM Task Force in 2007 was to monitor progress of, and provide input into,
BIRC's review. The individual County Departments of Agriculture, Public Works and General Services
also continued to implement IPM for the pest management areas for which they were responsible.
General Services also continued to contract with Orkin to provide IPM-oriented pest management
services for County buildings. The County's Watershed Program and the Office of Co-Op Extension
continued to participate in community-based educational programs about pest management. This report
will focus on the Task Force's response to the BIRC report.
IPM Task Force Response to the BIRC Report
The BIRC report makes 37 recommendations for implementing the County's IPM program, and
provides a wealth of useful information, resources and references for implementing and improving the
program. In general, the Task Force was very satisfied with the report. The Task Force met once to
provide input into the design of BIRC's workplan in February, once to receive a status update in July,
and once to receive a presentation of the final report in November. The Task Force then met to review
the recommendations and to reach consensus on those with which they felt they all could either agree or
disagree. The Task Force reached consensus on all 37 recommendations, but with caveats for some.
a) The first eleven highest priority recommendations were those with some fiscal impacts. The Task
Force completely agreed with five of these recommendations - #4, 5, 6, 7,and 9. The Task Force had the
following concerns with the remaining six recommendations.
#1 —While the Task Force agreed that a full-time IPM coordinator would be necessary to reach the
fullest potential of BIRC's recommendations and to fully implement the County's IPM policy, the Task
Force disagreed with BIRC's recommendation that an IPM coordinator should be given authority to
enforce compliance with the IPM Policy. The Task Force felt the IPM coordinator should be in an
advisory role only. The Task Force could not reach consensus on where within the County structure
such a position should be housed.
#2—The Task Force did not believe that additional consultant assistance would be needed right now to
assist the County with selected tasks, but is open to the need in the future.
#3 —The Task Force agreed with appointing IPM site stewards for each County building, but did not
agree with providing them with extra compensation for this responsibility.
#8—The Task Force agreed with the principle of prioritizing landscape areas according to the level of
maintenance needed and the potential for public exposure, but acknowledged the difficulty of
implementing this due to the current maintenance funding structure for such areas.
#10—The Task Force agreed with the need for a comprehensive computer database but was not ready to
endorse adopting the San Francisco software program, as recommended by BIRC, until it is completely
designed, and can be compared to other existing programs and tested.
#11 —The Task Force agreed that an creating an IPM web site is needed, but disagreed that a consultant
would need to be hired to accomplish this.
b) The next nine recommendations were the highest priority recommendations that would require policy
changes. The Task Force completely agreed with recommendations 414, 15, 17, 18, and 19. The Task
Force had the following concerns with the remaining four recommendations.
#12 —The Task Force was supportive of following certified standards for structural pest management,
but felt the County should have the option of adopting another with equivalent stringency to EcoWise if
another one is developed.
#13 —The Task Force was supportive of requiring contractors to follow certified standards for structural
pest management,but felt the County should have the option of adopting another with equivalent
stringency to EcoWise if another one is developed.
#16—The Task Force was reluctant to agree with requiring Bay Friendly Qualified landscape
professionals at this time because they didn't know if the program is widely available locally. But the
Task Force agreed with encouraging local landscape firms to get qualified.
#20—Task Force agreed with the need to create an IMP Technical Advisory Committee with the
members identified, but felt the option should be available to include outside experts and our structural
pest applicator.
c) The next six recommendations were those that require the highest priority procedural changes. The
Task Force completely agreed with recommendations #21, 22, 23, and 24. The Task Force had the
following concerns with the remaining two recommendations.
#25 —The Task Force agreed that technical IPM training for County staff engaged in pest management
activities is vitally necessary, but they felt this training can occur through a variety of means, not just
through an IPM consultant.
#26—The Task Force believed that members of the public that have concerns about pesticide use should
first take their concerns to the appropriate County Department, then, if not adequately addressed, to the
IPM Coordinator and finally only to PEHAB if their concerns are still not being addressed.
d) The next five recommendations were those that have medium priority fiscal impacts. The Task Force
completely agreed with recommendations #27 and 31. The Task Force had the following concerns with
the remaining three recommendations.
#28—The Task Force had no opinion on using a"Green Tax"to fund an IPM program.
#29—The Task Force agreed that pesticide use on County property should be reviewed,but a consultant
should only be brought to assist in this effort if it is found necessary.
#30—The Task Force agreed with using high school students and justice system labor, but only on
County grounds.
e) The next three recommendations were the medium priority recommendations that would require
policy changes. The Task Force completely agreed with none of these, and disagreed with# 32 and 33.
The Task Force had the following concerns with the remaining one recommendation.
#34—The Task Force agreed with the need for a policy and protocols for emergencies necessitating
pesticide use, but felt further definition of what constituted an emergency is needed.
f) The last three recommendations were those that require medium priority procedural changes. The
Task Force completely agreed with recommendations #35, 36 and 37.
COSTA COUNTY
oeY1 ` s Department Michael J. Lango
ti
ljnI SERVICES Director
Terry Mann
\x. Deputy Director
Stephen Silveira
Administrative Services Officer
DATE: December 7, 2007
TO: Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Michael J. Lango, General Services Director
SUBJECT: IPM Program for the General Services Department
In response to the report by Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) dated September 27, 2007, the
General services Department is committed to implementing the following actions:
• Implement the Healthy Schools Act requiring annual notification, registry, warning signs, and
recordkeeping at all County Headstart and Child Care facilities.
• Work with the County's structural pest control contractor and other sources to educate the
county's building managers on IPM protocol and to provide training/education as needed.
• Reclass the vacant Grounds Supervisor position to require knowledge of IPM practices.
• Join with the Public Works and Agriculture Departments to adopt a computerized pesticide
tracking system.
1220 Morello Avenue • Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-7100 Phone • (925) 313-7108 Fax
C:\DOCUME—I\mkent\LOCALS—I\Temp\iiotcsFFF692\TWIC Memo.doc
Department of Agriculture
Contra Costa County
Date: December 13, 2007
To: Transportation, Water& Infrastructure Committee
From: Edward P. Meyer, County Agricultural Commissioner
Subject: IPM Program
As part of our ongoing effort to implement the County's IPM Policy and in response to
the Bio-Integral Resource Center report, the Department has committed to the following
actions:
REGARDING PESTICIDES OF CONCERN: There are four most recently reported as
being used by our Department. There was a total of 90.64 pounds of active ingredient
used in FY 04/05.
• The Agricultural Department has no 2,4-D in stock and will no longer use it. In
the most recent report, this represents 96% of the amount of Pesticides of Concern
used by our Department.
• Telar comprised less than I%of the pesticides of concerned used by our
Department. A total of.77 pounds active ingredient was reported. This material
is considered the most effective against Perennial Pepperweed, an invasive weed
that is threatening our county. We only use it on small populations where it is
spreading into new areas. The Department will explore alternative control
measures.
• Diphacinone comprised less than 3% of the Pesticides of Concern used by our
Department. A total of 2.57 pounds of active ingredient were used by our
Department in the most recent report. All baits used to control ground squirrels
are listed as Pesticides of Concern. We consider this material to be the safest and
most effective of the baits that we can use. We are initiating a procedure in
roadside areas that we previously only used in Endangered Species Habitat. This
procedure involves pre-treating with placebo bait to confirm ground squirrel
population activities prior to treating with treated bait. This will augment visual
inspections that were previously used.
• Carbaryl is listed as a material our Department uses that is on the list of Pesticides
of Concern. None of this material was used on our most recent report. This
material is specified to be used in some eradication treatments and could be used
on certain exotic pest introductions to our county.
Other IPM efforts by the Department:
• Much progress has been made this year in detection and eradication efforts on
Japanese Dodder(Cuscuta japonica). This is the only known CDFA "A-rated"
weed in the county. It is a parasitic weed that has the potential of completely
overtaking and destroying a very wide variety of native and ornamental shrubs
and trees. It has been found on California live oak, willow, California buckeye,
elderberry, apple, plum, and citrus as well as over 30 ornamental trees, shrubs and
vines. Extensive public outreach has been used this year, resulting in 18 more
properties being found. This brings the total number of infested properties to 34.
The Department has mechanically removed infested plant material on all 34
properties and continues to monitor those properties for re-infestation.
• Two staff members attended a bio-control training session on salt cedar and five
staff attended IPM training. Both of these sessions were hosted by CDFA. One
staff member attended the two-day Bio-Control Conference in Redding.
• The Department will implement a formal IPM training segment to be included in
our staff pest management training session that is held each spring for those staff
involved in these programs. Bethallyn Black of the Cooperative Extension
Service has agreed to assist in this training.
• The Department continued the use of a mechanical-only approach to the
eradication of red sesbania and kangaroothorn. This approach is feasible on these
two noxious weeds because of their very limited distribution and because the
taproot growth characteristic is not prone to resprout.
• The Department is committed to evaluate alternative methods and materials that
may reduce the use of pesticides without the loss of efficiency in meeting
program goals.
• The Department will explore the possibility of implementing a pilot government
agency IPM certification program similar to that of the Structural Pest Control
Operators' Ecowise Certification Program. Staff has already contacted Ecowise
about the concept.
The Agricultural Department continues to use the Integrated Pest Management process in
its pest management programs. Staff is highly trained and certified by the California
Department of Food and Agriculture both in pest management and pesticide use.
Additionally, most of the staff is certified by the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation in the categories of"right of way" and"pesticide regulation". Continuing
education is required to renew this certification.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: December 4, 2007
TO: Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee _
FROM: Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: IPM Program
In response to the report by Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) dated September 27,
2007, the Public Works Department is committed to implementing the following actions:
• Set a goal of reducing the use of "bad actor" herbicides by 90% by the year
2010. We will begin this process by eliminating the use of 2,4-D now.
• Eliminate the use of "bad actor" herbicides in residential areas now.
• Work with the appropriate fire districts to determine where we can reduce the
use of herbicides without compromising public safety.
• Eliminate as much as possible the use of herbicides in residential areas.
• Continue to work with our partners to implement IPM in our Flood Control
facilities.
• Continue to use the attached IPM Decision Making Chart to guide our choice of
weed control methods.
• Work on improving data collection to assist in decision making and program
analysis.
• Our Watershed Program will provide information to the IPM Coordinator to assist
the outreach efforts to County building managers and the public with regards to
Integrated Pest Management,
The Public Works Department has practiced Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for
many years. Each year our employees attend continuing education classes on
vegetation management, which include IPM topics, taught by nationally and
internationally recognized leaders in the field.
Through constant monitoring of vegetation conditions and thoughtful decision-making,
we have been able to reduce overall herbicide use by over 30% and so-called "bad
actor" herbicide use by over 60% since the formation of the IPM Taskforce.
MMS:
Z:\Joe Y1Correspondence%TWIC IPM memo 12-4-07.doc
Attachment
cc: Board of Supervisors
J.Cullen, County Administrator
J.Bueren,Chief Deputy
P.McNamee, Deputy
C.Jeffries, Maintenance
J.Yee, Maintenance
AiAitirr'- PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PEHAB HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD
November 16, 2007
Co-Chairs
Marjorie Leeds
Nick Rodriquez Dear Honorable Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema and Supervisor Federal D. Glover:
Members
Sharon Reece Grayson On November 1, 2007, members of the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board
Arthur J. Hatchett (PEHAB) voted unanimously to support the Integrated Pest Management ort
John A. Knowles, MD 9 9 ement IPM) Report
Mary Lou Laubscher by the consultant, BIRC, with all of its recommendations. The implementation of the
Barbara Leone Integrated Pest Management policy has been a priority for PEHAB, and the Environ-
Bessanderson McNeil mental Health Subcommittee has worked man hours to integrate public participation
Rich Parsons Y 9 P P P
Jeffrey Ritterman, MD with the needs of County departments. PEHAB heard comments presented by Parents
Mary H. Rocha for a Safer Environment and feedback from the County contractor, Orkin, and from the
Raul Rojas P
Anita Siegel Departments of Public Works, General Services and County Agriculture.
Margaret Stauffer
Clyde J.Trombettas Of all the recommendations in the IPM Consultant's ReportPEHAB would
Bonita Woodson P i
like to stress the importance of a fully funded and trained IPM Coordinator.
This position is pivotal to the successful implementation of the IPM programs. With the
appropriate authority, the IPM coordinator would coordinate efforts between multiple
County departments and provide leadership and oversight in the County. Of particular
importance is the need to collect data and maintain a database that would enable the
County to accurately assess pesticide use, locations of application and trends over time.
The Board of Supervisors issued a board order last year requiring an IPM coordinator
be placed in the CAD's office. A member of the CAO's staff, who has subsequently re-
tired, was assigned those IPM tasks in addition to his regular assignments. Although a
step toward implementation, this assignment did not allocate enough dedicated staff
time for full implementation of the IPM program, as documented from the Consultant's
report. It also did not provide for oversight authority over county programs involved in
pesticide application. We believe this position requires a dedicated, full-time coordina-
tor with oversight authority.
We urge you to fund the position of IPM Coordinator to implement the recommenda-
tions of the IPM Report. This is an opportunity for Contra Costa County to decrease the
exposure to pesticide for our citizens and staff, and to provide leadership to other mu-
nicipalities on IPM implementation.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important issue.
Sincerely,
II V
Contra Costa Health Services � —� ' C,/� I/ �( G
597 Center Avenue,Suite 200
Martinez,C3-6669 M _ Leeds Nick Rodriguez
Phone:(925)25)31 313-6712 g
Fax: (925)313-6721 Co-chair, PEHAB Co-chair, PEHAB
Q0NJ RA C 0 S 1A
WEALTH SE I,vICLS
Safer�c
to/ ori
_
a -
x,
Parent'for c Safer
Environmenr isa Eras:-
Ronfs OrooniratiorTo: TV�rIC Committee, Supersrisors Glover and Ulkema
with a MiiS/an t0
Protect Public HFa/th,
Patccf arly that(t From: Parents for a Safer Environment, Susan JunFiSh
Children-and rhe
Emdronmcn'from
PrCvenfable Date: December 5th, 2007
CnVironnlBn ta/.NG:arY/5.
Dear Honorable Supet-%,isors Ulkcma and Crlover:
ire c+nr
5v11n JunFish,MPH
junfi5hPf5n?hotmnll-cam parents for a Safer Environment has been working nearly-rivo years to research,
(9Z5)2e3-460? report, and advocate collaboratively with County Departments to decrease the
overu6e and/or misuse of pesticides. It began with discovering that the
Steering Cnmm�Tt�e Department of Public Works, working as a eontra.ctor, sprayed a cocktail
Dom HeuTmaker
5ucan JimFi5h mixture of toxic herbicides alongside.the Town of Moraga's 13 miles of
car°''"`"°" roadside. Once we facilitated replacing this misadvise-d practice with a safer
Rachel 5miT"
Rita$miTh alternative in Moraga with the support of the Town Council and the Park Rec
��:
Jane Zhai Department, we could not in all good conscience look the other tivay as the
County,Public Works Department continued to consult and contract out this
quick and ditty method of roadside weed control for other towns in addition to
Or)visn aar¢
Sophin Chernikovo,PhD spraying over 600 miles of County maintained roads-
5e-lal choksi,JD
Naresh Du9901.M5 The community applauded the Board of Supervisors tivho issued a Board Order
Jeremy Finh.MD
Susan Kegicy.PhD for the CAO to hire a full-time IPM Coordinator and for the CAO t.o work ti��t
Myr+n Pntrcas,PhD,MPH the Director of each County Department to help finance this long,-needed
Debbie Raphael,PhD
CindyD.ussell,Mr) position to protect public health and the environment on August 1.5,2006. To
the community's dismay,the CAO chose to swap the order out to address TPM
in the County-on a part-time basis, and with currently existing staff members
Pt p Addre-s
P.O.Bnx 6673 wbo are already busy ti,Ath other unrelated work and who are not trained to do
Morogo.CA 94710 IpT rt
Website t`1
www.at5end Since August of 2006, the County has eh-perienced continued non-adherence to
the Coturty's IPM policy, demonstrating that the cutting of corners here will not
Fiscal Sponsor pay in.the long run and jeopardize public health and the en�rirorunent:
PcsTicide Action Nc+work,
North America -
11 General Sen/ices: Grounds division contracts out to Tru Green Chem Lawn but
Post Funders S 5On5or5 does not track their pesticide usage. BIRC, the IPM consultants,stated in their
Fir:*5,Contra Cogta
Children and Families final report that they had to estimate quantities used since TM Green Chem
COmmIs9Inr Lawn's invoices do not specify quantity. In addition- Tru Green Chem Lawn
Children's ErnironrnenT°I
Health Nctwork contractor sprays herbicides for weed control on a scheduled basis according to
Leogue of Womcn Votcrc CTeneral Services Staff s statement on November 27 `h, at the TPM Task Force
Contro Cnsto Pea.Mcd Ctresticides usage is in violation
Contra Ca-Ya HeelTh. meeting. Scheduled application and not tracking p g
Wellnc55 S.PrcvenTion P9m to the County TPM policy' and fundamental IFM protocol.
unwell Berry Foundatinn
fi �)�f. 1 i XA�4� � Y11�r[I'111�11'1 1111' x :Il"A-��A `AXAC AKFASA 111?AY411"' A t �RX�11'-. ly k ^tlt '.11ltA911 P1114Xt,h'Pub.
-,) In the Buildings Division of General Services, Orkin Pest Control sprayed a mixture of
insccticides at a Head Start Facility when they were asked to take care of a flea problem
immediately. Because there was no IPM Coordinator, Orkin consulted the Facility
Supet7,isor with no formal IPM training and received approval in this "emergency" to use
a family of synthetic pesticides called pyrethroids, an overkill for flea control when
simple shampooing with a miniscule level of low toxicity borates of the carpet would
have been the safest and most effective IPM method. Parents for a Safer Environment's
Director attends over 40 hours of IPM and environmental.health ;pesticide toxicity
related training per year in order to stay current.of IFNI techniques and issues. Although
the staff stated that they proceeded to w-ipc down surfaces after the community expressed
concerns, the carpets were not shampooed to help remove some of the pesticide residues.
Mam- Pest Control Operators refuse to spray pyrethroids indoors due to the health risks.
The breakdown period for pyrethroid pesticides indoors can be weeks to months,
Considering the risks from pyrethroids, particularly to children who have difficulty
breaking down these pesticides, and that children's habits of placing things and hands
into their mouths, and their higher metabolic rates,the County risked unnecessary
exposure to children and staff at this Head Start facility due in part. to the stalling of
getting a trained, full-time IPM Coordinator.
3) Public Works: In the BIRC's report, it states that the primary means of weed
control is by chemical use and the consultants recommended that Public Works Dept
attempts some pilot studies to try alternatives. The consultants ran out of time while
compiling just our consultants' pesticide use information and were not able to conduct
any site visits for Public Works, so did not offer more specific.recommendations. Our
research in 2005 showed that Public Works Department alone; used over 17 times more.
or 1700%more pesticide products by weight,than all of the County Departments of
Marin and San Francisco Counties combined. Public Works Department improved
somewhat, now only spraying about 1500% more pesticides than our neighboring
counties combined.
4) Agriculture Department: BIRO consultants ran out of time to make any site visits
for the Ag Dept,thereby-providing only general comments for 'trying new alternatives.
This Dept continues to abate ground squirrels using above grorund dispersal of anti-
coagulants, with the siting of ONE ground sgtdrrel as the threshold for placing poison.
We are concerned about non-targeted poisoinings of birds of prey that may eat the
poisoned Grains and wonder if the use of anticoagulants for one ground squirrel is
sensible, particularly xvhen the Lindsey Wildlife Museum rehabilitates ill ground
squirrels and releases them back to their natural habitat and has a database of other
wildlife that came into their hospital with suspected secondary poisonings from
anticoazulants. We.Fonder also why the Department is uninterested in working with
wildlife biologists to help control ground squirrels and gophers in a multi-faced fashion,
such as with attracting birds of prey by use of perches, as done in Marin Count),along
their levees.
We are not sure why the CAO believes that the IPM program can be run properly with
less than a full time, trained IPNI Coordinator when 1)the CAO's own hired consultants'
report states that our County program will not worktivitltout a frill time. trained IPM
Coordinator; 2) neighboring counties have sho,.vn that IPM coordination is difficult work
and requires full time attention (San Francisco. Santa Clara County) 3) the IPM Task
Force agrees that a full time Coordinator is necessary for full implementation and 4)the
PEHAB endorses the hiring of a full time IPM Coordinator and ALL of the
recommendations stated by the IPM Consultants who the CAO hired for the purpose of
providing expert advise and 5) Dr. Bill Walker of the Health Services,with the lamest
budget in the count`, is fuliy supporting the hiring and even offered to help in the
financing of the Coordinator along with other departments. So has the Department of
General Services,
The CAO cancelled two appointments with us in 2006 and then declined to meet N)ith us
thereafter; so vire have never been able to meet with him direct]}r to have a discussion.
We Will refrain from re-sending you the over 650 County residents" signatures endorsing
the implementation of an IPM program with.full cooperation tiyith the community, the
letters from community members, U.C. Berkeley's Epidemiologist and Public Health
Researcher on Childhood Leukemia, the RVdQCB, the American Lung Associadon,
Breast Cancer Fund, Wall of Hope (Breast Cancer Stuvivors). CCRMC physicians list of
endorsements and letters, Clergy and the Faith Community from Orinda, even the Natural
Resources Defense Council, among other experts and advocacy groups all expressing
concern over the current mishandling of the IPM program. Parents for a Safer
Environment provided the Board of Supetvisors with a series of supporting, documents in
2006 and the Board of Supervisors in turn issued a Board Order. Please ensure us that
,your order is implemented for the sake of your community's health and the environment
for decades and decades to come.
This is one area where the consequences of no action is dire as documented by the past
mishaps in the Head Start Programs endangering infants and children from 2003-2006,
2007 and continued reluctance by the Departtments of Public Works and Agriculture
Department to try safer alternatives while other counties have succeeded with alternatives
and decreased their pesticide usage and eliminated Proposition 65 chemicals and bad
actor pesticides. The Contra Costa County community deserves a lower risk pest
management program as neighboring counties have and we entrust the Board of
SupenTisors to make sure that happens.
Yours sincerely,
� Jam-
f�-
Susan JunFish.MPI-1
Director, Parent=_ for a Safer I;'nvironment
iunfishr mail.com
925-283-4609
November 3FLIDEC
7
03 2007
'�.
Dear Supervisor Piepho,
ley !
Re: Upcoming TWIC Meeting and IPM Coordinator Needs
This is a letter of strong support for the creation and funding of a staff
position to insure implementation of the County's IPM policy: Without such
staffing the management of public policy-will continue to be the disjointed
and ineffective effort that wasdescribed in the BIRC.report-commissioned
by the County.-A coordinator position is,essential-to`insuring that
departments, whose primary goals are not IPM, wi l also comply with least
toxic approaches to chemical use developed to protect public health and
natural resources.
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen who has resided in Contra Costa
County for,more:than 30 years,.I have received numerow,public honors for
my environmental protection work,-including recognition,in the County's 2008
calenclar,as a watershe&champion. (www.diablonature.org)
I am familiar with'.4he BIRC report and parfiripatediK-Tuesday's discussion
of it by the IPM Task,Force. Through my nonprofit organization,
LifeGarden, I have been involved with the first true test of the County's
Adopt a Corridor program. More than 200 volunteers have participated in
our events that apply IPM principles, restore habitat-.and reduce pollution of
water, land and air along the County's Iron Horse Corridor. We are currently
experimenting with nontoxic ways of managing weeds along the old SP right
of way. Having a person focused on the human and environmental health
aspects of Corridor management be our principal County contact would
greatly facilitate the operation of this public-private partnership.
Rather than giving the new staff person a title like "Director of IPM", I
would suggest something along the lines of "Director of Sustainability". I
have yet to meet an individual, other than a pest control operator, who knew
the meaning of theaerm IPM. On the other-hand, few people in this day and
age are unfamiliar with words like GREEN and SUSTAINABLE. Using a
positive, proactive term like sustainability rather than a negative one like
integrated pest management, would be a good public relations move for the
1
County. Such use would demonstrate leadership in "going green" and place
the County among the countless other businesses and governmental entities
doing so.
The Director of Sustainability would be charged with implementing:.the.
County's IPM policy, including educating employees in IPM practices,
preparing website materials on TPM, coordinating the maintenance of County
lands by numerous departments least toxically, exploring what Other
Counties are doing in this regard (e.g.-representing the County in the
regional Bay Friendly landscaping Practices Coalition) and more. In addition,
the Director could managethe-Adopt the Corridor program which has at its:
heart the implementation of IPM practices on miles and miles of County land.
The latter is currently administered by the County's Transportation
Engineering Division.
In summary:
1) There..is a great need to fund a full time'staff position to implement
the County's IPM policy:and supervise related human health &:
environmental protection~prodrams;Me the Adoptsa Corridor program.
2) The coordinator should be more than an advisor and should have true
enforcement.authorityfor:;matters related to-IPM policy
3) Because of the health protection aspects of the job, it coul&-be-
housed in the Environmental Health Department. As an alternative, if.
could be created as a separate entity funded.in part byeach of the
departments overseen for IPM compliance.
4) Because serious health and safety issues are at stake, there is an,
urgent need to reverse the problems outlined in the recent BIRCH,
report and successfully-implement the important public policy you have-
endorsed as a governing.body.
The Coordinator, however defined and funded would integrate the efforts
of diverse County departments to insure that land use and maintenance
practices protect human and environmental health.
Please insist that funds be made available for this purpose. I suspect that
the salary and benefits associated with the-job will be quickly recouped
through cost savings on goods and services contracted for, greater
management efficiency, and a lesser need to undo the effects of pollution of
2
air, water and soil on our lives and the lives of wildlife by other County
Departments.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my thoughts. I am planning
to attend the TWIC meeting.
Sincerely,
Judy Ad er
860 Bellows Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5867
925-937-3044
jadlermtnmoma@sbcglobai.net
3
July 25, 2007
To the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and
Mr. Terry Mann, Deputy Director of General Services Department:
I am an intern for Parents for a Safer Environment and am submitting a
review of the County's contractor, Orkin, for its accuracy in its tracking system of
pesticide application to County buildings. Pesticide use tracking is an essential
component of an integrated pest management program because it allows one to
understand where problems reside, what/when interventions take place and by
whom, and if same problems recur,perhaps telling us that other interventions may
be in order.
I reviewed just one month, May, in 2005 to sample the accuracy of Orkin's
pesticide tracking system. I compared Orkin's individual invoices that were
provided to the County after each service against the Orkin's summary report
submitted to the County at a later time. The 2005 summary(several pages) was in
essence meant to be a succinct tracking document for the County to reflect the
hundreds of invoices left by Orkin in 2005.
I found many errors in the Orkin summary report that did not match the
individual invoices. I have listed the specific tracking errors for the first three dates
of application in the month of May 2005 as a sample, although the rest of the
thirteen dates of application in the month of May were also riddled with tracking
errors.
May 2 Pesticide Applications by Orkin on County Properties:
-Detailed invoices showed:
Location Pesticide Amount Invoice#
30 Muir Rd Talstar 1 11812577
40 Muir Rd Talstar 1 11812575
40 Douglas Dr Talstar 1.5 11812581
Total: 3.5
-Summary stated: Volume: gallons
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
1220 Morello Ave Talstar 1
597 Center Av Talstar 1.5
Total: 2.65
What is wrong with May 2"d tracking:
1) None of the serviced locations indicated on May 2 invoices match any of the
locations in the summary provided by Orkin.
2) The total amount of pesticides used on May 2"a from invoices was 3.5 vs 2.65
gallons in the summary, a difference of.85 gallons, or under-reporting of over 24%.
3) The summary includes a pesticide product, "Cykick" that is not listed on any of the
May 2"a invoices. Cykick is spelled incorrectly in the summary as "Cycick."
4) Invoices did not note the measurement units. For calculation purposes, we assumed
it was in gallons since the Summary used gallons as units.
May 3 Pesticide Applications by Orkin on County Properties:
-Detailed Invoice showed:
2425 Bisso Lane Talstar 0.25 11812252
5555 Giant Hwy Talstar 3 11812588
Total: 3.25
-Summary stated:
3052 Willow Pass Talstar 3
Total: 3
What is wrong with May 3rd tracking:
1) Location of the application is entered differently than in the invoice.
2) There are two applications in the invoice on May 3rd, and only one was entered in the summary,
leaving out one application altogether.
3) Summary under-reported application by .25 gallons, or a difference of 77%.
4) Invoices did not indicate measurement units. We assumed gallons for our calculations.
May 6 Pesticide Applications by Orkin on County Properties:
-Detailed Invoice showed:
1501 Third St Cykick 0.5 11812604
1535 Third St Talstar 0.25 11812605
2500 Alhambra Ave N-7 6 11812277
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812280
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812281
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812282
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812283
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812285
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812286
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812287
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812288
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812289
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812290
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812291
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.0625 11812292
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick ----- 11812278
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.125 11812279
2500 Alhambra Ave Cykick 0.25 11812284
Total: 8.062
2
-Summary stated:
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.25
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.25
555 Giant Hwy * Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Talstar 2
2311 Loveridge Rd * Cykick 1
4549 Delta Fair * Cykick 0.25
2105 Abbott * Cykick 0.25
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.25
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2500 Alhambra Cykick 0.15
2530 Arnold Dr * Talstar 0.25
4491 Bixler Rd * Cykick 1.5
Total: 7.05
What is wrong with May 6 I entries tracking:
1) 15 entries for amounts applied do not match from invoice to summary.
2) 2 locations in the invoice (Third Streets) do not appear at all in the summary.
3) 6 different locations appear in the summary but did not appear in the invoices.
4) 2 invoices did not include the amount of pesticides applied at 2500 Alhambra Ave.
5) The summary under-reported pesticides used by 1.01 gallons, a 12.5% difference, even with
one missing invoice entry.
The following dates were also serviced by Orkin and each contained tracking entry errors:
• May 11
o Location and pesticide name inconsistent from invoices to summary document.
• May 12
o All four applications are not in the summary.
• May 13
o Location inconsistent.
o One application entry has been eliminated in the summary.
• May 16
o Location inconsistent.
• May 18
o Both applications in invoice have been eliminated in the summary.
• May 19
o Location inconsistent.
• May 20
3
o Location inconsistent.
o Two of the application entries have been eliminated in the summary.
• May 23
o Location inconsistent.
• May 24
o One application entry not in invoices has been added to the summary.
o Location inconsistent.
• May 25
o One entry not in invoice has been added to the summary.
o Location inconsistent.
• May 26
o Location and amount applied are inconsistent.
• May 27
o Pesticide name entered in invoice and in summary are inconsistent.
• May 31
o Four entries of application have been eliminated in the summary.
o Location inconsistent.
My review of the Orkin documents concludes that there were more inconsistencies than
consistencies in the summary when compared with original invoices. Orkin's summary under
reported pesticides applied and the frequency of applications, reported different locations and
pesticides than applied, and also omitted many application events in the summary. We can
conclude that the Orkin's summary provided to the County for tracking application is grossly
flawed and will not represent actual pesticides applied by Orkin.
All the documents I reviewed were originally provided as copies to the Parents for a
Safer Environment by the General Services Department's Mr. Terry Mann. Thank you for
accepting my review of Orkin's tracking system and Parents for a Safer Environment's concern
for the adoption of a proper tracking system by the County that would be in accordance with the
County's IPM Policy.
Sincerely,
Julia Kelson
Campolindo High School
j rkelson(a)yahoo.com
4
PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PEHAB HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD
Co-chairs January 3, 2008
Marjorie Leeds
Nick Rodriquez
Members Dear Honorable Board Chair, Supervisor Mary Peipho:
Sharon Reece Grayson
Arthur J. Hatchett
John A. Knowles, MD The Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Public Environmental Health Advisory Board
Mary Lou Laubscher (PEHAB) met on January 3, 2008 to develop comments on the Board order that is before you to
Barbara Leone today as a follow up to our previous recommendations on the IPM Report. First, we want to
Bessanderson McNeil
Rich Parsons commend the Board of Supervisors on your on-going work to fully implement an Integrated Pest
Jeffrey Ritterman, MD Management Policy in Contra Costa.
Mary H. Rocha
Raul Rojas In our initial recommendations, our primary concern was the hiring of an IPM coordinator to
Anita Siegel
Margaret Stauffer implement the IPM policy. We are aware of the uncertainties of the upcoming budget and the
Clyde J.Trombettas difficulty posed by increased staffing. Given these constraints, we appreciate the solution of
Bonita Woodson incorporating the IPM Coordinator duties into the Grounds Keeper position in General Services.
However, we are concerned about a lengthy hiring process to fill this position. To facilitate
implementation, we would like to offer several suggestions as interim measures if the position is not
filled immediately:
(1) Task the IPM Technical Advisory Committee to review the IPM programs for each
Department and provide recommendations,
(2) Direct the other Departments to make commitments similar to those made by the Public
Works Department in their letter dated December 4, 2007; and
(3) Direct the various Departments to begin educational efforts for County employees on the
basics of Integrated Pest Management and how their personal actions, such as eating at their
desk and not cleaning up after meals, can aggravate pest issues.
When the position is filled, we urge you to make development of a database one of the first focus
areas.
And lastly, as we are certain you are aware, PEHAB remains very interested in IPM. In the future we
would be interested in providing timely public input to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Committee on the annual updates of IPM Program that will be conducted by the Technical Advisory
Committee.
Sincerely,
Contra Costa Health Services C
597 Center Avenue,Suite 200
Martinez,CA 94553-4669 Clyde Trombettas,
Phone:(925)313-6712 For the Environmental Health Subcommittee of
Fax:(925)313-6721 The Public and Environmental Advisory Board
CON ] RA C054A
HEALT14 SEP,VCCES C�)6z4t-19�*
Contra Costa County Agriculture Dept Pesticides Used
Fiscal Year '05 -'06 and '06 -'07:
Dept of Ag
Total Pesticides Used
FY 05-06 and 06-07
1749
2000
1000 ! 583 585 879 PFSE
0 Consultant—
Q-
0
05-06 06-07
Dept of Ag had a 200% increase in total pesticides used from FY 05-06 to FY 06-07
Total Pesticides used in FY '06-07 was 1,749 lbs
Dept of Ag
Bad Actor Pesticides Used
FY 05-06 and 06-07
187.6
200 __. __._.. ..__....____._. _.._ ....._ ._. 174.5
-a 150 ❑PFSE
S 100
054.1 56.1 Consultant—
50
0
Dept of Ag had a 246% increase in bad actor pesticides used from FY 05-06 to FY 06-07
Total Bad Actor pesticides used in '06-07 was 187.6 lbs
Used active ingredient lbs for Rodenticides, not lbs of poisoned grains (28,500 lbs in '06-'07�
—Consultants did not include May&June '07 pesticide use reports
Dept of Aq
Total PFSE Consultant" Bad Actor PFSE Consultant-
05-06 583 585 05-06 54.1 56.1
06-07 1749 879 06-07 187.6 174.5
% change 200% 50.00% % change 246.0% 211.0%
PfSE: Parents for a Safer Environment data compiled by Ssu Hsu in January 2008
Consultant: Biointegral Resource Center data compiled by Bill Quarles, June 2007
Analysis by:
Parents for a Safer Environment Project Manager: Ssu Hsu
Contra Costa County Public WorkS Dept's Pesticides Used
Fiscal Year '05 - '06 and '06 - '07
Public Works Total Pesticides Used
FY 05-06 and 06-07
20000 179-19 17676
1-690
15000 ;
0 0 PFSE
0 150000 000
**
■Consultant
a
0
Oi-06 06-07
Dept of Public Works had a 3%increase in total pesticides usage from FY 05-06 to FY 06-07
Total pesticide usage in FY '06-'07 was 18,543 lbs.
Public works Bad Actor Pesticides Used
FY 05-06 and 06-07
6000 5402 5378 5180 —_._-__�
4176
4000 0 PFSE
2000 : � �I Consultant**
05-06 06-07
Dept of Public Works had a 4%decrease in the use of bad actor pesticides from FY 05-06 to FY
Total lbs of Bad Actor pesticides used in FY 06-07 was 5,180 lbs
**Consultants did not include May&June '07 pesticide use reports
Dept of Public Works
Total PFSE Consultant** Bad Actor PFSE Consultant*'
05-06 17949 17676 05-06 5402 5378
06-07 18543 14690 06-07 5180 4176
% change 3% 17.0% % change 4.1% 22%
increase decrease decrease decrease
PfSE: Parents for a Safer Environment data compiled by Ssu Hsu in January, 2008
Consultant: Biointegral Resource Center data compiled by Bill Quarles in June, 2007
Project Manager:
Ssu Hsu
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 1
B • I R C
The Bio-Integral Resource Center
P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707
510/524-2567 • Fax 510/524-1758
BIRC
Final Report
Contra Costa County
IPM Program
September 27, 2007
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)
BIRC Final Report
1
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 2
Acknowledgements
The Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) would like to acknowledge members of
the BIRC team who contributed to this report, including Luis Agurto, Steve Ash,
Jennifer Bates, Terry Byrnes, Bob Case, Tanya Drlik, and William Quarles.
We would also like to thank team members who wrote sections of this report,
including Steve Ash, Terry Byrnes, Bob Case, Tanya Drlik, and William Quarles.
We also acknowledge the editors, Terry Byrnes, Tanya Drlik and William
Quarles.
We thank the Contra Costa County IPM Task Force for the reports that we used
as background on this project. We thank Deputy County Administrator John
Gregory for his help. We thank Terry Mann, Deputy Director, General Services,
for providing us with County documents, Larry Yost of the Department of
Agriculture for providing Pesticide Use Reports for the Department of Agriculture,
the General Services Department and the Department of Public Works. We
would like to thank Tom Lemon, Orkin Branch Manager, for providing pesticide
use summaries, and Bob Tamori, Grounds Manager and Terry Mann for
providing invoices of contractors that contained pesticide application information.
We would like to thank Terry Mann, Bob Tamori, Roland Hindsman, Facilities
Manager, and others who provided assistance and information during our site
visits.
We would like to thank all those we interviewed including Ed Meyer, County
Agricultural Commissioner; Larry Yost and Vince Guise, County Department of
Agriculture; Terry Mann, Roland Hindsman and Bob Tamori, General Services;
Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman; Chuck Jeffries, Public Works;
Tom Lemon and Anthony Papagna, Orkin; Bethallyn Black, University of
California Cooperative Extension for Contra Costa; Bill Lindsay, City Manager for
Richmond; Barry Gordon, Arts, Recreation, and Community Services Director for the
City of Walnut Creek; Susan Junfish, Parents for a Safer Environment; Naresh
Duggal, Santa Clara County IPM Coordinator; Chris Geiger, San Francisco
Department of the Environment; Stacy Carlsen, Marin County Agricultural
Commissioner; and Art Slater, Slater's Pest Control for their cordial assistance.
We also thank others we interviewed, including County building occupants,
custodians, and building maintenance personnel during our structural site visits
and County personnel we interviewed during the landscape site visits.
Finally, we would like to thank the people of Contra Costa County for providing
the financial assistance that made this report possible.
BIRC Final Report
2
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 3
Executive Summary
Contra Costa County has a serviceable Integrated Pest Management policy in place, and we
commend the work done by the IPM Task Force that resulted in the policy. However,
implementing IPM does not end with the writing of a policy. The citizens and employees of Contra
Costa County deserve funding and staff to support and carry out the policy as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors. They also deserve the education to understand the purpose and
importance of IPM and the role they must play to make it work. It is critical for both the short- and
long-term health of Contra Costa County and its citizens that its policy be carried out as intended.
Support, both financial and administrative, must come from the top:from the Board of
Supervisors, the County Administrator, department heads, and line supervisors.
The County's IPM policy requires the County to hire an IPM Coordinator, and the County's IPM
Task Force has been noting this as a priority since 2002. We consider the creation of this position
to be of paramount importance to the success of the County's IPM program. Without a
coordinator the County's IPM policy is haphazardly and ineffectively implemented with great
inefficiency.
Project Findings and Recommendations
Below we summarize the findings of our research on the County's IPM program and include a list
of recommendations we consider the highest priority. Our findings and recommendations mirror
many of those already described in the County's IPM Policy.
FINDINGS
1. Structural IPM (Pest Management in and around Buildings)
(See Section IA and Appendix B of this report for more details.)
The Contra Costa County Structural IPM Program has been improving over the last three years.
Orkin, the County's contractor, has switched to a short list of reduced-risk pesticides (see Section
II), has increased its monitoring activities on County property, and has been working closely with
Roland Hindsman, Facilities Maintenance Manager in the General Services Department, to
remedy conditions that are conducive to structural pests. Mr. Hindsman reports that complaints
about structural pests have been declining: 356 in 2005, 164 in 2006, and 116 through the first 9
months of 2007.
However, there are still typical, on-going, sanitation, maintenance, and pest exclusion problems
that need to be addressed. We cannot stress enough the importance of sanitation, maintenance,
and pest exclusion in structural IPM. If the County neglects prevention measures that deny pests
food, water, shelter, and access to structures, it effectively forces the pest management
contractor into excessive reliance on pesticides to manage pests such as ants, cockroaches, and
rodents.
2. Landscape IPM
(See Section IB of this report for more details.)
Implementation of Contra Costa's IPM policy on County grounds needs considerable
improvement. Short-and long-range planning is needed to include IPM policy implementation,
site improvements, and staff IPM training in the budget for the Grounds Division of the General
Services Department. We consider it a high priority to fill the position of Staff Supervisor in the
Grounds Division and to fill it with a candidate experienced in IPM. This position is needed to
assist Bob Tamori, Grounds Manager, and help implement IPM. The Staff Supervisor could assist
in providing IPM education to staff, establishing IPM plans and priorities for sites, and supervising
staff. The Division needs a recordkeeping system in order to preserve invaluable information from
landscape activities that will provide a basis for IPM decision-making and evaluating those
decisions.
BIRC Final Report
3
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 4
Bob Tamori is nearing retirement(over 30 years of service), and when his position is vacant, it
should be filled by a person with expertise in landscape IPM who is qualified to be his successor.
3. Public Works Department
(See Section If of this report for more details)
We conducted site visits for structural pest control and landscapes. For Public Works, we had to
rely on interviews and analysis of pesticide data to review the IPM program. The major problems
are weeds, and we found that the Department relies heavily on chemical management. In some
cases,weeds are becoming resistant to the herbicides being used. The IPM Program could be
improved if Public Works shifted as much as possible to a more balanced IPM Program. Mowing,
mulching, competitive planting and other non-chemical alternatives should be fully explored. (See
Recommendations Appendix A)
4. Pesticides Used on County Property
(See Section II of this report for more details.)
Pesticides are applied by General Services, Public Works and the Department of Agriculture. In
addition, General Services and Public Works hire contractors that may apply pesticides. Most
applications are on county property, but pesticides applied by the Department of Agriculture are
often for weed control on private property. We have compiled a current list of pesticides and the
amounts of active ingredient applied. We have identified reduced-risk pesticides and pesticides of
concern.
A successful IPM program usually results in pesticide reduction. Over the past three years
General Services has reduced the amount of active ingredient applied by about 74%, the
Department of Agriculture by about 49%, and the Department of Public Works by about 20%.
Unfortunately, amounts of some pesticides of concern have actually increased.
Contra Costa County's IPM program could be improved by relying more on non-chemical
methods, using more reduced-risk pesticides, and using fewer pesticides of concern. Determining
how this could be accomplished is the task of an IPM Coordinator assisted by a Technical
Advisory Committee with additional outside expertise as needed.
5. Tracking Pesticide Applications and IPM Data
(See Section V of this report for more details.)
A better tracking system is needed for pesticide applications on County property. At present it is
extremely difficult to determine how much and what kind of pesticide is used at a specific location.
This knowledge is needed to help avoid hazardous overuse at particular sites and to evaluate
IPM treatments for effectiveness.
San Francisco has developed a web-based pesticide- and IPM-tracking database and has offered
it to Contra Costa County for free. Pesticide use and other pest management data can be tracked
by location. Data entries can be used to satisfy the current reporting requirements of the
Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Santa Clara County has a similar system, but adoption of the San Francisco system might be
preferable due to ease of use,downloadable data, and low cost of the original product(see
Section V for more details).
Non web-based systems are also available. Both San Francisco and Contra Costa County
Department of Agriculture have systems of this type. This approach might be difficult to
implement due to multiple users at several different locations. Merging efforts into a centralized
database might present problems (see Section V).
6. IPM Education
(See Sections III and IV in this report for more details)
BIRC Final Report
4
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 5
To support the County's IPM policy and to improve the effectiveness of pest management, we
recommend targeted IPM education. This would include information for County staff experiencing
pest invasions,specific and technical IPM training sessions for staff involved in pest
management, and a section of the County web site with IPM information for both County staff and
the public. This kind of targeted education could reduce County expenditures on pest
management.
BIRC Final Report
5
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 6
HIGHEST PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN THE CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY IPM PROGRAM
The list below contains only thumbnail descriptions of the highest priority
recommendations; the entire set of recommendations can be found in Appendix A. To
aid the County in analyzing our recommendations, we have tried to categorize them into
high priority and medium priority (the medium priority recommendations can be found in
Appendix A), and then we have divided each group into 1) recommendations with fiscal
impacts, 2) policy changes, and 3) procedural changes.
Fiscal Impacts
1. Hire a full time IPM Coordinator housed in the CAO's office with the CAO's
support.
2. Hire one or more IPM consultants to assist the County with the
recommendations marked with an asterisk (*) below, until the IPM Coordinator is
hired. The contractor(s) would work with County staff to facilitate the
accomplishment of those tasks indicated.
3. Appoint IPM site stewards who receive extra compensation to be the pest
management liaison for buildings or groups of buildings. See Appendix A for a
description of the site steward's duties.
4. *Train IPM site stewards in their duties as the point person for pest issues.
5. *Gather and/or develop pest specific IPM fact sheets that the site steward
can fax, email, or hand deliver to County staff experiencing specific pest
problems.
6. *Enhance and expand sanitation protocols for kitchens, food preparation
areas, and break rooms to include specific practices that will prevent pests.
7. Hire a Staff Supervisor with landscape IPM Expertise for the vacant position
in the Grounds Division in General Services.
8. *Prioritize landscaped areas in the County according to the level of
maintenance needed and the potential for public exposure to pesticides used in
maintenance activities in order to evaluate the kind and amount of pesticide used
and possible alternatives in areas frequented by the largest number of people.
9. Develop plans to better implement IPM for roadsides, rights-of-way, levies,
and flood control channels. Efforts to find alternatives to pesticides should be
re-initiated and intensified. Financial support is necessary for this process.
10. *Adopt a computerized pesticide tracking system for pesticides used on
County property by the County and its contractors that will allow tracking by date,
location, applicator, target pest and material, and amount used. The database
should also be able to record non-chemical IPM treatments used at each
location.
BIRC Final Report
6
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 7
11. "Work with County's newly hired web designer to incorporate an IPM
program section as the County web site is being redesigned.
Policy Changes
12. Adopt EcoWise Certified Standards for structural pest management (pest
management in and around buildings) in the County.
13. Hire structural pest control contractors who are, or are in the process of
becoming, EcoWise Certified.
14. Use contracts with specific IPM language for structural pest control.
15. Adopt Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines for design, construction,
maintenance, and pest control for County landscaping.
16. Hire Bay Friendly Qualified landscape professionals as landscape
contractors.
17. Use landscape service contracts that spell out Bay Friendly Guidelines. At
present the County has no specific guidelines for landscape services and uses
only purchase orders.
18. Develop pest tolerance levels for County landscaping, The County must
weigh aesthetics and safety standards with the health and environmental impacts
of pesticide use.
19. Maintain a list of expert IPM consultants to do research, special projects, and
technical training.
20. Create an IPM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to replace the IPM Task
Force.
Procedural Changes
21. Require Departments to provide basic IPM information to their staff: name
and function of IPM site steward and staff responsibilities in the County IPM
Program. A structural IPM program cannot function properly without the
cooperation of building occupants in the areas of sanitation and building
maintenance.
22. Provide structured education on pest prevention to County staff in buildings
(or on floors in buildings) experiencing pest problems. This can be provided by
the pest control contractor (Orkin) or by qualified Contra Costa Master Gardeners
with IPM training.
23. Working with Orkin, the structural pest control contractor, prioritize pest
proofing needs and repairs related to pest management.
BIRC Final Report
7
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 8
24. Develop an electronic filing system for the data already collected by the
General Services Grounds Division. This information is invaluable in the
functioning of the IPM program.
25. Provide technical IPM training for Grounds Division staff.
26. Use the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) to
gather public concerns about pesticide use.
Final Report
Contra Costa County IPM
Program
The Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) was hired as a consultant on integrated
pest management (IPM) policies, procedures, and programs for Contra Costa
County. We were given a number of specific tasks, and this is the Final Report
on those tasks. Tasks are detailed in the Appendix C. High priority
recommendations are given in the Executive Summary, and other
recommendations are listed in Appendix A.
I. IPM Policy, Practices, and Contracts
A. Visit 6 County structures to assess current pest problems and current
management practices by occupants, County staff, and pest management
contractors.
Evaluation of the Structural IPM Program
The structures that were evaluated were chosen by Contra Costa County to
provide a variety of sizes, ages, and uses. Sites included a hospital, a detention
center, a school, and some county adminstrative office buildings. Specific sites
chosen can be found in Appendix B, along with detailed results. A summary of
the site inspections follows below:
Summary of Structural Site Inspections
The most common structural pests found at the locations we inspected were ants and
mice. In addition, evidence of Oriental cockroaches was found at the Finance Building.
Orkin and the County have been working together on the issues of sanitation, pest
exclusion, trapping and baiting.
BIRC Final Report
8
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 9
In general we found that structural pests were under control; however there are typical,
on-going sanitation, maintenance, and pest exclusion problems that need to be
addressed. We cannot stress enough the importance of sanitation, maintenance and
pest exclusion. Preventing infestations by denying pests food, water, shelter, and access
to structures is much more safe and effective than trying to trap and poison those same
pests. Neglecting sanitation and pest exclusion effectively forces the pest management
contractor into excessive reliance on pesticides to manage pests such as ants,
cockroaches, and rodents.
Examples of what the site assessments revealed include the following (note that more
detailed information can be found in Appendix B at the end of this document):
1. Monitoring
Orkin monitors for pests in County building using
• Visual inspections that vary in frequency according to the sensitivity of the
site (i.e., kitchens are monitored more frequently than offices)
• Monitoring devices such as sticky traps, Tin Cat mouse traps, and glue
boards
• Information gathered from occupants
2. Maintenance and Exclusion
• A number of elements in the buildings we visited are deteriorating, such
as walls, baseboards, tiles, flooring, doors, and need attention to prevent
them from harboring pests such as cockroaches and ants or allowing
insects and rodents to enter the building from the outside.
• The traps on infrequently used drains were dry (normally the trap would
be filled with water) and could allow insects and rodents to enter the
building through any cracks or breaks in the drainpipe.
• There are numerous cracks, gaps, and holes that should be sealed.
These are mostly where wires, cables, and pipes enter walls and floors.
Wires, cables, and pipes provide highways for ants, cockroaches and
rodents to move about the building inside the walls emerging to infest
new areas where there are gaps and holes in the walls, floors, or ceilings.
• Many doors to the outside are in need of door sweeps and sill plates to
prevent insect and rodent entry.
• Many windows need screens and some screens are in need of repair.
• In some areas trees need to be trimmed away from buildings. Any limbs
or leaves touching the building provide bridges to the building for ants and
rodents.
• Some landscaping near buildings creates conditions that allow pests to
flourish. Ivy provides cover and food for rats. Some facilities we have
worked with have solved their rodent problems by simply removing the
ivy. Overwatering or planting vegetation that requires large amounts of
water creates moist areas that are havens for ants, especially during
Contra Costa's hot, dry summers.
3. Sanitation
Good sanitation practices eliminate or greatly reduce food and water for
pests. Even if pests are not a current problem in a building, good sanitation
should still be practiced in order to prevent a future problem. The following
are examples of the problems we found:
BIRC Final Report
9
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 10
• Many garbage cans have debris or dirty water at the bottom of the can
under the plastic liner. This can be a source of odor, cockroaches, ants,
flies, and possibly mosquitoes.
• Kitchen and food preparation areas could use periodic deep cleaning to
remove food and grease residues in cracks and crevices, around the legs
of appliances and shelving, and other hard-to-clean areas.
• Many drains are becoming occluded by the gelatinous film that collects on
the inside of drains. This film can produce thousands of small flies and
can feed cockroaches. Drains should be inventoried and put on a regular
cleaning schedule.
• In many custodial closets, brooms and mops were sitting on the floor, in
buckets or in cans. They should be hung up to dry so they do not provide
food or habitat for cockroaches or small flies.
• Corrugated cardboard boxes can be a source of cockroach infestations
(cockroaches hide in the corrugations) and should be broken down and
immediately removed away from kitchens and food preparation areas
• Items should be stored off the floor and away from the wall to facilitate
inspection for droppings and other evidence of pests.
• Staff needs to be reminded from time to time that keeping food in their
desks invites ants, mice and cockroaches. If people insist on keeping
food in their desks, it should be kept in tightly sealed plastic, glass, or
metal containers.
• Some breakrooms are not clean and should be put on a cleaning
schedule. Someone should be designated to make sure the cleaning
happens.
• Some areas contain a good deal of clutter that provides hiding places for
mice and cockroaches and makes it difficult to inspect for these pests.
This is particularly true of the area underneath the sink in some
breakrooms and in the Headstart kitchen.
• Not all recyclables are being rinsed and drained before going into their
storage container. The container should be emptied frequently so it does
not overflow.
• In the Finance Building, Auditor's Room 203, staff has instituted an
excellent policy of putting food garbage only in the breakroom garbage
can and not in the waste receptacles at their desks.
• Orkin should remove old pest control devices and old monitoring stations
if they are not being used.
4. Treatments
• Ants: Orkin broadcasts Niban FG (boric acid bait) outside and away from
the building and sprays Eco Exempt 1 C2 (rosemary and wintergreen oil)
around the perimeter of structures
• Mice: Orkin uses Tin Cat mouse traps and Contrac Blox (rodent bait with
active ingredient bromadiolone)
Roland Hindsman, Facilities Maintenance Manager, was extremely cooperative and
helpful during our inspections. Mr. Hindsman clearly understands the sanitation,
maintenance, and exclusion issues and has been working very hard to address as many
of them as possible in the County's buildings. He is hampered, however, by a lack of
staff and budget to adequately address the problems in many of the County's aging
buildings. Orkin could assist the County by prioritizing their recommendations so that Mr.
BIRC Final Report
10
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 11
Hindsman can more effectively budget the time of his personnel. Putting high priority
pest management recommendations on the same fast track as health and safety issues
could greatly help in preventing pest problems.
Orkin has worked hard to remedy previous service problems and seems very willing to
cooperate with the County and accommodate requests for changes. Anthony Papagna,
the service technician for the County, appears to have an excellent rapport with County
staff, and the County staff we interviewed seemed quite happy with Orkin's service.
Orkin's original assessments of the buildings we inspected could have been more
thorough and more specific. In the future, Orkin's inspection and monitoring of County
buildings could concentrate more time in buildings and/or specific sections of buildings
that are prone to problems to allow for greater thoroughness. Less time can be spent on
areas where problems are unlikely. We found obvious sanitation issues in the kitchen of
the CCRMC that Orkin was unaware of. It would be useful for Orkin to document pest
management recommendations for sanitation and pest exclusion more clearly and in a
way that will make it obvious to the County whether or not recommendations are being
followed and how quickly.
One building among the six we inspected is a model for how an attentive and
knowledgeable Building Maintenance Coordinator can work to prevent pest problems.
We would like to commend the Employment and Human Services Building on Cavallo
Street in Antioch for exemplary cleanliness and attention to pest conducive conditions.
Leah Miller, Building Maintenance Coordinator, is doing a superior job.
B. Visit 3 landscape sites to assess current pest problems and current
management practices by County staff, and pest management contractors.
Evaluation of the Landscape IPM Program, General
Services Department (GSD) Grounds Division
1. Data Collection and Overview
In preparation for this report there were 5 personal interviews, 4 phone conversations,
and numerous email exchanges with Bob Tamori, Grounds Manager for General
Services Department (GSD). Two morning staff meetings were attended, the staff
meetings are held from 6:00 am to 6:10 am every morning Monday thru Thursday. The
3 sites originally selected and an additional 15 sites were visited (at no additional cost to
the County) to get an overall view of maintenance, site conditions, and IPM. It was felt
that the original 3 sites did not provide an adequate overview of activities, a complete list
of sites appears below. Three years of pesticide use reports were reviewed, 2005 to
2007 inclusive, to monitor trends in pesticide use. Additional information and interviews
were done by other members of the BI RC Consulting team. All information for this
report was provided by Bob Tamori, Grounds Manager for GSD.
Staffing: Currently there are 21 full time staff(including Bob Tamori) and 5 temporary
staff. Two pesticide specialists positions and a staff supervisor position are currently
open. There are 5 crews with 5 persons each to maintain about 100 GSD sites and 20
DPW sites. Most pesticide applications are contracted out to ChemLawn, although since
BIRC Final Report
11
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 12
February 2007 Roundup herbicide has been applied by lead gardeners and selected
staff gardeners.
A serviceable Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy is in place in the County but
implementation has been poor. Filling the Staff Supervisor position to assist Bob Tamori
and help implement IPM is considered a high priority. Time to educate staff, assist in
on-site evaluations, establish IPM plans for sites (especially short and long range
planning), and supervise staff would be better accomplished if this position was filled.
Bob Tamori is also nearing retirement (over 30 years of service) and this position should
be filled by a person qualified to be his successor. It is recommended that the job
description for the supervisor position be modified to require landscape IPM expertise
and a Pest Control Advisor (PCA) License. The Pesticide Specialist job name should be
changed to IPM Specialist and the job description should be changed to require IPM
experience and possibly a PCA license in addition to the Qualified Applicator License
that is currently required for the position.
Pests: The primary pest at all sites are weeds (80% to 90%) with the secondary pests
being gophers and moles. Control of gophers & moles is usually contracted out, with
toxic baits (Category I strychnine & III anti-coagulant) being the primary control method,
some gopher trapping is done by staff. Insect pests such as aphids and grubs are the
most common insect pests. Fungal diseases are relatively rare with the most common
being powdery mildew in Sycamore trees.
Staff meeting: Staff meetings are held every morning. Problems, reports, complaints
and updates on sites are shared with staff during these meetings. This would be an
effective venue for the dissemination of IPM information in general and that targeted at
specific sites. Speaking directly to the staff was beyond the scope of this contract. I was
able to ask the staff, for 2 minutes at the end of the August 23rd staff meeting, what they
thought IPM was. Their 6 responses were: more physical labor, hand weeding, more
complaints, roof rats, pest prevention and less pesticide use. The last two showed that
the staff had a very basic understanding of IPM goals but generally saw IPM in a more
negative context. Educating the staff in IPM, one of our overall recommendations, will
help staff to understand and implement IPM in a more positive way.
Big Picture and Planning: The Grounds Manager, Grounds Staff Supervisor (when
hired), and IPM Coordinator (when hired) will be able to look at the big picture and plan
for implementation of IPM. Planning ahead for site improvements and training will allow
budget calculations to be predicted with greater certainty as well as prioritizing sites and
establishing a recordkeeping system. Recordkeeping is the history of a site and
provides invaluable information on which decisions can be made and how effective past
decisions have been (feed-back). These three people will also help develop, schedule,
and participate in IPM training that is sorely needed by the staff.
2. IPM Implementation
"Integrated pest management, or IPM, is an approach to pest control that utilizes regular
monitoring to determine if and when treatments are needed and employs physical,
mechanical, cultural, biological and educational tactics to keep pest numbers low
enough to prevent intolerable damage or annoyance. Least toxic chemical controls are
used as a last resort.
BIRC Final Report
12
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 13
In IPM programs, treatments are not made according to a predetermined schedule; they
are made only when and where monitoring has indicated that the pest will cause
unacceptable economic, medical or aesthetic damage. Treatments are chosen and
timed to be most effective and least disruptive to natural pest controls." ("Common
Sense Pest Control"; 1991; Olkowski, Daar, Olkowski; Pg. 38)
"The mission is to promote the combined use of physical, cultural, biological and
chemical control methods to effectively manage pests with minimal risk to humans and
the environment.
"... Integrated Pest Management is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-
term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as
biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of
resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates that they are
needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of
removing only the target organisms. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a
manner that minimizes risks to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms,
and to the environment." ("Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Policy")
Poor IPM Implementation
In the definitions above, monitoring and its prime position in IPM is mentioned at three
key points (see underlined italics). IPM is information intensive and monitoring and
recordkeeping are the cornerstones of IPM and sustainable landscaping. IPM is site
specific and without written or electronic records for a site, the maintenance staff is
essentially starting from scratch because they don't know the site's history. They have
no accurate record with which to compare current and past events at that site. Site and
pest history, such as they are, are stored in the memories of the staff that maintain those
sites. When they transfer, retire, or leave, that invaluable site history goes with them.
This is the case when Joe Drew, Pesticide Specialist, left GSD to go to work for Public
Works. All of the work he did during his tenure is, essentially, lost to the rest of the staff.
Bob Tamori will probably be retiring within the next couple of years, he has over 30
years of service. An effort should be made to record and preserve his knowledge of
GSD sites.
In many IPM implementation situations, the staff resists monitoring and recordkeeping
because it results in "new paperwork' that adds to their workload. At GSD Grounds this
is not the case, most of the "paperwork" necessary for good monitoring and
recordkeeping already exists and is in daily use. Most of this valuable written
information is sent to the recycling bin when the work or task is completed. The nine
forms currently used by GSD Grounds could easily be adapted, some with no changes
at all, to meet the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of a first rate IPM
program. The 9 forms are listed below (see Appendix F for form examples):
1. Chemical Applied record has summary and individual site sheets.
2. Pest Control Advisor Recommendation form
3. T/C 80 Labor Distribution/Daily Time Card
4. Grounds Maintenance Building Budgets Quarterly
5. Weekly Maintenance Hours Report by site and crew
6. GSD Work Request
7. Phone maintenance request (message pad)
8. Grounds Work Request form
BIRC Final Report
13
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 14
9. Weekly Equipment Checklist
A file system should be created so that these forms can be saved by individual site
rather than recycled. An electronic file system should also be created so emails and
other computer generated information could be saved without printing and other forms
could be scanned and e-filed.
Information and Assistance
Thanks to Bob Tamori, GSD Grounds Manager, who provided the information for this
review. Bob provided written materials, was interviewed, and was present on some of
the site visits.
IPM Review Summary
IPM is not implemented at GSD Grounds Division. Below is a list of 6 broad topics that
need to be addressed to implement IPM based on comments from Bob Tamori and his
staff:
1. Implementation plan
2. Training and education
3. IPM site plans
4. Long-term plans and goals
5. Monitoring
6. Recordkeeping
Implementation plan: One complaint is that there is no overall plan on how to implement
IPM or what the areas of staff responsibility and accountability are under an IPM
program.
Training & Education: The staff has had little or no IPM training. IPM is information
intensive and the proper training will help them learn how to gather information and use
it.
IPM Site Plans: IPM planning is currently haphazard at best. IPM site plans help
develop both long-range and short-range tactics and strategies to design pests out of the
system and to deal with pests once they reach action levels.
Monitoring: Currently, there is no monitoring in an orderly and planned sense. Current
inspections deal primarily with complaints and are reactive rather than proactive.
Monitoring provides information by comparing two or more inspections separated by a
period of time. It is the comparison that seems to be lacking.
Recordkeeping: Records of monitoring, cultural activities, non-chemical pest
management actions, complaints, weather, Et (for irrigation), irrigation timer settings, site
activities by users, and pesticide use, to mention a few, all help to provide information
that can be used to determine when pest monitoring needs to happen and when pest
management methods may need to be employed. Records allow methods and tactics to
be evaluated for effectiveness and plans can be altered based on that evaluation.
Pesticide use, primarily herbicides, has dropped about 70% since 2005. According to
Bob Tamori this is primarily because the two Pesticide Specialist positions are currently
unfilled. Lead Gardeners and selected Staff Gardeners are currently doing Roundup
BIRC Final Report
14
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 15
applications. Mechanical and manual weed control methods include hand weeding,
weed eater, flail mowers, Yazoo mower, and weed flaming. None of the 18 sites
reviewed for this report had heavy weed problems, weeds appeared to be under
acceptable control.
Competitive planting is not currently used as a weed control method by county staff.
Mowing height is good, with 3" to 4" mowing height the goal. A couple of lawns had
minor scalping of turf at the tops of mounds at DPW on Glacier& 50 Douglas. Trees in
turf had "weed eater blight", which is damage to the crown (base) of the tree from weed
eater cord. Tree circles should be created around the base of trees and kept vegetation
free.
Mulching is used extensively, some sites (e.g. 50 Douglas Drive) could use mulching in
parking islands and perimeter areas at the landscape wildlands interface. Mulching
materials are primarily cedar chips, golden nuggets chips, and tree service mulch.
Weed fabric is not usually used with mulches.
Insect pests are not a widespread problem, for the most part. Aphids are often hosed off
of plants or tolerated. In the past Malathion and Sevin have been used to control aphids.
Scale on sycamore at 4545 Delta Fair are considered to be within tolerable limits and
cause no problems.
Plant diseases are not a big problem according to Bob. Powdery mildew on sycamores
is considered acceptable since it does no real damage to the tree.
Action thresholds are not set by the staff, thresholds are complaint driven. Setting
damage and action thresholds is a key IPM component.
3. IPM Recommendations
Below is a summary of IPM Recommendations made in this report that apply specifically
to the Grounds Division of GSD.
Fiscal Impacts:
1. Fill Landscape Supervisor position, should require IPM expertise. This should be a
person that can take over Bob Tamori's position should he retire.
2. Fill Pesticide Specialist positions (2), change name of position to IPM Specialist and
adjust job description accordingly.
3. Develop and/or create IPM fact sheets for common pests.
4. Prioritize landscaped areas and create line drawing maps for monitoring.
5. Require pesticide use reporting by site from staff and contractors.
6. Adapt current landscape forms for recordkeeping and create IPM job file system.
7. Adapt and/or create monitoring forms.
8. Adopt computerized pesticide tracking system that will be developed by the county.
Policy Changes.-
1.
hanges:1. Adopt Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines (go to www.stopwaste.org).
2. Hire only Bay-Friendly Certified landscapers
3. Develop contracts that define Bay-Friendly Guidelines requirements.
4. Maintain a list of expert IPM Consultants for special projects, research, and training.
BIRC Final Report
15
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 16
5. Develop IPM Plans for pests at county sites that include tolerance levels.
Procedural Changes:
1. Include IPM topics and information in daily morning staff meetings.
2. Provide IPM training at or in lieu of other regular training sessions.
3. Develop an electronic filing system for site data collection, including scanning
existing forms.
4. Sites Reviewed and Specific Site Recommendations
A total of 18 sites were reviewed for this report. Names of the sites visited and the
approximate ages of the landscapes are listed below.-
Initially
elow:Initially three (3) sites were scheduled for review, they were:
1. 50 Douglas Drive (turf); 10 years old
2. Pleasant Hill Library; >30 years old
3. 4545 Delta Fair Blvd. 20 years old
It was determined, in the field, that these three sites would not provide an adequate
overview of the IPM program. An additional 15 sites were reviewed, at no additional
cost to the County, to get a better idea of site conditions. The additional 15 sites were.-
1.
ere:1. 4549 Delta Fair Blvd.; 8 years old
2. CC County Animal Services Department; about 5 years old
3. DPW Yard; 10 years old
4. GSD Yards; 10 years old
5. Sheriff, 1980 Muir Road; 10 years old
6. DPW, 255 Glacier Drive (turf); 15 years old
7. CC County GSD Headquarters, 1220 Morell Avenue (turf); 20 years old
8. 10 Douglas Drive; 10 years old
9. 30 Douglas Drive; 10 years old
10. 40 Douglas Drive; 10 years old
11. 30 Muir Road; 20 years old
12. 40 Muir Road; 20 years old
13. Juvenile Hall, Glacier Drive; 2 years old
14. Livorna Park; 10 years old (first site review in 2006)
15. Summit Centre; 18 years old (first site review in 2006)
50 Douglas Drive, Martinez
This Children's Services office building has an ornamental lawn in the front (south side)
with shrubs, groundcovers, and trees occupying parking lot islands, three sides of the
building, and the property perimeter, where it interfaces with wildlands. The landscape
is about 10 years old.
There are two primary pests at the site:
1. Weeds in the turf, shrub beds, groundcover, and pavement seams and cracks.
2. Gophers in the turf and to a lesser degree in other areas at the site.
Gophers will be a perennial problem in the turf at 50 Douglas. They move into the area
from adjacent wildlands, especially as the summer dry season reduces their vegetarian
food source in the surrounding areas. Control of gophers is either contracted out or
done by staff. The staff uses trapping to remove gophers and prevent damage.
BIRC Final Report
16
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 17
Contractors use gopher baits, both Category I strychnine (single feed) and Category III
anti-coagulant (multi-feed) baits were reported to be in use.
Weeds are present in the turf, beds, and hardscape (paved) areas. Turf weeds include
dandelion, Kikuyugrass, bristly oxtongue, Acacia, Eucalyptus, yellow nutsedge, and
various thistles. Clover is present in the lawn, this usually is the result of low Nitrogen
levels. Grasses and other forbs from the wildlands also make incursions into the
property.
The landscape is well maintained. The lawn is mowed regularly and the hedges are
sheared to maintain a formal box shape. Irrigation to the turf is by pop-up spray heads,
which may deliver a little too much water for the soil type and slope. The turf soil
seemed wet the day it was checked.
Mulch is used in some of the beds to suppress weeds and maintain even temperatures
and moisture. Mulched areas were essentially weed free. The mulch also added a nice
look to the parking lot entrance and to parking islands where it was applied.
Specific Site Recommendations
The two primary pests are weeds and gophers. In the turf these two can be reduced,
eliminated, or have reduced negative impact by removing the turf and replanting with a
low growing, drought and heat tolerant groundcover. Use a plant such as chamomile
(Chamaemelum nobile) which should do well in this location. The trees surrounding the
turf will provide a benefit to this flowering groundcover in the hottest months of the
summer. This groundcover (not the chamomile of tea fame) should flower from late
winter into summer in Martinez. Depending on the cooling effect of the trees, the plant
may flower through to the fall. The variety `Fiore Pleno' has double daisy like flowers.
The density of chamomile will suppress weeds once it fills in completely, about 2 years
when planted on one foot centers. Gophers that enter the area will be less damaging
and visible. Trapping (baiting is not recommended) can be more easily done and soil
disruption is more easily repaired in a groundcover than in turf. Chamaemelum nobile is
very drought tolerant and will only need irrigation every 1 to 1-1/2 months during the dry
season once it is established. As the surrounding trees mature, the chamomile may not
need any regular irrigation (except during and following dry winters). Chamaemelum
nobile was selected as an example here because at about 3"to 4" high with cushion-like
bright green foliage it gives a "turfgrass" appearance.
Whichever drought and heat tolerant groundcover is chosen, the irrigation system must
be converted to a drip system. Some groundcovers cannot tolerate overhead irrigation
during the summer. Drip irrigation will also save water and money quickly when
compared to turfgrass water use.
Pleasant Hill Library, Pleasant Hill
The library landscape is over 30 years old and the oldest sections of the landscape look
the worse for wear. The parking lot and building both face south onto Oak Park Blvd.
The site looked well maintained.
The primary pest is weeds, a common characteristic of all of the sites that were
reviewed. Other pests include juniper twig girdler in the junipers along Monticello Ave.
and some twig dieback on the Carob trees along the eastern edge of the parking lot.
BIRC Final Report
17
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 18
Specific Site Recommendations
Some of the original landscape plants are probably approaching their maximum urban
lifespan, especially the junipers. A long-range plan should be created to renovate the
landscape and remove the unhealthy plants. Plant replacement of junipers on the slope
along Monticello Avenue (east side of the building) is governed mainly by plant
damage/mortality, once a juniper is damaged sufficiently or dies it is replaced, the
replacement plants have been roses.
Star jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides) planted in the main parking lot entry island
is yellowing with some areas of dieback. This may be an iron deficiency caused by an
alkaline pH that makes iron unavailable. Have soil pH tested, use only acid forming
fertilizers such as cotton seed meal, and if pH is very high consider applications of sulfur
to bring the pH down to 6.0 to 6.5.
There has been some renovation to selected areas as time and budget allow. The spot
renovations have been focused along Oak Park Blvd., in the parking lot, and around the
front of the building.
Mulch is used extensively at the site to suppress weeds. This is an urban environment
with no wildlands interface. However, directly east (across Monticello Avenue)the
former Contra Costa County Office of Recreation has been vacated. Weeds are over-
growing this area which increases weed pressure at the library building.
4545 Delta Fair Blvd., Antioch
This county office building is approximately 20 years old. The newer neighboring
building at 4549 Delta Fair was also reviewed and is about 8 years old. Both buildings
have varied landscapes but 4549 has more drought tolerant plants that are more suited
to summers in the east county. Both buildings are heavily visited by the public. There is
a large ornamental turf area along the boulevard in front of 4545 and a smaller turf area
east and adjacent to the building, this is a shaded seating area used primarily by staff.
At 4549 there is a small ornamental turf area near the building and parking entrances.
Sycamore trees are planted in sidewalk tree wells on three sides of the building (north,
west, & south). These trees have powdery mildew, a leaf disease that is common in
Sycamores. They also have a low level infestation of sycamore scale. Neither problem
is currently being treated, which is the prudent course, since neither pest threatens the
trees.
The plant selection differences between 4545 and 4549 are striking. Plants for 4549
tend to be more heat and drought tolerant. An IPM cultural tactic is to select the best
plant for the location. For example, no sycamore trees were planted at 4549, doubtless
because of the mildew on them at 4545.
Specific Site Recommendations
In a few areas low shrubs that border sidewalks and other paved surfaces are pruned
vertically along the paving edge. This is an unhealthy and unsightly practice and
actually allows sufficient light into the canopy that weed seed can germinate. Vertical
edge pruning can also expose sensitive interior plant parts to strong heat and sun that
can damage or kill the bark. Coprosma and Pittosporum were the two main plants
BIRC Final Report
18
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 19
pruned vertically. Prune plants at an angle to the edge of the paving, they will be fuller,
more aesthetically pleasing, shade soil slowing evaporation, and suppress weeds along
these borders. At 4549 some of the low growing groundcovers and shrubs area allowed
to grow to the edge of the paving, a more pleasing and efficient method.
Long-range plans for the site should include removal of the large ornamental lawn along
Delta Fair Blvd. and replace it with heat and drought tolerant groundcovers and trees.
This will conserve water and provide a pleasing appearance. The lawn is currently
visible only from the street directly in front of the building. No neighbors can see the
lawn and passers-by using Highway 4 are moving too fast to notice it. The turf here is a
high water use high maintenance area, replacement will save money and labor.
Additional Sites Visited
The following additional sites were reviewed for this report to get a broader picture of
IPM implementation and the challenges facing the staff at these sites.
1. Animal Control Services
2. DPW Yard
3. GSD Yard
4. Sheriff, 1980 Muir Road
5. DPW, 255 Glacier Dr.
6. GSD Offices, 1220 Morell Ave.
7. 10 Douglas Drive
8. 30 Douglas Drive
9. 40 Douglas Drive
10. 30 Muir Road
11. 40 Muir Road
12. Juvenile Hall, Glacier Drive
13. Livorna Park, Alamo
14. Summit Centre, Martinez
All sites appear to be well maintained overall, each has some minor problems. The most
common area of concern was soil moisture levels, especially in turf areas. Soil probe
samples ranged from wet to soggy, except 50 Douglas Drive where turf soil samples
were evenly moist. In turf areas, especially DPW offices on Glacier Drive, soil was
soggy at 10 inches deep, well below the 2-1/2"to 3" root depth.
5.General Site Recommendations
Gophers.-
Baiting
ophers:Baiting for gophers is problematic. There is always the danger of secondary poisoning,
a scavenger/predator eats a poisoned gopher and gets sick or dies. Secondary
poisoning of a hawk that had eaten a poisoned rat occurred near Golden Gate Park last
year. Baiting is not recommended in urban areas because of the chance people and
pets may encounter the poison or poisoned animals. It is not recommended in areas
with an urban/wildlands interface because of the presence of predators and scavengers.
Install owl boxes to attract barn owls and erect raptor perches for hawks and falcons,
both of which prey on small animals. These would be especially appropriate at all four
Douglas Drive locations, DPW& GSD yards, Livorna Park, Summit Centre, Animal
Services, and the county complex at Muir Road and Glacier Drive. These two predators
will help reduce, not just gophers but also the general rodent populations in a wide area,
BIRC Final Report
19
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 20
not just at this site. It should be pointed out that owls and raptors alone will not usually
give sufficient gopher control in turf for a particular location. Information on building and
installing owl boxes and raptor perches is available through the Contra Costa County
Cooperative Extension Service located behind Pleasant Hill Library,
Weeds:
Soil surfaces should be covered with dense vegetation or mulch to prevent weed growth.
Weeds need 3 things to grow: (1) sunlight, (2) water, and (3) soil (or other substrate).
Dense vegetation and/or mulch deprives weeds of sunlight. Irrigation adjustments,
elimination of runoff, drip systems, and timely repairs can deprive weeds of needed
water. Cleaning soil out of cracks and seams, cleaning up leaves and other similar
debris, and thick mulch layers can deprive weeds of soil.
Traffic islands, shrub beds, and perimeter areas benefit from a 3" to 4" layer of mulch.
Only organic mulches, currently in use, should be used. Clippings and chipped pruning
debris should be recycled on site as mulch whenever possible. Tree service mulch
works well suppressing weeds and improving plant health, especially in perimeter areas
where the landscape transitions into natural areas as it does at the Summit Centre and
along Douglas Drive. Improving tree health and vigor in parking lots, by adding mulch,
will help keep these `heat sinks' a little cooler during warm weather.
Weeds in hardscape seams and cracks should be removed with a pressure washer.
Make sure to get soil and all plant parts out of the seam. In high traffic areas caulk the
seams, use an elastomeric caulking compound suited for the surface being sealed.
Polyurethane and silicone caulking compounds work well for this application. Cleaned
joints can remain weed free for up to a year, caulked joints can remain sealed for up to
20 years or more.
Weed flaming should be limited to paved surfaces or to landscaped beds that have been
watered the day of treatment. Where possible, run irrigation immediately following weed
flaming operations. Use this irrigation run to inspect and adjust the irrigation system as
needed. Weed flaming can also be done while it is raining. Fire safety is of the utmost
importance, great care must be taken when using weed flamers around flammable
materials.
Turfgrass:
As part of a long-range IPM and Sustainability plan, ornamental turfgrass should be
eliminated to the maximum extent possible. This is especially true for the county
properties east of the Coast Range, Bay side turf is under less stress and requires less
water. The dry 2006-06 winter, if repeated again this year, could result in water rationing
and turfgrass has the highest water requirements in the landscape.
C. Interview 6 key people in the County who are familiar with the IPM
policy, current pest management hiring and procedures, and public
concerns with pest management.
We have conducted extensive interviews with (1)Ed Meyer, Agricultural
Commissioner; (2)Terry Mann, Deputy Director, General Services; (3)Roland
Hindsman, Facilities Manager, General Services; (4)Michael Kent, Hazardous
BIRC Final Report
20
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 21
Materials Ombudsman; (5)Tom Lemon, Orkin Branch Manager, Anthony
Papagna, Orkin technician for Contra Costa County, (6) Bethallyn Black,
University of California Cooperative Extension for Contra Costa; (7) Susan
Junfish, Parents for a Safer Environment; and (8) Chuck Jeffries, Contra Costa
Public Works.
We have conducted short interviews with County building occupants, custodians,
and building maintenance personnel during our structural site visits. We have
also conducted short interviews with County personnel during the landscape site
visits.
For most of the interviews we asked a number of standardized questions
covering the Tasks that are in the Scope of our contract. The written consolidated
summary of the interviews was 36 pages long. Since information from these
interviews was given in confidence, who said what and when will not be
published. BIRC has used this information to make recommendations for the final
report.
Of particular interest, though, is that the County received 356 structural pest
complaints in 2005, 164 in 2006, and so far 116 for the first nine months of 2007.
D. Review 4 pest management contracts for consistency with IPM
principles and County policy. The County will help BIRC to decide which
contracts should be reviewed and will provide BIRC with copies of the
contracts in electronic form. If electronic copies of the contracts are not
available, the County will provide 4 photocopies of each of the 4 contracts.
We were unable to review four contracts because the County has only a single pest
management contract, and that is with Orkin Commercial Services for structural pest
control services in and around County buildings.
We reviewed the contract and recommend that the County revise any future contracts to
include specific IPM language in order to hold contractors to a high level of IPM service.
BIRC and the UP3 Project, in collaboration with the pest control industry and
government stakeholders, have been developing guidance documents for contracting for
structural IPM services. The most recent versions of these documents can be found at
www.up3project.org/ipmcontracting.shtml.
When the County is ready to send the structural pest control contract out to bid, we
recommend starting with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)to eliminate contractors who
do not meet minimum requirements (such as being or becoming EcoWise Certified).
Taking the lowest bid should not be required. The lowest bid is unlikely to provide the
best IPM service.
Currently the County uses purchase orders to hire landscape contractors, and has no
specific guidelines for landscape services. Contracts with language that specifies
adherence to the Bay Friendly Guidelines developed by Alameda County StopWaste
(see Appendix A for more information) will help provide the County with a more
ecologically sound service and help ensure compliance with the County's IPM policy.
BIRC Final Report
21
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 22
E. Provide written recommendations for possible improvements and
changes in County policies, procedures and contracts.
Recommendations can be found in the Executive Summary and in Appendix A of
this Report.
II. Pesticide Use on County Property
A. Compare the pesticides used on County property with those on the San
Francisco Approved List.
B. Screen formulations not on the San Francisco Approved List by using
the San Francisco toxicological evaluation process or by using comparison
with the Santa Clara approved list up to the limit of the resources available
for this Task. Of the pesticides screened, those of greatest concern will be
identified.
A. Specific Pesticide Formulations and Amounts Being Used
Pesticides are applied in Contra Costa County by three agencies: General Services,
Public Works and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, General Services contracts
with Orkin for pesticide applications in County Buildings and with Trugreen Chemlawn
for pesticide applications in turf and landscape situations. In addition, the Public Works
Department contracts either with General Services or with a private contractor for
maintenance of service areas in parks (personal communication Terry Mann 4/20/07).
Most of the pesticide applications are on County property, but the Department of
Agriculture applies herbicides for weed control on private property.
Much of the work on this Task has involved actually getting an electronic list of
pesticides used along with amount of active ingredient applied. The Department of
Agriculture uses monthly pesticide use reports to prepare summaries of the pesticide
use patterns for the Department of Agriculture, General Services, and Public Works. The
name of the formulation, amount of formulation applied, and amount of active ingredient
applied are reported. Unfortunately, this pesticide list is prepared only once every 5
years. The latest electronic report available was for 2004-2005.
We created a current electronic list of pesticides used, and amounts of active ingredients
applied, from monthly Pesticide Use Reports supplied by Larry Yost at the Contra Costa
County Department of Agriculture, from pesticide application invoices supplied by Bob
Tamori of Contra Costa County General Services and from pesticide application
summaries supplied by Tom Lemon of Orkin. We added the information we obtained to
the existing 2004-2005 electronic list prepared by the Department of Agriculture.
In this report, we will list the formulations used and the amounts of active ingredients
applied. This approach has the advantage that formulations can be compared year-to-
year on a standardized basis. Reporting by amount of active ingredient applied has the
disadvantage that it may underestimate the importance of formulations that have a low
percent active ingredient. For instance, 25,600 pounds of a 0.01% diphacinone
formulation contains only 2.56 pounds of active ingredient. Reporting by amount of
BIRC Final Report
22
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 23
active ingredient may also underestimate the importance of potent materials such as the
herbicide chlorsulfuron (Telar), which is applied at very low application rates.
From a year-to-year comparison, we will also analyze pesticide application trends. In
Section IIB, we will compare active ingredients with the San Francisco Approved List,
and we will discuss pesticides of possible concern.
1. General Services Department
Why does the General Services Department use pesticides? According to the 2006
Contra Costa County IPM Taskforce Report, General Services is responsible for 105
County Buildings and 27 Public Works Landscape and Lighting District Service Areas.
The Department maintains the landscape, grounds, and parking lot areas. The General
Services IPM program addresses the need for"control or elimination of unwanted
vegetation in our landscape, diseases and insect pests on landscape shrubs and trees,
and vertebrate pests in the landscape."(2006 Contra Costa IPM Report)
According to the Report, "the cost of abating weeds by hand on a regular basis is labor
intensive and cost prohibitive due to our grounds charge out rates and budget
constraints....We incorporate hand weeding, power weed eaters, tractor flail mowers,
discing, rototilling, mulching the landscape, and herbicide weed control, where these
methods are the most appropriate and where the budget issues are of concern."
Most of the pesticides applied by General Services are herbicides. As shown in Table 1,
the General Services Department has been reducing the amounts of pesticide used
each year. From 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 there was a 50% reduction in the amount of
active ingredient applied. From 2005/2006 to 2006/2007 there has been about a 48%
reduction. Overall, over the last three fiscal years, they have reduced the amount of
active ingredient applied by about 74%. The final reduction for 2006/2007 will be a bit
smaller than reported here, because totals for May and June of 2007 are not included in
this report.
Table 1. Pesticides and Amounts Used by General Services*
Name of Cal EPA Active Ingredient(A.I.) Total Total Total
Product Registration No. Pounds Pounds Pounds
A.1.2006- A.1.2005- A.1.2004-
2007 2006 2005
Dursban 2E 464-586-ZA chlorpyrifos,24.1°% 0 0 3.99
Embark 7182-7-AA mefluidide,diethanolamine salt,28°% 0 0 0.72
Florel 264-263-AA ethephon 3.9% 0 0.496 0.33
Gallery 62719-145-AA isoxaben,75% 16.5 135.46 102.38
Goal 707-174 ox fluorfen 19.4% 0 0 0
Grass Getter 7969-58-ZA-54705 sethox dim, 18% 0 0.59 0.55
Knox Out 2 4581-335-AA-449 diazinon 23% 0 0 0.89
FM
Lindane 7001-279-AA lindane 20%;xylene 67.6% 0 1 0 0.64
Lindane 20954-107-AA lindane,99.5% 0 0 0.99
Maintain A 400-396-AA see below 0 0 0.01
Malathion 655-598-AA malathion,50% 0 1.68 0.06
Ornamec 2217-728-AA fluazifo -but I,6.75°% 0 0 0.18
Orthene 59639-88 acephate,75% 0 0 0
Oust 352-401-ZA sulfometuron-methyl,75% 1.87 1.594 0
inactive 12/31/06
BIRC Final Report
23
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 24
Ronstar WP 264-538-AA oxadiazon,50% 19 0 414.5
Roundup 524-529-AA glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 50.2% 125 184.35
Pro
Concentrate
Roundup 524-475-ZB glyphosate,isopropyl amine salt 41% 14.8 15.45 158.75
Pro Ultra
Sevin SL 264-335-34704 carbaryl 24.1% 0 0.375 0
Turflon 62719-258-AA triclopyr,butoxyethyl ester 61.6% 0 0.59 0.98
Up-Star 70506-24-AA bifenthrin 7.9% 0 0.407 0
Gold
Totals 177.2 341.0 685.0
"2007 data is through the month of April
The herbicides glyphosate (Roundup etc), oxadiazon (Ronstar), and isoxaben (Gallery)
account for 98-99% of all pesticides applied by General Services. Among these
herbicides, there has been a shift in the predominant herbicide use from oxadiazon to
glyphosate over the past three years:
In 2004/2005, 23% of the total was glyphosate, 60% was oxadiazon, and 15% was
isoxaben.
In 2005/2006, 58% of the total was glyphosate and 40% was isoxaben.
In 2006/2007, 79% of the total was glyphosate, 11% was oxadiazon and 9% was
isoxaben.
Bob Tamori of General Services commented on the pesticide use reduction and
the changing pesticide use pattern, "the use of pesticides decreased primarily due
to staffing levels. We used to have two people staffed for weed spraying. The first
Weed Control Specialist retired on 03/31/05 and the second Weed Control
Specialist transferred to Public Works on 01/29/07. The result is that usage of
pesticides has decreased due to less in-house staff spraying. We currently have no
staff in this labor classification and no weed spraying going on at all. We are
contracting out with Tru-Green Chemlawn for our spraying needs." (see part 5 of
this Section)
"General Services is using less pre-emergent (i.e. Ronstar) because of concern
expressed by Susan Junfish at an IPM Task force Meeting. GSD is now using
more Roundup for weed growth (post-emergent). We used to alternate pre-
emergent spraying between Ronstar and Gallery but now just use Gallery since it
has a broader spectrum."
2. Department of Agriculture
Why does the Department of Agriculture use pesticides? According to the 2006 Contra
Costa County IPM Report, "the Department is involved in pest management on three
primary levels. The first level is the department's mandate to eradicate or control certain
introduced exotic insects and diseases that are new to California or previously not
known to occur in Contra Costa County. These insects and diseases pose a serious
threat to commercial and backyard agriculture as well as to the environment of the State
and have been designated as such by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and/or the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
"The second level of pest management focuses on the suppression or elimination of
specific invasive noxious weeds that have potential to cause serious harm to agriculture,
native environments and urban areas. These noxious weeds have also been designated
as such by USDA and/or CDFA.
BIRC Final Report
24
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 25
"The third level is long-term prevention or suppression of certain vertebrate pests that
are harming or have the potential to harm property including crops, livestock, levees that
protect agricultural land, residences and businesses; and infrastructure including roads,
railroad rights of way and domestic water storage dams."
Pesticide formulations and the amount of active ingredient applied by the Department of
Agriculture over the past 3 years can be found in Table 2. Most of the active ingredients
applied are herbicides. Although large amounts of rodenticide formulations are applied
exclusively for ground squirrels, the concentration of active ingredient is low. For
instance, in 2004/2005 25,600 pounds of the 0.01% formulation of diphacinone was
applied by the Department of Agriculture. This 12 tons or so of formulation represented
only 2.56 pounds of active ingredient.
Table 2. Pesticides and Amounts used by the Department of Agriculture*
Name of Cal EPA Active Ingredient(A.I.) Total Total Total
Product Registra Pounds Pounds A.I. Pounds
tion No. A.I.(2006- (2005-2006) A.I.(2004-
2007 2005
2,4-D 34704-5- 2,4,-D,dimethylamine salt, 0 0 87.3
ZB 46.5%
Aqua Neat 228-365- glyphosate isopropylamine salt, 0.17 0.60 1.15
AA 53.8%
Banvel 55947-1- diacamba,dimethylamine salt 0 0 0
AA 60.2%
Bivert 2935- adjuvant 0 0 0
50157-
AA
Carbaryl ('7') 54705-4- carbaryl,41.2% 0 0 0
AA
Clarity 7969- diglycolamine salt of 3,6-dichlorc- 260.6 182.08 703.8
137-AA o-anisic acid, 56.8%
Diphacinone 10965- diphacinone, 0.005% 0.03 0 0.01
.005% 50001-ZA
Diphacinone .01% 10965- diphacinone, 0.01% 2.85 1.9 2.56
50003-ZA
Garlon 4 464-554- trichlopyr, butoxyethyl ester, 0 0 0
AA 61.6%
Habitat 241-426- imazapyr, isopropylamine salt, 0.35 0 0
AA 28.7%
Merit 75WSP 3125- imidacloprid, 75% 0 0 0
439-AA
R-11 2935- adjuvant 165.5 86.82 212.24
Spreader/Activat 50142-
or AA
Redeem 62719- clopyralid 12.1%; triclopyr 0 0.42 19.28
337-AA trieth lamine salts 33%
Remedy 62719- triclopyr butoxyethylester 61.6% 0 1.665
70-AA
Rodeo Aquatic 524-343- glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, 0 0 0
AA 53.8%
Roundup Pro Ultra 524-475- glyphosate, isopropyl amine salt 2.8 39.46 75.9
ZA or ZB 41%
Stalker 241-296- imazapyr, isopropylamine salt, 0 0.935 0
ZA 27.6%
Telar 352-522- chlorsulfuron 75% 0 0.48 0.77
ZA (AA is
granule)
Tordon 10K 464-320- picloram 11.6% 0.17 0.718 0.23
BIRC Final Report
25
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 26
AA
Tordon 22K 464-323- picloram 24.4% 0 0 0
ZA
Transline 62719- clopyralid monoethanolamine salt 28.1 5.69 13.92
259-AA 40.9%
Vanquish 55947- diglycolamine salt of 3,6-dichloro- 0.24 0 0
46-AA o-anisic acid 56.8%
Weedone 2,4 D 71368- 2,4-D 2ethylhexyl ester, 62.4% 107.7 26.9 0
(Nufarm) 14-AA
Totals i 1 565.6 347.7 1117.2
*2007 data is through the month of April
Generally, the Department of Agriculture has significantly reduced the total amount of
active ingredient applied over the last three years. From 2004/2005 to 2006/2007, there
has been about a 49% reduction. The final reduction will be a bit smaller than reported
here, because May and June of 2007 are not included in this report.
According to Larry Yost of the Department of Agriculture, "the reduction of herbicide use
is most likely due to lower populations of our target weeds as we continue to treat the
same properties year-after-year. This [reduction] would show that our efforts are paying
off."
The predominant active ingredient applied is the broadspectrum herbicide dichloroanisic
acid (dicamba) (Vanquish, Clarity etc). This was reduced from 63% of the total active
ingredient applied by the Department of Agriculture in 2004/2005 to 46% in 2006/2007.
According to Larry Yost, 99% or more of this pesticide is used on two weeds: artichoke
thistle and purple starthistle.
Despite the overall pesticide reduction, there has been an increase in 2,4-D applied,
from 7.8% of the total active ingredient applied in 2004/2005 to 19% of the total in
2006/2007. Use of clopyralid (Transline) has increased slightly. Also, the amount of
rodenticide used has actually increased over the 3-year period.
A small amount of a new herbicide called Habitat was used in 2007.
3. Public Works
Why does the Public Works Department use pesticides? Public Works has a Vegetation
Management Program to reduce weeds along roadsides and for flood control. Fire,
flood, sight obstruction hazards, and invasive species are the primary dangers this
program addresses.
Whether or not to use a pesticide is a management decision. According to the 2006
Contra Costa County IPM Report, "the Vegetation Management Supervisor makes
decisions on the method of control for each site after consulting with the Flood Control
Supervisor or Road Maintenance Supervisor responsible for a site. The site is examined
to determine what vegetation, if any, needs to be removed.
"The Contra Costa County Public Works Department is distinguished from most other
public works departments in that we have the responsibility to maintain roads, flood
control facilities, airports, and a variety of parcels. In most counties, these
responsibilities are distributed among various agencies, special districts, and
contractors, not concentrated within one department. This concentration of responsibility
BIRC Final Report
26
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 27
has allowed us to develop expertise specific to vegetation management, and yet it can
also lead to the perception that we are using more herbicides than necessary."
Pesticide formulations applied by Public Works can be found in Table 3. Most of the
pesticide active ingredients applied by Public Works are herbicides. Overall, there has
been a reduction in use over the last three years. From 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 there
was an 8.3% reduction in amount of active ingredient applied. Over the 3-year period the
reduction will be about 20%. The final reduction will be a bit smaller than reported here,
because May and June of 2007 are not included in this report.
Table 3. Pesticides and Amounts Used by Public Works*
Name of Cal EPA Active Ingredient (A.I.) Total Total Total Pounds
Product Registration No. Pounds Pounds A.I. A.I.2004-2005
A.I. 2005-2006
2006-
2007
Activator 36208-50014-AA adjuvant 2962.3 3103.03 3592.41
90
Aquamast 524-343 glyphosate isopropylamine salt, 124.5 13.51 0
er 53.8%
Chemtrol 36208-50015-AA adjuvant 0 0 0
Cutrine 8959-10-AA copperethanolamine,9% 0 15.85 0
Plus
Dimension 62719-445 dithiopyr, 40% 0 13.5
Direx 80DF 352-508-AA-1812 diuron, 80% 0 2440 0
Direx 80DF 1812-362-ZA diuron, 80% 1860 0 1240
Endurance 55947-43-ZB prodiarnine,65% 0 0 52
Endurance 228-398 prodiamine, 65% 1524.2 484.25 0
(Nufarm)
Endurance 100-834-ZB prodiamine, 65% 0 566.8 1008.8
(s n enta)
Fighter 36208-50003-AA adjuvant 0.15 0.31 0
Antifoamer
Gallery 62719-145-AA isoxaben, 75% 54 59.25 39
75DF
Garlon 3A 62719-37-ZA triclopyr, triethlamine salt, 310.2 1160.73 459.66
ZC 44.4%
Garlon 4 62719-40-ZB triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester, 20.4 38.82 67.28
61.6%
Goal 707-174 ox fluorfen, 19.4% 0 0 0
Milestone 62719-537-AA aminopyralid, 125.1
VM triiso ro anolamine salt, 40.6%
Oust 352-401-ZA sulfometuron-methyl, 75% 114.7 87.75 137.25
inactive 12/31/06
Pendulum 241-416-aa pendimethalin, 38.7% 37.9 37.94 121.21
A uaca
Poast 7969-58-AA sethox dim, 18% 0 0 5.61
Predict 55947-78-ZA norflurazon, 78.6% 0 0 0
Predict 100-849-ZB norflurazon, 78.6% 0 0 7.86
Renovate 62719-37-AA- triclopyr,triethylamine salt 31.69 145.75 277.27
3 67690 44.4%
Rodeo 524-343-AA glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, 0 319.20 660.83
Aquatic 53.8%
Ronstar 264-538-AA oxadiazon 50% 0 0 0
50WSP
Roundup 524-529-AA glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 1761.1 1613.6 2352.35
Pro 50.2%
Concentrat
e
Silwet L- I 36208-50025-AA i adjuvant 0 0 0
BIRC Final Report
27
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 28
Name of Cal EPA Active Ingredient (A.I.) Total Total Total Pounds
Product Registration No. Pounds Pounds A.I. A.I.2004-2005
A.I. 2005-2006
2006-
2007
77
Sim-Trot 35915-12-AA- simazine 90% 0 0 0
90DF 60063
Spike 62 719-107-ZA tebuthiuron 80% 112 128 72
80DF
Stalker 241-398-ZA imazapyr, isopropylamine salt 4.7 9.976 318.05
27.6%
Surflan 62719-113 oryzalin 40.4% 0 158.31 39.98
A.S.
Sur htac 68891-50001-AA adjuvant 0 54.18 189.57
Telar 352-404-ZA chlorsulfuron 75% 39.9 11.26 10.4475
Transline 62719-259-AA clopyralid, monoethanolamine 6.8 131.33 217.36
salt 40.9%
Vanquish 55947-46-AA diglycolamine salt of 3,6- 0 0 0
dichloro-o-anisic acid 56.8%
Vanquish 228-397 diglycolamine salt of 3,6- 886.5 465.13 0
(Riverdale) dichloro-o-anisic acid 56.8%
Vanquish 100-884-ZA diglycolamine salt of 3,6- 0 352.54 1293.75
(S n enta) dichloro-o-anisic acid 56.8%
Weedar 64 71368-1-AA-264 2,4-D dimethylamine salt 46.8% 45.3 67.96 357.09
Totals 10021. 11478.9 12519.8
4
*2007 data is through the month of April
Five herbicides account for much of the pesticide applied: diuron (Direx), glyphosate
(Roundup etc), prodiamine (Endurance), dichloroanisic acid (dicamba) (Vanquish), and
triclopyr (Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, Renovate).
In 2004/2005, 24% of the total was glyphosate, 10.3% dichloroanisic acid (dicamba),
9.9% diuron, 8.5% prodiamine, and 6.4% triclopyr. These herbicides represent about
59% of the total active ingredient applied. Also applied were 2,4-D (2.8%), imazapyr
(2.5%), and clopyralid (1.7%).
In 2005/2006 21.3% of the total was diuron, 17% glyphosate, 11.7% triclopyr, 9.2%
prodiamine, and 7.1% dichloroanisic acid (dicamba). These pesticides represent about
66% of the total active ingredient applied.
In 2006/2007, 18.6% of the total was diuron, 18.8% glyphosate, 15.2% prodiamine, 8.9%
dichloroanisic acid (dicamba), and 3.6% triclopyr. These pesticides represent about 65%
of the total active ingredient applied.
Over the course the last three years there have been large increases in the use of diuron
(Direx) and prodiamine (Endurance), decreases in glyphosate (Roundup etc) and
dicloroanisic acid (dicamba) (Vanquish), with year-to-year fluctuations in triclopyr (Garlon
3A, Garlon 4, Renovate).
There has also been a yearly decrease of 2,4-D (Weedar), clopyralid (Transline),
imazapyr (Stalker), and pendimethalin (Pendulum).
Increases were seen for chlorsulfuron (Telar), isoxaben (Gallery), and tebuthiuron
(Spike). A new pesticide aminopyralid (Milestone) was used for the first time in 2007.
This herbicide will likely be used more in the future.
BIRC Final Report
28
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 29
Chuck Jeffries of the Public Works Department commented on the changing use
patterns, "Diuron use increased because we wanted to use our remaining inventory,
and this was a part of our normal rotation of residual herbicides. I am under the
impression that the BOS wants our department to reduce and/or eliminate the use of
this product. As such, I am not sure that we will use this product in the future.
"The loss of diuron, along with the need to control herbicide resistant species such
as Russian thistle, have necessitated the increased use of prodiamine. I have
reduced the use of 2,4-D, and there should be an increase in the amount of triclopyr,
Vanquish, and Milestone in the future as a result. A decrease in the use of Transline
is likely to occur.
"The use of Telar was necessary due to the increasing population of marestail which
is resistant to glyphosate. The use of Milestone may help us to reduce the amount of
Telar used in the future. However, Telar is one of the few selective herbicides
effective on perennial pepperweed, which is spreading throughout our county.
"Our use of Stalker is primarily for arundo. We are now in a maintenance mode. We
have eliminated this weed from most of our facilities, and mainly treat re-infestations
from adjacent properties. We did not find Pendulum to be terribly effective for our
purposes.
"Some use patterns were the result of a labor shortage, which we have addressed.
Other variations can be attributed to variations in weather patterns and weed species
that are present in a particular year."
4. Orkin
Contra Costa County contracts with Orkin Commercial Services to provide pest
management in County buildings. Typical problems are rodents, ants, and cockroaches.
Pesticide formulations applied by Orkin can be found in Table 4. Years that pesticides
were applied are indicated by an "X". Amounts have not been calculated because we
have not received all the data. We have summaries from January-March of 2007, July-
December of 2005 and January to March of 2006. Most important for the continuing IPM
program has been a shift in the kinds of pesticides applied toward baits and reduced risk
materials.
Table 4. Pesticides Used by Orkin*
Name of Product Cal EPA Active Ingredient(A.I.) Total Total Total
Registration No. Pounds Pounds Pounds
A.I. A.I. A.1.2004-
2006- 2005- 2005
2007 2006
Avert Dry Bait* 499-294 Abamectin 131 0.050% X ? ?
Borid* 9444-129-ZA boric acid 99% X ? ?
Contrac Bloc* 12455-79-AA bromadialone 0.005% X ? ?
Cy-Kick 499-304-ZC cyfluthrin 6% 0 X ?
Cy-Kick 499-470-AA c fluthrin 0.1% 0 X ?
Delta Dust 432-772-AA deltamethrin.05% 0 X ?
Drax Liquid Ant 9444-206-ZA boric acid 1% X ? ?
Bait*
EcoExempt 1C* I none I rosemary oil 10%, 1 X I ? I ?
BIRC Final Report
29
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 30
wintergreen oil 10-70%,
mineral oil 10-70%
Eco Exempt D* none 2-phenethylproprionate X ? 7
4.5%; clove oil 1.75%
Gentrol IGR* 2724-351-ZA hydroprene 9% X ? ?
Maxforce Ant 432-1264-ZA fipronil 0.001% X ? ?
Bait Gel*
Maxforce Ant 432-1256-AA fipronil 0.01% X ? ?
Bait Stations*
Maxforce Roach 432-1254-AA hydramethylnon 2% X ? ?
Killer Gel*
Maxforce Roach 432-1251-AA hydramethylnon 2% X ? ?
Killer Stations*
Niban FG* 64405-2-ZA boric acid 5% X ? ?
Permadust* 499-384-AA boric acid 35.5% X ? ?
Phantom 241-392-AA chlorfenapyr 21.45% 0 X ?
Talstar 279-3206-ZC bifenthrin 7.9% 0 X ?
Talstar Granules 279-3168-AA bifenthrin 0.2% 0 X ?
Termidor 7969-210-AA fipronil 9.1% 0 X ?
Victor Wasp and none mint oil 8% X ? ?
Hornet Killer*
*Pesticides that can be used without posting are asterisked. Years pesticides were
applied are Indicated with an "X".
This shift in pesticides applied is partly due to a notification policy which General
Services started on July 1, 2006. Since then, General Services has undertaken to post
application notices for any material not on the short list of pesticides marked above
(Table 4) with an asterisk. Since July 1, 2006, Orkin has limited its pesticide selection to
the asterisked products with the exception of one application of Ultracide for a flea
emergency in a day care center. According to Tom Lemon, "the county was requesting
emergency service ASAP, as the fleas were throughout the facility. The parents were
complaining, as well as the staff. It was my understanding that they had had the janitorial
staff at the facility try to eliminate the problem through vacuuming and cleaning." Active
ingredients of Ultracide include pyrethrins, permethrin and the IGR pyriproxifen.
(personal communication Tom Lemon of Orkin 5/01/07).
There is a process that is followed when Orkin applies a material that is not one of the
asterisked products. For instance, the County may contact Orkin with a description of a
pest emergency. Orkin then may recommend something that is not an asterisked
material. The label and MSDS is provided to Roland Hindsman of General Services who
may then approve or not approve the application of the product. When an IPM
Coordinator is hired, pesticide approval would probably be part of that job.
According to Lemon, for the case of Ultracide, "the service was scheduled for a Friday
evening, after the facility had closed for the weekend. After the service was done, and
the product used, a cleaning crew was brought in to thoroughly clean the area treated,
including vacuuming and the wiping of all hard surfaces."
Major products used by Orkin so far in 2007 are Contrac Blocs for rodents and Niban
granules for roaches, ants, and other crawling insects.
5. Trugreen Chemlawn
Contra Costa General Services contracts with Trugreen Chemlawn to maintain lawns,
parks, and landscapes around County Buildings. These are sensitive areas that large
BIRC Final Report
30
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 31
numbers of people are likely to encounter. Trugreen Chemlawn has been given a
blanket purchase order to "spray fertilizing and broadleaf weedkillers for county sites as
required." The County does not have a pre-approved pesticide list, so the company may
use any of 41 pesticides listed on their invoices. In 2005-2006, they actually used 8.
Amounts of active ingredients applied were difficult to obtain. We were given a complete
set of invoices from the year 2005. These invoices detailed treatments of turfgrass at a
number of parks and on lawns around various County Buildings.
Exact amounts of pesticides applied were not given on the invoices. Invoices contained
the number of square feet treated, the pesticide formulation applied, and a range of
possible application rates. The possible application rates changed slightly over the
course of the year, adding complexity. We took maximum application rates listed for May
10, 2005 to make an estimate of use. Results are listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Pesticides Applied by Trugreen Chemlawn and Estimates of
Amounts.'
Name of Cal EPA Active Ingredient(A.I.) Total Total Total
Product Registration No. Pound Pounds Pounds
s A.I. A.I.2005 A.I.
2006- 2004-
2007 2005
Barricade 100-1139-AA prodiamine 40.7% ? 57.7° ?
Cool Power 228-317-ZA dicamba 3.6%; triclopyr ? 95.8* ?
butoxyethylester 5%; MCPA
isooct I ester 56.14%
Eagle WSP 707-232-AA mycobutanil 40% ? X ?
Turf Fungicide
Florel 264-263-AA ethe hon 3.9% X ? ?
Merit 432-1312-AA imidaclo rid 21.4% ? 0.16° ?
Pre-M 241-360-AA- pendimethalin 37.4% ? 9.32° ?
10404
Razor Pro 228-366-ZB glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, X
41%
Treflan 17545-9 trifluralin 43% ? X ?
Tripower 228-262-ZA dicamba, 3.97%; MCPP 7.99%; ? 42.4° ?
MCPA 40.42% all dimethylamine
salts
Turflon Ester 62719-258-AA triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester ? X ?
61.6%
Totals I I I ? 1 205.5° 1 ?
'Estimates of Total for Chemlawn is for the calendar year 2005. Application rates taken
from an invoice dated May 10, 2005. An "X" Means that pesticides were applied but we
were unable to estimate how much from the data supplied by the County.
Altogether, Chemlawn could have applied a maximum of about 205 pounds of pesticide
active ingredients on the 23 acres they treated in 2005. This is an average of about 8.9
pounds of active ingredient per acre. As much as 17 pounds a.i./acre could have been
applied at the Summit Office Building. The minimum applied would have been very
roughly half that.
For each formulation, 2-4 pounds of active ingredient per acre was the maximum rate for
most sites, and most sites were treated with at least 3 formulations.
BIRC Final Report
31
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 32
For comparison, General Services has applied about 177 pounds of active ingredient so
far in 2006-2007.
Since 2005, General Services has reduced the number of acres being treated by
Chemlawn.
B. Contra Costa County Approved List
In Part A, we identified which pesticides are being used in Contra Costa County and the
amounts of active ingredients applied over the past three years. In that section,
pesticides applied by each Agency or contractor were discussed separately. Over the
past three years General Services has reduced the amount of active ingredient applied
by about 74%, the Department of Agriculture has made about a 49% reduction, and the
Department of Public Works has reduced applications by about 20%.
In this Section we have combined all the pesticides into one large list, which can be
found in Table 6. The list is a compilation of pesticides used by General Services, the
Department of Agriculture, Public Works, Orkin, and Chemlawn. In a sense, this is an
approved list. Contra Costa Agencies and contractors have decided to use these
materials, and the County has tacitly approved them. What is missing is public input,
advice of an IPM Coordinator, and other elements of public oversight often found in a
municipal IPM Program. To make the list more useful, we will identify the reduced-risk
pesticides and pesticides of concern.
Reduced Risk Pesticides
Whether a pesticide is classified as reduced risk or a pesticide of concern depends
partly on a toxicological screening process. One process that is used often is that
developed by San Francisco. In Table 6, formulations that have active ingredients
on the 2007 San Francisco reduced-risk pesticide list are identified by an asterisk
beside the product name in Column 1.
The toxicological evaluation process used by San Francisco can be found on their
website at www.sfenvironment.org. As part of the process, for each product they look at
acute toxicity of the formulation and compare the active ingredient with publicly available
lists of carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and endocrine disruptors produced by the
EPA, CA Proposition 65, IARC, the National Toxicology Program and others. The
complete process is more extensive and involves checking possible hazards to wildlife,
birds, bees, fish, water pollution, persistence, soil mobility and other problems. If the
formulation has high acute toxicity or if the active ingredient is on one of these lists, or if
screening shows other negative impacts, the product is a pesticide of concern.
Once pesticides of concern are identified by these criteria, the products are evaluated
for:
• The potential for human exposure or environmental release for each proposed product.
Products such as containerized baits, for example, use very small amounts of active
ingredient encased in a protective covering. These would therefore pose less exposure
potential than, say, aerosol spray products. So a particular formulation could be
classified as reduced-risk even though there is concern about the active ingredient.
• The effectiveness of each proposed product. Does the product work as intended?
BIRC Final Report
32
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 33
• The need for the product. Is this kind of pest management action truly necessary? If so,
is this the least-hazardous product available for the task?
If the product is needed, effective, and presents low potential for human exposure or
environmental release, the product might added to the San Francisco reduced risk list,
despite a toxicological profile of concern.
Presence of a pesticide on the San Francisco List does not give applicators in San
Francisco free rein to use it as they please. San Francisco's List comes with
annotations. For instance, Triclopyr (Garlon 4) has the annotation "targeted treatment of
invasive exotics in parks, natural areas, right of ways. OK for fuel reduction, pilot
alternative strategies."
Pesticides On the EcoWise List
Another list of reduced-risk pesticides was developed by the EcoWise structural IPM
certification program. Pesticides being used by Contra Costa County that have an
active ingredient on the Ecowise list are identified by the letter "e" beside the
product name in Column 1 of Table 6. Structural pest control professionals and
companies can be certified through the EcoWise Certified program, which is run by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Certified professionals must adhere to
pesticide application standards that are part of the certification process. The standards
contain a list of materials that are recommended for use. The list is a compilation of
structural pesticides screened by the IPM Institute, San Francisco, and Santa Clara
County.
Orkin No-Post List
Contra Costa County General Services started a pesticide posting process on July 1,
2006. To facilitate this process, Orkin and General Services agreed on a short list of
reduced-risk materials for which posting would not be necessary. Pesticides in Table 6
which are on the Orkin No-Post list are identified by a circle by the product name
in Column 1.
There is a process that is followed when Orkin applies a material other than one of the
no-post products. For instance, the County may contact Orkin with a description of a
pest emergency. Orkin then may recommend something other than a no-post material.
The label and MSDS is provided to Roland Hindsman of General Services who may then
approve or not approve the application of the product.
Major products used by Orkin so far in 2007 are Contrac Blocs for rodents and Niban
granules for roaches, ants, and other crawling insects.
Pesticides of Concern (Carcinogens, Reproductive Toxicants, Endocrine
Disruptors)
BIRC's consulting contract with Contra Costa County does not have funding for a
complete evaluation of each pesticide using San Francisco's screening process.
However, we compared active ingredients of all pesticides used in Contra Costa County
with the official lists of carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and reproductive toxicants
prepared by:
1. USEPA
2. National Toxicology Program
BIRC Final Report
33
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 34
3. European Union
4. Illinois EPA
5. International Agency for Research on Carcinogens (IARC)
6. State of California Proposition 65
Many of these lists are online, and the internet URLs are given in the References.
Pesticides of concern using these criteria are identified by a dot next to the
Product Name in Column 1 of Table 6.
Some of these pesticides are no longer used by the County. Pesticides used by Contra
Costa County in 2006-2007 that have active ingredients that are possible carcinogens,
reproductive toxicants, or endocrine disruptors include: Direx (diuron), Endurance
(prodiamine), Gallery (isoxaben), Maxforce Baits (fipronil, hydramethylnon), Pendulum
(pendimethalin), Ronstar(oxadiazon), Telar (chlorsulfuron), Weedar (2,4-D), and
Weedone (2,4-D).
Despite concern about the active ingredient, Maxforce fipronil baits were added to the
San Francisco Reduced-Risk list because of effectiveness, need, and low likelihood of
exposure. The same reasoning could be applied to the hydramethylnon baits. Both
fipronil and hydramethylnon Maxforce baits are on the Ecowise list. In Contra Costa
County these kind of decisions should be made by the IPM Coordinator and the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Pesticides of Concern (Contra Costa County IPM Task Force)
In an earlier report, the Contra Costa County IPM Task Force identified 14 pesticides of
concern. These products in Table 6 are identified by a dot beside the product name
in Column 1. The 14 products are:
(1) 2,4-D
(2) Carbaryl
(3) Diphacinone
(4) Direx
(5) Dursban
(6) Knox Out
(7) Lindane
(8) Ornamec
(9) Orthene
(10) Predict
(11) Ronstar
(12) Simtrol
(13) Telar
(14) Weedar
Except for Dursban (chlorpyrifos), Knox Out (diazinon), and diphacinone, all these
products have also been identified as pesticides of concern by the partial screening
done by BIRC. Dursban, Knox Out, and diphacinone were identified by Contra Costa
County on the basis of acute toxicity, inhibition of acetylcholinesterase, and potential for
secondary poisoning.
Dursban, Knox Out, diphacinone and possibly other pesticides of concern would have
been identified if BIRC had monetary resources available for a complete screening of
each pesticide in Table 6.
BIRC Final Report
34
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 35
By looking at Table 6, we see that only Weedar (2,4-D), Telar, Ronstar, Direx, and
diphacinone are still being used. Effectiveness, need, and possible exposures are used
to make further evaluation of products in San Francisco. Though secondary poisoning
makes diphacinone a pesticide of concern, because of its effectiveness, and San
Francisco's need due to their rodent problems, diphacinone was added to the 2007 San
Francisco Reduced Risk list with site-specific limits and the annotation "concern over
2nd poisoning." In Contra Costa County these kind of decisions should be made by the
IPM Coordinator and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Largest Amounts
Pesticides can also be of concern if large amounts are being used, or if pesticides are
being applied in sensitive areas where public exposure is likely. Generally, sensitive
areas should be identified by the IPM Coordinator and the TAC, and pesticide use there
should be minimized. The pesticides (active ingredients) used in the largest amounts in
Contra Costa County are the herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, triclopyr, diuron, and
prodiamine. Some of these are being applied in sensitive areas around buildings and in
parks (see Tables 5 and 6 in BIRC's First Report on the Contra Costa County IPM
Program).
Glyphosate, dicamba, and triclopyr are on San Franciso's reduced risk list. However,
annotations restrict the way in which they are used. Whether and how to use these
pesticides should be the decision of an IPM Coordinator and a TAC.
Diuron has been identified by Contra Costa County as a pesticide of concern. Based on
the screening summarized in Table 6, BIRC agrees with the County. Diuron is listed as a
carcinogen on two lists, it is an endocrine disruptor, and it is a California groundwater
contaminant. It is also being used in large amounts.
Though a complete screen was not done for prodiamine (Endurance), the EPA believes
it is a possible carcinogen, and thus it should be a pesticide of concern.
Improving the Approved List
To help improve the list of pesticides to be used, the County could emphasize reduced-
risk materials listed by San Francisco and EcoWise Certified (see Table 6, below), and
reduce or eliminate pesticides of concern (see also Table 6, below). However, if the
County's IPM Policy is properly implemented, the IPM Coordinator in conjunction with a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) should make the ultimate decisions on pesticide
use.
Summary
Generally, less pesticide has been used in Contra Costa County in 2006/2007 than in
previous years. Although we have not yet obtained pesticide use reports for May and
June of 2007, General Services should show about a 74% reduction; Agriculture should
show about a 49% reduction, and Public Works should show about a 20% reduction in
the amount of active ingredient applied compared to 2004/2005. Pesticide use reduction
is one of the signs of a successful IPM program. However, amounts of some pesticides
of concern have actually increased. New pesticides used in 2006-2007 include the
herbicides Habitat and Milestone.
BIRC Final Report
35
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 36
Pesticides of concern currently being used that were identified earlier by the County or
due to possible carcinogenic, reproductive toxicant, or endocrine disruptive properties
include diphacinone, Weedar (2,4-D), Weedone (2,4-D), Telar (chlorsulfuron), Ronstar
(oxadiazon), Direx (diuron), Endurance (prodiamine), Gallery (isoxaben), and Pendulum
(pendimethalin). Though reducing the amounts of these pesticides seems reasonable,
the ultimate decision should rest with the IPM Coordinator and the TAC. Other pesticides
of concern might be identified if there were financial resources available for a complete
screening of each pesticide in Table 6.
It has been laborious and time-consuming to obtain lists of pesticides applied and
amounts used. This has been especially difficult when dealing with County contractors
because records are not kept in a manner that makes it easy to separate pesticides and
amounts used by location in the County. At the moment, the only way to find out which
pesticides were used by some County contractors is to look at service invoices. There is
a need for a better pesticide application tracking system, so that the County has a better
awareness of which pesticides are being used where, and amounts being applied by
contractors and agencies. (See Section V of this Report).
BIRC Final Report
36
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 37
Table 6. Pesticides Used In Contra Costa County 2004-2007.
Key to Symbols and Abbreviations:
Pesticides
• = Pesticide of concern
= Active ingredient on the San Francisco Reduced Risk Pesticide List
= Product on the County's "no-post" list for Orkin
e = Active ingredient is on the list of EcoWise Certified
Agencies
O = Orkin
A = Dept. Agriculture
P = Public Works
G = General Services
C = Trugreen Chemlawn
Lists
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NTP = National Toxicology Program
EU = European Union
ILL Illinois EPA
IARC = International Agency for Research on Carcinogens
P65 = California Proposition 65
Pounds of Active Ingredient Used
Pounds of active ingredients applied in various years are in columns (7), (8), (9). These
are for fiscal years of July to June, except 2006-2007 includes only July 2006 through
April 2007.
? = it is impossible to determine whether or not the pesticide was applied from data
supplied to BIRC
X = the pesticide was applied, but quantities were not calculated
0 = for historical purposes, some pesticides that were used in the past, but not used
now, are included in the list.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
2,4-D• 34704-5- 2,4,-D, A not classifiable possible or 0 0 87.3
ZB dimethyla EPA, IARC probable
mine salt, possible endocrine
46.5%
disruptor
(EU, ILL)
Activator 36208- adjuvant P not listed 2962.3 3103.03 3592.41
90 50014-AA
Aqua 228-365- glyphosat A not a 0.17 0.60 1.15
Neat AA e carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
BIRC Final Report
37
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 38
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
amine
salt,
53.8%
Aquamaste 524-343 glyphosat P not a 124.5 13.51 0
r* a carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt,
53.8%
Avert Dry 499-294 Abamecti O not a X ? ?
Bait**e n B1 carcinogen
0.050%
Banvel* 55947-1- diacamba, A not 0 0 0
AA dimethyla classifiable
mine salt EPA
60.2%
Barricade- 100-1139- prodiamin C possible EPA ? 57.7 ?
AA e 40.7%
Bivert 2935- adjuvant A not listed 0 0 0
50157-AA
Borid*°e 9444-129- boric acid O not a X ? ?
ZA 99% carcinogen
EPA
Carbaryl 54705-4- carbaryl, A likely human suspected 0 0 0
("7")• AA 41.2% carcinogen endocrine
EPA disruptor
(ILL)
Chemtrol 36208- adjuvant P not listed 0 0 0
50015-AA
Clarity* 7969-137- dicamba A not classifiable 260.6 182.08 703.8
AA 56.8%
Contrac 12455-79- bromadial O not listed X ? ?
Bloc*°e AA one
0.005%
Cool 228-317- dicamba C diacamba,not ? 95.8 ?
Power- ZA 3.6%; classifiable
triclopyr (EPA)MCPA
bitoxyeth possible
ylester (IARC),not
5%
N16A likely EPA
isooctyl
ester
56.14%
Cutrine 8959-10- copperet P not classifiable 0 15.85 0
Plus AA hanolamin
e,9%
Cy-Kick 499-470- cyfluthrin O not likely EPA 0 X ?
(e) AA 0.1%
Cy-Kick 499-304- cyfluthrin O not likely EPA 0 X ?
(E) ZC 6%
Delta Dust 432-772- deltamet O not likely EPA, 0 X ?
(E) AA hrin.05% not classifiable
IARC
Dimension 62719- dithiopyr, P not a 0 13.5
445 40% carcinogen
EPA
Diphacinon 10965- diphacino A not listed 0.03 0 0.01
e*e .005% 50001-ZA ne,
0.005%
Diphacinon 10965- diphacino A not listed 2.85 1.9 2.56
e*e .01% 50003-ZA ne,
0.01%
Direx 352-508- I diuron, P known or likely endocrine 0 2440 0
80DF• AA-1812 80% human (EU), CA
BIRC Final Report
38
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 39
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
carcinogen groundwat
EPA,cancer er contam.
P65
Direx 1812-362- diuron, P known or likely endocrine 1860 0 1240
80DF• ZA 80% human (EU), CA
carcinogen groundwat
EPA,cancer er contam.
P65
Drax Liquid 9444-206- boric acid 0 not a X ? ?
Ant Bait*'e ZA 1% carcinogen
EPA
Dursban• 464-586- chlorpyrif G not a 0 0 0.12
ZA os 24.1% carcinogen
EPA
Dursban 464-586- chlorpyrif G not a 0 0 3.87
2E- ZA os, carcinogen
24.1% EPA
Eagle WSP 707-232- mycobuta C nota developme ? X ?
Turf AA nil 40% carcinogen ntal P65
Fungicide- EPA,
EcoExemp none rosemary 0 not listed X ? ?
1C°e oil 10%,
wintergre
en oil 10-
70%,
mineral
oil 10-
70%
EcoExempt none 2- 0 not listed EPA, not X 7 7
Do* phenethyl not classifiable evaluated
(clove oil is propriona IARC
on the SF to 4.5%;
List) clove oil
1.75%
Embark 7182-7-AA mefluidid G not listed 0 0 0.72
e,
diethanol
amine
salt,28%
Endurance 228-398 prodiamin P possible EPA 1524.2 484.25 0
(Nufarm)• e,65%
Endurance 100-834- prodiamin P possible EPA 0 566.8 1008.8
(syngenta) ZB e,65%
Endurance 55947-43- prodiamin P possible EPA 0 0 52
ZB e,65%
Fighter F 36208- adjuvant P not listed 0.15 0.31 0
Antifoamer 50003-AA
Floret 264-263- ethephon C not classifiable X ? ?
AA 3.9%
Florel 264-263- ethephon G not classifiable 0 0.496 0.33
AA 3.9%
Gallery 62719- isoxaben, P possible EPA 54 59.25 39
75DF• 145-AA 75%
Gallery• 62719- isoxaben, G possible EPA 16.5 135.46 102.38
145-AA 75%
Garlon 3A* 62719-37- triclopy, P not classifiable 310.2 1160.73 459.66
ZA triethlami EPA
ZC ne salt,
44.4%
Garlon 4* 464-554- trichlopyr A not classifiable 0 0 0
AA I EPA
butoxyet
hyl ester,
BIRC Final Report
39
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 40
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
61.6%
Garlon 4* 62719-40- triclopyr, P not classifiable 20.4 38.82 67.28
ZB butoxyet EPA
hyl ester,
61.6%
Gentrol 2724-351- hydropre 0 not classifiable X ? ?
IGR*°e ZA ne 9%
Goal- 707-174 oxyfluorf G possible EPA 0 0 0
en 19.4%
Goal- 707-174 oxyfluorf P possible EPA 0 0 0
en,
19.4%
Grass 7969-58- sethoxydi G not likely EPA 0 0.59 0.55
Getter ZA-54705 m, 18%
Habitat 241-426- imazapyr, A not a 0.35 0 0
AA isopropyl carcinogen
amine EPA
salt,
28.7%
Knox Out 2 4581-335- diazinon G not likely EPA 0 0 0.89
FM- AA-449 23%
Lindane- 7001-279- lindane G suggestive endocrine 0 0 0.64
AA 20%: evidence EPA, (EU, ILL)
xylene cancer P65,
67.6% cancer NTP
Lindane- 20954- lindane, G suggestive endocrine 0 0 0.99
107-AA 99.5% evidence EPA, (EU, ILL)
cancer P65,
cancer NTP
Maintain A 400-396- 0.21% G not listed not 0 0 0.01
AA chlorfluren evaluated
ol,methyl
ester;
0.04%
methyl-
2,7-
dichloro-
9hydroxyfl
uorene-9-
carboxylat
e;0.05%
flurecol-
meth I
Malathion. 655-598- malathion G suggestive endocrine 0 1.68 0.06
AA 50% evidence EPA, (EU, ILL)
not classifiable
IARC
Maxforce 432-1264- fipronil O possible EPA X ? ?
Ant Bait ZA 0.001%
Gel*•°e
Maxforce 432-1256- fipronil O possible EPA X ? ?
Ant Bait AA 0.01%
Stations*-'
e
Maxforce 432-1254- hydramet O possible developme X ? ?
Roach Killer AA hylnon carcinogen ntal P65
Gel-°e 2% EPA,
Maxforce 432-1251- hydramet 0 possible developme X ? ?
Roach Killer AA hylnon carcinogen ntal P65
Stations•e° 2% EPA,
Merit 3125-439- imidaclop A nota 0 0 0
75WSP*e AA rid,75% carcinogen
EPA
Merit*e 432-1312- imidaclop C not a 7 0.16 ?
rid 21.4%
BIRC Final Report
40
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 41
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
AA carcinogen
Milestone 62719- aminopyr P not listed 125.1
VM 537-AA alid,
triisoprop
anolamine
salt,
40.6%
Niban 64405-2- boric acid 0 not a X ? ?
FG*°e ZA 5% carcinogen
EPA
Ornamec• 2217-728- fluazifop- G not listed EPA, developme 0 0 0.18
AA p-butyl, nal P65
6.75%
Orthene• 59639-88 acephate, G possible EPA 0 0 0
75%
Oust* 352-401- sulfometu G not listed 1.87 1.594 0
ZA ron-
inactive methyl,
12/31/06 75%
Oust* 352-401- sulfometu P not listed 114.7 87.75 137.25
ZA ron-
inactive methyl,
12/31/06 75%
Pendulum 241-416- pendimet P possible EPA 37.9 37.94 121.21
Aquacap• as halin,
38.7%
Permadust 499-384- boric acid 0 not a X ? ?
*°e AA 35.5% carcinogen
EPA
Phantom• 241-392- chlorfena O suggestive 0 X ?
AA pyr evidence EPA
21.45%
Poast 7969-58- sethoxydi P not likely EPA 0 0 5.61
AA m, 18%
Pre-M• 241-360- pendimet C possible EPA ? 9.32 ?
AA-10404 halin
37.4%
Predict- 55947-78- norfluraz P possible EPA 0 0 0
ZA on,
78.6%
Predict- 100-849- norfluraz P possible EPA 0 0 7.86
ZB on,
78.6%
R-11 2935- adjuvant A not listed 165.5 86.82 212.24
Spreader/A 50142-AA
ctivator
Razor Pro * 228-366- glyphosat C not a X
ZB e, carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt,41%
Redeem 62719- clopyralid A clopyralid not 0 0.42 19.28
337—AA 12.1%; likely, triclopyr,
triclopyr not classifiable
triethyla EPA
mine
salts 33%
Remedy* 62719-70- triclopyr A not classifiable 0 1.665
AA butoxyet EPA
hylester
61.6%
Renovate 62719-37- triclopyr, P not classifiable 31.69 145.75 277.27
3* AA-67690 triethyla EPA
mine salt
44.4%
Rodeo I 524-343- glyphosat A not a 0 0 0
BIRC Final Report
41
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 42
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
Aquatic` AA e, carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt,
53.8%
Rodeo 524-343- glyphosat P not a 0 319.20 660.83
Aquatic* AA e, carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt,
53.8%
Ronstar 264-538- oxadiazon P possible EPA, developme 0 0 0
50WSP• AA 50% cancer P65, ntal P65
Ronstar 264-538- oxadiazon G possible EPA, developme 19 0 414.5
WP- AA 50% cancer P65, ntal P65
Roundup 524-529- glyphosat G not a 125 184.35
Pro AA e, carcinogen
Concentrat isopropyl EPA
e° amine
salt
50.2%
Roundup 524-529- glyphosat P nota 1761.1 1613.6 2352.35
Pro AA e, carcinogen
Concentrat isopropyl EPA
e° amine
salt
50.2%
Roundup 524-475- glyphosat A nota 2.8 39.46 75.9
Pro Ultra" ZA or ZB e, carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt 41%
Roundup 524-475- glyphosat G nota 14.8 15.45 158.75
Pro Ultra" ZB e, carcinogen
isopropyl EPA
amine
salt 41%
Sevin SL- 264-335- carbaryl G likely human suspected 0 0.375 0
34704 24.1% carcinogen endocrine
EPA disruptor
(ILL)
Silwet L-77 36208- adjuvant P not listed 0 0 0
50025-AA
Sinn-Trot 3591S-12- simazine P possible EPA 0 0 0
90DF• AA-60063 90%
Spike 80DF 62719- tebuthiur P not classifiable 112 128 72
107-ZA on 80% EPA
Stalker 241-398- imazapyr, P not a 4.7 9.976 318.05
ZA isopropyl carcinogen
amine EPA
salt
27.6%
Stalker 241-296- imazapyr, A not a 0 0.930 0
ZA isopropyl carcinogen
amine EPA
salt,
27.6%
Surflan 62719- oryzalin P likely human 0 158.31 39.98
A.S.• 113 40.4% carcinogen
EPA
Surphtac 68891- adjuvant P not listed 0 54.18 189.57
50001-AA
Talstar • 279-3206- befenthri O possible EPA 0 X 7
ZC n 7.9%
Talstar• 279-3168- bifentrhin O possible EPA 0 X 7
Granules AA 0.2%
BIRC Final Report
42
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 43
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
Telar. 352-522- chlorsulfu A nota developme 0 0.48 0.77
ZA (AA is ron 75% carcinogen ntal P65
granule) EPA,
Telar• 352-404- chlorsulfu P nota developme 39.9 11.26 10.4475
ZA ron 75% carcinogen ntal P65
EPA,
Termidor• 7969-210- fipronil 0 possible EPA 0 X 7
AA 9.1%
Tordon 464-320- picloram A not a 0.17 0.718 0.23
10K AA 11.6% carcinogen
EPA
Tordon 464-323- picloram A not a 0 0 0
22K ZA 24.4% carcinogen
EPA
Transline 62719- clopyralid A not likely EPA 28.1 5.69 13.92
259-AA monoetha
nolamine
salt
40.9%
Transline 62719- clopyralid P not likely EPA 6.8 131.33 217.36
259-AA
monoetha
nolamine
salt
40.9%
Trapper none glue 0 not listed X ? ?
Glue Board
Treflan- 17545-9 trifluralin C possible EPA, endocrine ? X ?
43% not classifiable (ILL)
IARC
Tripower. 228-262- dicamba, C dicamba not ? 42.4 ?
ZA 3.97%; classifiable
MCPP (EPA),MCPA
7.99%; possible IARC,
MCPA
40.42% not likely EPA
all
dimethyla
mine
salts
Turflon 62719- triclopyr, C not classifiable ? X ?
Ester* 258-AA butoxyet EPA
hyl ester
61.6%
Turflon' 62719- triclopyr, G not classifiable 0 0.59 0.98
258-AA butoxyet EPA
hyl ester
61.6%
Up-Star 70506-24- bifenthrin G possible EPA 0 0.407 0
Gold• AA 7.9%
Vanquish* 55947-46- dicamba A not classifiable 0.24 0 0
AA 56.8%
Vanquish* 55947-46- dicamba P not classifiable 0 0 0
AA 56.8%
Vanquish* 228-397 dicamba P not classifiable 886.5 465.13 0
(Riverdale) 56.8%
Vanquish* 100-884- dicamba P not classifiable 0 352.54 1293.75
(Syn enta) ZA 56.8%
Victor none mint oil 0 not listed X
Wasp and 8%
Hornet
Killer**e
Weedar 71368-1- 2.4-D P not classifiable possible or 45.3 67.96 357.09
64• AA-264 dimethyla EPA,IARC probable
BIRC Final Report
43
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 44
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Name of Cal EPA Active Age EPA Other Total Total Total
Product No. Ingred. ncy Carcinogen, Toxicity Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cod Other Concerns A.I. FY A.I. FY of A.I.
e Carcinogen 06-07 05-06 FY 04-
05
mine salt possible endocrine
46.8% disruptor
(EU, ILL
Weedone 71368-14- 2,4-D A not classifiable possible or 107.7 26.9 0
2,4 D AA 2ethylhex EPA, IARC probable
(Nufarm)• yl ester, possible endocrine
62.4%
disruptor
(EU, ILL)
NOTE: Quantities given for Trugreen Chemlawn are for the total year of 2005. It
is impossible to determine from the invoices how much was applied. Quantity
given represents the maximum application rate. The minimum rate is about half
that amount.
References
1. US EPA, Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential, Science Information
Management Branch, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA,
December, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/carlist/table.htm#a
2. Prop 65, "Chemicals Known to the State [of California] to Cause Cancer or
Reproductive Toxicity," June 1, 2007, http://www.oehha.org/prop65/41699ntc.htm
3. NTP, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National
Toxicology Program, Report On Carcinogens, 11th Edition, July 2007.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
4. IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs Programme
on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Complete List of Agents, Mixtures
and Exposures Evaluated and their Classification, http://www.iarc.fr/ (monographs.iarc.fr,
July 24, 2007).
5. Illinois EPA Endocrine Disruptors Strategy, February 1997. 56 pp.
6. 1998 California 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/html/
7. Oregon State University Extension Pesticide Properties Database,
http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/ppdmove.htm
8. European Union (EU) List of Endocrine Disruptors, July, 2007.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/endocrine/strategy/substances_en.htm
9. Pesticide Action Network, Pesticides Database, July 2007,
http://www.pesticideinfo.org
BIRC Final Report
44
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 45
III. Recommendations on IPM Education
A. Review County procedures for educating and informing County Staff
and the general public. The County will provide access to County
personnel who are knowledgeable about these subjects.
B. Provide recommendations for educating County employees about the
cooperation needed from County staff to ensure the success of an IPM
program.
C. Provide general recommendations on educating the public about the
County's IPM policy.
Contra Costa County has taken a number of steps to educate county personnel and the
public since the County's IPM policy was adopted in November of 2002.
For example in 2004, the IPM Task Force reported:
Contra Costa County Watershed Program brought a comprehensive IPM
Awareness Campaign to all Public Works Department employees through their
Division Staff Meetings; a series of Brown Bag Seminars; IPM-based articles for
publication in County newsletters; a creation of an IPM Library; and pre- and
post-IPM Campaign surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Overall, the results demonstrated that the IPM Awareness Campaign had a
positive impact on employees. One hundred, thirty five employees, in twelve
Divisions of the Public Works Department, were inspired, surveyed, educated,
and engaged on the understanding of key IPM concepts: the County IPM Policy;
identifying actions they can take to integrate IPM concepts into their work and
home environments; identifying common office pests and IPM-based approaches
to controlling them; and what a watershed is and ways to improve water quality.
At the twelve IPM pilot sites, Department of Agriculture staff and representatives
of Orkin have made site visits to educate staff and to review pest problems and
pest modes of entry at each facility.
The Contra Costa County Watershed Program has also provided IPM education to
watershed groups and the public throughout the County. Methods to educate the public
about IPM have included articles; IPM workshops; distributions of fact sheets;
presentations; creation of a handbook on invasive plants; airing on local television of a
CCTV video taping of a sustainable landscaping workshop; and their annual watershed
calendar which includes information about IPM and goes to approximately 50,000
homes in unincorporated parts of the County.
Contra Costa Clean Water Program, a joint program of Contra Costa County, nineteen
of its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation
District, includes promoting landscape IPM practices to the public through its programs
and website.
In addition, the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) office in Contra
Costa has provided four-hour basic IPM training to Master Gardener Interns. Advanced
BIRC Final Report
45
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 46
training has been offered to Master Gardener volunteers who then give IPM talks around
the County to various audiences at sites ranging from libraries to nurseries. Bethallyn
Black, the County UCCE Master Gardener Coordinator, has given IPM presentations to
County staff including General Services, Grounds Division.
Over the past five years, the County has made some excellent efforts to educate county
employees and the public with its limited funds and with the help of grants. However,
because the County has lost a number of key IPM advocates due to retirement, job
changes, and medical reasons in the past several years, efforts have not been
consistent or sustained. This can be solved by hiring an IPM Coordinator whose
responsibilities include coordinating IPM education in the County.
To date, the main thrust of the County's IPM education efforts has been to provide
information to non-technical staff and to the general public about pest prevention and
alternatives to pesticides. For an IPM program to work effectively, the staff engaged in
pest management activities must be trained in IPM techniques and must receive
continual updates as new information and research is available.
We recommend that IPM technical training be built into departmental policies and
budgets for those departments that engage in pest management activities (currently,
General Services Grounds Division, Public Works Maintenance Division, and
Agriculture) and that educational needs for those Departments be reviewed on, at least,
an annual basis.
The County Department of Agriculture has a well-educated staff that is trained in IPM
policy and practices. Nearly all (16 of 18) of the staff have passed the exams for
Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide Use Regulation, and Environmental Monitoring
and Investigation. The Commissioner has been supportive of IPM and staff education so
that when opportunities present themselves, staff are encouraged to take advantage of
the training. Additional training and outreach has been provided to schools and the
public in conjunction with the requirements of the Healthy Schools Act. The Department
has an on-call biologist available to the public and provides information on pest
management that is predominately taken from the UC Statewide IPM program.
The Public Works Maintenance Division, and General Services Grounds Division, need
to be given greater support if they are to become less reliant on chemicals on larger and
more difficult service areas. In order to carry out IPM, particularly in difficult areas that
must be serviced on schedule in order to minimized the potential for flooding, fires and
the spread of invasive weeds, support from above is needed. There is often not enough
personnel to allow for time off to attend trainings, or to perform some of the more
intensive labor that is needed for certain IPM methods. Support must come in the form of
a budget increase for both additional personnel, particularly for manual labor, and proper
IPM training.
An educational model from the agriculture department can be used in other departments
with limited time and budget: a designated staff member attends technical conferences
and trainings and is responsible for relaying that information to colleagues. Also, forums
for sharing information that is gathered from manufactures and peers on the most
effective and safe methods to manage pests both by the use of chemicals and by non-
chemical means should be encouraged. This "informal" type of education relies on the
BIRC Final Report
46
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 47
real world experience of peers who have tried these materials and methods in the field.
For education to truly be successful, it must be entertaining, engaging, relevant, and
meaningful. Because information overload is a serious problem, any education efforts
must be well thought out, focused on the proper audience, and presented so as to
engage the target audience and facilitate an open environment for learning. For
instance,
• Target the people actually experiencing the pest problem; they will be very receptive
to information
• Publicly recognize people who are doing the right things to prevent pests; ask them
to explain their successes to other staff
• Elicit suggestions from staff for how to incorporate pest prevention and IPM
techniques into their daily routines
Education methods must be responsive to specific circumstances, repeated, as
necessary, and reinforced. (See Appendix A for a list of education priorities.)
IV. Educational Materials and IPM
Recommendations for the Web Site
A. Provide a list of resources for obtaining educational and
informational materials on IPM
B. Provide general recommendations for the form and content of County
IPM web pages.
IVA. IPM Resources
A list of IPM Resources can be found in Appendix D.
IVB. Recommendations for the County IPM Website
At present, the Contra Costa County website does not have a specific section for the
County IPM Program, or for educational information regarding IPM and pest
management issues. The County is currently in the early stage of having their website
redesigned. In order for the new design to include an IPM Program section that is clear,
user-friendly and easily expandable, we recommend that an IPM communication
consultant be hired to work with the web designer. With information and
recommendations from this report (see Appendix E, Recommendations for General
Website Form and Content) and more detailed input from the IPM consultant, the web
designer would better be able to develop a format to address the IPM Program's various
audiences and range of content.
The website will serve as a way for the county to promote its IPM Policy, and
communicate to both its staff and its citizens about IPM and pest management issues. A
well designed website, both in format and content, should facilitate awareness and
education in order to change behavior for the benefit of the County as a whole. The IPM
Coordinator, once hired, would oversee and manage the content of the website guided
by the County IPM Policy.
The IPM Program section must be flexible and expandable in order to accommodate
information that will be added over time. Although certain content will need to be
BIRC Final Report
47
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 48
developed before it can be added to the website, the section should be able to initially
include the following:
• An explanation of IPM
• The fact that the County has an IPM Program and why
• The County's IPM Policy
• Contact information for key IPM personnel
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members, meeting schedules, agendas,
minutes and reports
• Quick Tips for Keeping Your Office Pest Free
• Links to specific resources such as University of California Pest Notes (both in
English and Spanish); Our Water Our World fact sheets
• Specific information for staff (e.g., how to report a pest problem, etc.) and the public
(e.g., how to report a pesticide violation)
• Website links with structural and landscape IPM information, health and pest
information (see resources in Appendix D)
• Any other relevant information that is essentially ready to upload.
An IPM Awareness Blitz for the County as recommended in Appendix A, would be most
effective once an IPM Coordinator has been hired and the initial IPM website section is
up. This will be an ideal way to introduce the new IPM Coordinator and the website
section, and reintroduce and expand simple but key points about IPM that are relevant to
the various audiences that are targeted. It would provide news for the public and staff
and offer a means for obtaining information relevant to them.
The website can provide creative opportunities for engaging various audiences to help
with educational efforts and making information accessible. For example, one way to
create more awareness of the IPM website section and what it has to offer, is to ask
employees to preview the section and provide their input before it is officially launched.
An email can be sent to all County staff with a link asking them to go to the beta website,
look through it and provide their feedback. Everyone that responds could be in a drawing
for a dinner for two and/or someone that has given a particularly valuable suggestion
might be featured on the new website section, or in the County newsletter with his or her
picture and a caption or story explaining their suggestion. This would get some people to
preview the website, and therefore, become aware of what is covered on the site, give
them some ownership to the site, provide valuable feedback, and get more people to go
to it when it is officially launched to see what input was included.
Key audiences can be targeted with the website. An example might be to ask teachers in
the county to have their students look at the IPM website and then do a drawing or
painting or poem about something they learned by going to the website. Perhaps
projects could be submitted to the IPM trained Master Gardeners for a selection from
each school to be used as art for the IPM website section and could be rotated. This
would expose a number of teachers, students and their parents to the County IPM
website section and to concepts of IPM. Student artwork could also be featured in the
County newsletter as an advertisement for going to the IPM section of the County
website.
For a general outline and flowchart of how the IPM website section might work, some
details to be considered for inclusion, and resources to aid in development of the
website see Appendix E.
BIRC Final Report
48
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 49
V. Methods to Track IPM Data.
A. Review San Francisco and Santa Clara's procedures for tracking IPM
data
B. Make recommendations on which, if either, procedure might be
useful for Contra Costa County
While compiling the list of pesticides used in Contra Costa County, it became evident
that a better pesticide application tracking system is needed. Currently, records for
pesticides applied and systems for recordkeeping vary among General Services, the
Department of Agriculture, Public Works, and outside contractors. A thorough and
consistent method of tracking the details of pesticide use is necessary. The tracking
system should be adaptable to the specifics of each department, yet provide the overall
ability to look at the county's use of pesticides. This information will allow for
departments, the IPM Coordinator and TAC, outside contractors, and concerned public
to be able to communicate, share information, see trends and improve IPM efforts.
What is needed is a centralized database that maintains location information, comments,
and all the data necessary to prepare a Pesticide Use Report for the DPR and the
Agricultural Commissioner. Ideally, the data should only have to be entered one time,
and computer operations could be used to satisfy all subsequent requests for
information.
We were asked to compare the San Francisco and Santa Clara County systems. These
are both web-based. Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture has a non web-
based system in Microsoft Access. Costs and technical difficulties of adapting this
system to multiple users at several different locations are unknown. We mention it here
for completeness.
The databases used by San Francisco and Santa Clara County to manage IPM data will
be described in this report. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Costs, ease of
use, and needs of the County should be factored into the final decision. BIRC will
summarize advantages and disadvantages in the Final Report. The ultimate decision on
adoption should be that of the IPM Coordinator and the TAC.
San Franciso has a system in the final stages of beta testing, and Santa Clara County
has a fully operational system. First, we will describe the San Francisco system, then the
Santa Clara system.
A. San Francisco Tracking System
San Francisco has a web-based pesticide user reporting system. This system is being
beta tested this summer. According to Chris Geiger of the San Francisco Department of
Environment, when they are finished testing, they will be willing to provide it without
charge to other Bay Area government agencies. San Francisco has spent about $14,000
for development to the beta testing stage. If Contra Costa decided to use this system,
they would still have to pay for installation and basic computer programming to set it up
BIRC Final Report
49
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 50
on a server. Various technical details would have to be worked out, such as should it be
maintained on a County Server or should the actual server be independent of the
County's Computer System to avoid firewall problems.
BIRC participated in the beta testing this summer. We had no trouble reaching San
Francisco's site with a dial up Internet provider, an older Mac computer running
operating system 9.2 and a Microsoft Explorer browser produced in 2000.
The system is designed to be user friendly, so many entries are made with pull down
menus. Products are selected from a database that has been downloaded from Cal
EPA. Among the data that must be recorded are: name of the applicator, name of the
agency, location, product details, target pest, standard codes needed by the Agricultural
Commissioner, how the pesticide is applied, amounts used, and comments.
Download Data
One attractive feature of the system includes the ability of an applicator or agency to
download all their data entries to their own computer. Presumably, the information can
then be exported in a flat file, then imported into whatever proprietary database the
applicator is using. During beta testing, the download feature was blocked, so we do not
know how well this would work.
Another attractive feature is that the web-based system will produce a Pesticide Use
Report in the format needed by official agencies.
The web-based database can be searched by location, applicator, pesticide and other
information. So, for instance, it would be possible to determine which pesticides were
applied at Summit Office Building and when.
Pre-Programmed Locations
Generally, with a database it is considered wise to have one person making the entries,
so that information is entered consistently. For a web-based system to work properly, the
menus must be properly programmed so that everyone is making consistent entries. A
major source for error would be programming in the possible locations. Once the
location has been properly entered, it is available on a pull down menu, so no mistakes
are possible.
This is really important where there are ambiguities. For instance, do you enter St.
Mary's, Saint Marys, or Saint Mary's. One way around this possible problem is to have
one person consistently program most of the possible locations before the system is
opened for remote data entry. Once all the possible locations are programmed in, there
should be no problem. Where there is a new location needed, the program accepts a
street address, an intersection or a location name.
Step-By-Step Operation
To give a little better idea how the system works, we will describe typical data
entry steps. The Logic is tree-based and choices must be made with each
screen. Log-on gives access to the main menu:
1. enter or edit PUR data
2. access usage reporting/download
3. manage applicator and location info
BIRC Final Report
50
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 51
4. edit your PURS info
If everything has been preprogrammed, you choose 1. to add data. This is the
default setting. Hitting Select takes you to the next screen, which gives two
choices:
1. establish new data entry batch
2. enter pesticide application entries using existing data batch.
Hitting Select chooses the default, which is 1.
The new screen has reporting period given and the information "new data entry
batch created" Hit proceed
Get a new screen with a batch number, application date range and two choices:
Add or Return
Add brings up a Product Application Screen with Agency/Applicator/Location/and
Site Manager as pull down menus.
Product Details are needed, which are found in a searchable database with input
EPA No. or Product Name. Active or Inactive can be specified.
Choosing "Roundup" gives 15 entries. Selecting the particular formulation
automatically inputs: Name of Product, EPA Number, type of formulation, and
whether it is wet or dry. We chose Roundup Pro Concentrate, since that is used
extensively in Contra Costa County.
Without leaving the screen, you then select target pest, method of application,
spray, dust etc. All of these selections are on pull down menus. Since the
formulation has been specified, the program chooses fluid ounces or gallons as
possible units on a pull down menu. You then enter amount and choose gallons
or fluid ounces.
At this point you can choose to:
1. save
2. reset
3. cancel
We saved. This adds the data entry to the batch you are working on. Proceed
takes you back for another data entry cycle in the same batch. Return takes you
back to the start, where you can chose something else other than data entry.
Delete probably deletes the entry.
If you make a mistake, you can go back and edit. Since option 4 on the first
screen is "edit your PURS info."
B. Santa Clara County Tracking System
Santa Clara County also has a web-based tracking system for pesticide applications.
Entries can be made from most computer platforms. According to Naresh Duggal, IPM
Coordinator for the County, there have not been any problems with firewalls preventing
access of contractors to the database.
BIRC Final Report
51
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 52
Among the advantages is that the program will produce a pesticide use report in the
format needed for the agricultural commissioner and DPR.
No Data Download
One drawback to the Santa Clara system is that data entries cannot be downloaded to
the applicator's computer. According to Naresh,"CNV's reverse is not applicable. Once
data is entered/final submission, it cannot be altered. However, they can download print
documents." But several analytical tools are available to the system administrator
(County IPM Manager), who plans to publish data for reports and public information.
Locations are entered partly on a pull down menu and partly through manual entry.
According to Naresh, "There are two data entry points: Site, such as a physical street
address, is already built into the system, so it is available as selection/pull down menu
and need not to be typed. Location within a site needs to be entered -for e.g. operating
room number 5A or Doctors office or receptionist area on the 11th floor."
IPM Entries
According to Naresh, "users, [including] in-house Pest Control Advisors and
Maintenance Groups make their own data entries using intranet [access]. Contractors
make data entries from their business offices using [the] internet."
There are fields to enter traps used, monitoring data, and other IPM information. Naresh
says, "Each data entry point from pest, site, location, treatment, personnel, supervision
has "Note" boxes. An IPM Technician is encouraged to write/type details of the
inspection/treatment [including] non-chemical methods, [such as] type and number of
monitoring tools/devices used."
The pesticide used is entered manually each time. If a pesticide is not on the approved
list, then a pesticide use exemption form needs to be filled out for review and approval
by the County IPM Manager.
Costs
The program has costs for development, installation, and maintenance. According to
Naresh, "The software was developed in house. Initial cost of development was $70,000
inclusive of installation and training for all user groups. Maintenance cost is approx.
$4000-$6000 per year... Each user department is responsible for their own data entry
and maintenance cost.
Overall, Naresh Duggal, the IPM Coordinator for Santa Clara County is very happy with
the way the system is working. Naresh says, "It has streamlined the pest management
reporting process, [and] provided a bird's-eye view of major pest and related issues
faced by the county." It has facilitated not only pest management, but also related
sanitation, housekeeping and maintenance issues, allowing a focus on budgetary needs
and grants. The system frees the administrator to focus on major pest issues, allocate
IPM resources, and prioritize transitional budgets for short term and long term needs.
"Gradually, it is turning pest control from "Reactive" to "Proactive". Large countywide
pest problems now can be addressed through a strategic approach whereas small
location specific problems can be resolved by removing conducive conditions." The
PCO/Client partnership, which is an important component of IPM, is also improving.
BIRC Final Report
52
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 53
However, no computer system is trouble-free. Naresh believes the worst problems are
that, "It's a learning curve for contractors/pest control operators - who have to make a
change in their reporting processes from generic/crude method of reporting on a piece of
paper or talking to customers to a documented, more precise and complete progression
of IPM prompts from inspection to resolving pest issues."
Recommendations can be found in the Executive Summary.
VI. Public Input to the County's IPM Program
A. Interview up to 3 local government staff in Marin, Santa Clara, and/or
Contra Costa Counties to gather information about successful inclusion
of public comment.
B. Develop recommendations on incorporating public input into the
County IPM Program
In order to gather information on including public comment, we interviewed Naresh
Duggal, IPM Coordinator for Santa Clara County; Stacy Carlsen, Marin County
Agricultural Commissioner and IPM Coordinator; Bill Lindsay, City Manager for
Richmond; and Barry Gordon, Arts, Recreation, and Community Services Director for
the City of Walnut Creek. We also included questions relating to this task in all of our
extensive interviews.
We recommend that citizens take concerns about pesticides to the Public and
Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB), and we recommend that the County
create a Technical Advisory Committee that includes a public member. (See
Appendix A for details on the composition and purpose of the TAC).
The County may want to model the structure of the TAC meetings on that of Santa
Clara County. According to Naresh Duggal, IPM Coordinator for Santa Clara County,
public input in Santa Clara is provided by Quarterly IPM-TAG meetings that are open
to the public. These meetings are a mandate of the Santa Clara IPM Ordinance. A
notice is posted by the Clerk of the Board, a week in advance of the meeting.
Members of the public are allowed to observe the proceedings (no active discussion)
and are encouraged to provide comments and suggestions at the end of meeting.
The public is also encouraged to send their suggestions or concerns in writing to the
County IPM Manager. These comments or concerns are distributed to the IPM-TAG
members prior to or at the commencement of the meeting.
This process allows the public to be present and to listen and observe the technical
group proceedings. Suggestions from the public may be taken as guiding principles
by the technical group for consideration and action for future projects. Although not
all input can be translated into action, it can be taken as a guiding principle. The IPM-
TAG does not have to formally answer each and every comment; however, IPM
projects executed over time reflect the essence of public input in one way or other.
BIRC Final Report
53
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 54
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Summary of Recommendations
Appendix B. Structural Inspections
Appendix C. List of BIRC Tasks
Appendix D. IPM Resources
Appendix E. Website Recommendations
Appendix F. Sample IPM Documents
BIRC Final Report
54
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 55
Appendix A
Recommendations for Changes in the Contra
Costa County IPM Program
Introduction
Contra Costa County has a serviceable Integrated Pest Management Policy in place,
and we commend the work done by the IPM Task Force that resulted in the Policy.
However, implementing IPM does not end with the writing of a policy. The citizens and
employees of Contra Costa County deserve funding and staff to support and carry out
the Policy as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. They also deserve the education to
understand the purpose and importance of IPM and the role they must play to make it
work. It is critical for both the short- and long-term health of Contra Costa County and its
citizens that its Policy is carried out as intended. Support, both financial and
administrative, must come from the top: from the Board of Supervisors, the County
Administrator, department heads, and line supervisors.
Our recommendations mirror many of those already described in the County's IPM
Policy and reiterated in the County IPM Task Force reports over the years.
Organization of the Recommendations
The recommendations below are divided into highest priority and medium priority. To aid
the County in analyzing our recommendations, we have further divided each group into
1) recommendations with fiscal impacts, 2) policy changes, and 3) procedural changes.
Highest Priority Recommendations with Fiscal Impacts
1. Hire a full time IPM Coordinator housed in the CAO's office with the CAO's
support.
The County's IPM Policy requires the County to hire an IPM Coordinator, and the
County's IPM Task Force has been noting this as a priority since 2002. We consider
the creation of this position to be of paramount importance to the success of the
County's IPM program. Without a coordinator the County's IPM Policy is haphazardly
and ineffectively implemented with great inefficiency.
The IPM Coordinator must have authority to enforce compliance with the IPM Policy
and the ability to make independent views publicly known.
Some of the main duties of an IPM Coordinator include the following:
• Coordinate IPM activities to ensure compliance with the County's IPM Policy
• Assist in developing design guidelines and procedures for considering pest
control implications for new construction or new landscaping and for renovation
of buildings of landscapes
• Coordinate with custodial, building maintenance, and grounds maintenance staff
to ensure implementation of pest prevention measures
• Provide oversight and guidance for staff or outside contractors engaged in pest
management activities
• Conduct program evaluation and oversee record keeping and record retention
• Coordinate IPM education and IPM technical training for County staff and
develop an IPM awareness program
BIRC Final Report
55
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 56
• Respond to inquiries and complaints from the public
• Oversee information on the IPM program portion of the County website
• Chair a Technical Advisory Committee
The IPM Coordinator can also prepare projected budgets, including up-front costs
and on-going maintenance costs, for transitioning the County to a higher level of IPM
implementation. The IPM Coordinator can work with County staff to prioritize tasks
and implementation procedures thus resulting in more effective and efficient use of
County funds.
2. Hire one or more IPM consultants to assist the County with the
recommendations marked with an asterisk (*) below, until the IPM Coordinator
is hired.
The consultant(s) would not be a substitute for an IPM Coordinator, but would
provide technical assistance to begin implementing some of our recommendations
and designing tools that will make the Coordinator's job easier. (And in some cases,
the IPM Coordinator may not have the skills necessary to assist the County.) The
consultant(s) could work with the Departments to develop a simple, easy-to-read
document explaining how to interpret the IPM Policy for each Department.
3. Appoint IPM Site Stewards who receive extra compensation to be the pest
management liaison for buildings or groups of buildings.
Work at the original IPM pilot sites revealed the need for a single point person at a
site to collect information on pest problems from occupants and relay that information
to the structural pest control contractor and the IPM Coordinator. Ideally, the staff
chosen for this responsibility should be interested in the health and cleanliness of
their building, should have pride in their building, and should be enthusiastic about
pest prevention.
We recommend the following responsibilities for the IPM Site Steward:
• Maintains a log book of pest complaints from occupants to communicate
problems to the structural pest control contractor and the IPM coordinator
• Is the primary liaison with the IPM Coordinator and the structural pest control
contractor
• Maintains a file of prevention and management tips for specific pests to fax,
email or hand deliver to staff experiencing pest invasions
• Works with staff to reinforce pest prevention and pest management education
coming from the IPM Coordinator or the structural pest control contractor
• Notifies IPM Coordinator if pest proofing repairs are not performed in a timely
manner
• Requests staff education for particular pests when necessary
4. *Train IPM Site Stewards in their duties as the point person for pest issues.
We recommend that the Site Stewards be thoroughly trained so that they understand
the County IPM Policy and how to recognize conditions conducive to pests. The
training should include a written summary for Site Stewards to refer to. We
recommend that Bethallyn Black, Master Gardener Coordinator at the University of
California Cooperative Extension, work with a County staff person who has already
taken on this function and is performing the duties in an exemplary way (for instance,
the Building Manager at Employment and Human Services) to design and conduct
the training.
BIRC Final Report
56
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 57
5. *Gather and/or develop pest specific IPM fact sheets that the Site Steward can
fax, email, or hand deliver to County staff experiencing specific pest problems.
There are many sources for ready-made IPM fact sheets (see resources in Appendix
C) including the University of California and the Our Water, Our World project. These
may not fit the County's need exactly; however, they can suffice until fact sheets
tailored to building occupants become available or until the County decides to
develop some of its own. Ideally, any fact sheets the County developed would be
short (no longer than one page), easy-to-read with bulleted information, and
attractively laid out. Priority topics for the fact sheets include the following:
• The Argentine ant and how to prevent invasions
• The house mouse and how to prevent invasions
• Cockroaches and how to prevent invasions
• Rats and how to prevent them
• Fungus gnats and how to prevent them
• The link between food waste and pest invasions
• How to report pest problems
• Staff roles and responsibilities in an IPM program
6. *Enhance and expand sanitation protocols.
Protocols for kitchens, food preparation areas, and break rooms need to include
specific practices that will prevent pests. Child care facilities, or other specific indoor
sites where children may spend extended periods of time, need deep cleaning on a
regular basis. Deep cleaning may include steam cleaning, vacuuming and full
removal of furniture during the process.
Often, sanitation protocols are focused on health and food safety and do not
specifically address sanitation measures that will reduce food, water, and shelter for
pests.
Currently the County uses a written cleaning schedule from the Bay Area Rescue
Mission. We recommend that this cleaning schedule be revised to make it more
easily understood (e.g. items could be alphabetized) and with the help of the
structural pest control contractor, include tasks that will have a direct effect on the
availability of food for pests. The reasons for performing these tasks should be
explained so that staff will understand the connection with pest problems. For
instance,
• Floor drains should be inventoried and put on a regular cleaning schedule to
eliminate the slime that can produce thousands of drain flies.
• Kitchens, food preparation areas, and child care centers should be given
regularly-scheduled deep cleanings to remove food residues trapped around and
under appliance legs and other hard to clean areas because the very small
amounts of food can attract and feed thousands of ants, cockroaches, or flies.
This can involve steam cleaning, vacuuming, and in child cares centers, full
removal of the furniture in the process.
• Food should be stored off the ground on metal shelves or on pallets away from
the wall to make it harder for pests to reach the food and to facilitate pest
monitoring.
BIRC Final Report
57
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 58
• Mops and brooms should be stored in appropriate closets and should be hung up
to dry after use. Wet mops or brooms stored on the floor or in buckets can
produce flies and feed cockroaches.
• No open food, food waste or other garbage contaminated with food waste should
be left overnight in the building. Rats, mice, and cockroaches are most active at
night and will thrive on easily accessible food waste.
• Clutter should be removed and storage in and out of closets should be organized
and off the floor. Clutter provides hiding and breeding areas for pests such as
rats, mice, and cockroaches and prevents monitoring for, and early detection, of
these pests.
7. Hire a Staff Supervisor with landscape IPM Expertise for the vacant position in
the Grounds Division in General Services.
Filling the Staff Supervisor position will assist Bob Tamori, Grounds Manager, and
could improve IPM implementation in the Grounds Division. Educating and
supervising staff, evaluating sites, and establishing IPM plans for sites (including
short- and long-range planning) would all be better accomplished if this position were
filled. We recommend that the job description for Staff Supervisor be modified to
require landscape IPM expertise and a Pest Control Advisor (PCA) License.
The Division should review other positions and consider IPM expertise in hiring,
where appropriate.
8. *Prioritize landscaped areas in the County according to the level of
maintenance needed and the potential for public exposure to pesticides used
in maintenance activities.
The Pesticide Hazard and Exposure Reduction (PHAER) Zone System (see
www.home.earthlink.net/--phaerzones for the downloadable handbook), created by
Phil Boise of Urban-Ag Ecology, could help the County assign priority to County
landscapes.
Boise describes his system as follows: "Decision and policy makers seek a way to
measure progress towards risk reduction goals, grounds managers need flexibility in
their management options, the community is entitled to information about the general
level of pesticide hazard that could be present on a site-by-site basis, and children
and the environment deserve the highest degree of safety possible. The PHAER
Zone System establishes management zones on each site based on the unique risk
reduction goals of individual jurisdictions. These zone are designated as Green,
Yellow, and Special Circumstance Zones, with Green Zones providing the lowest
potential for pesticide hazard and exposure."
Green Zones are areas, for example, where children play; Yellow Zones are areas in
which pesticide use would pose very little exposure potential for humans and no
adverse environmental consequences; Special Circumstance Zones are areas such
as golf courses where the assets of the site are dependent on pesticides that pose
high human or environmental hazard and for which no effective reduced risk
substitutes are available. Each Zone has a corresponding list of pesticides
suggested for use in that particular Zone.
Boise says, "The PHAER Zone system helps grounds managers to direct resource-
intensive IPM practices from Yellow Zones to Green Zones, reducing risk in areas of
greatest need. Colored maps communicate general pesticide risk to the public as a
BIRC Final Report
58
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 59
'right-to-know' benefit, and can provide simple visual justifications for budget
requests, as well as standards for measuring improvement. Several jurisdictions I am
advising in the development of this system appreciate how their current good
stewardship is demonstrated to the public through the colored maps."
By initially directing IPM efforts to Green Zones, the County could increase IPM
implementation with a smaller fiscal burden.
Boise is available to provide varying levels of support, from a general presentation of
the concept, to staff training, to mapping and implementation assistance.
9. Develop plans to better implement IPM for roadsides, rights-of-way, levies, and
flood control channels. Efforts to find alternatives to pesticides should be re-
initiated and intensified. Financial support is necessary for this process.
Public Works uses more pesticide than any other department in the County, primarily
to control weeds on roadsides, rights-of-way, levies, and flood control channels.
Weed management in these areas is more circumscribed by safety, liability, and
legal requirements than ordinary landscaping in the County, nevertheless, we feel
that IPM can be implemented and the reliance on pesticide reduced. However, this
will require research into methods that will work in Contra Costa, field trials to
determine efficacy and suitability, and additional training for staff. Changes in policy
and budgets are necessary to support these activities.
We recommend that the County evaluate roadsides, rights-of-way, levies, and flood
control channels for the use of alternative weed control and prioritize areas for
implementing alternatives with an accompanying schedule and reasoning. We also
recommend that the County draw up a long-term plan (including budget needs)for
implementation of more sustainable and ecologically sound practices, including a
gradual change in the vegetation in these areas that can reduce the need for
chemical and other forms of weed control.
If manual labor is to become a large part of weed management, contract labor must
be recruited. Currently there is a great deal of work that must be accomplished by
few employees during short windows of time. To manage vegetation mechanically,
large numbers of laborers are needed during late winter, spring, and early summer.
The work is laborious and county workers are subject to accidents and repetitive
motion injury. Workers compensation claims increase in these situations.
Both the employees that recommend pesticides (employees with a Pest Control
Advisor's license or PCA) and the employees that apply pesticides need specific IPM
training. While the employees that recommend and apply the pesticides are well
trained in their use, more emphasis needs to be placed on education in IPM
methods. This is particularly true of the PCA, because all pesticide applications are
based on the PCA's recommendation or prescription. Every effort should be made to
insure that the PCA is or becomes versed in IPM. This should be written into the job
description, emphasized during the recruitment process and should be a condition of
continued employment. In addition, there must be a periodic internal review by the
Public Works Department and a review by the IPM coordinator. The technical
advisory committee could also provide expertise.
For information on managing weeds along roadsides and rights-of-way see:
BIRC Final Report
59
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 60
• Washington State Department of Transportation:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/vegetation/mgmt_plans.htm
• Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management:A Synthesis of Highway Practice
by Robert L. Berger
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_341.pdf
• "Native roadside perennial grasses persist a decade after planting in the
Sacramento Valley" by Ryan O'Dell, Stephen L. Young and Victor P. Classen in
California Agriculture, April-June 2007
http://CaliforniaAgricuIture.ucop.edu
10. " Adopt a computerized pesticide tracking system for pesticides used on
County property by the County and its contractors. Currently, records for
pesticides applied and systems for record-keeping vary among General Services, the
Department of Agriculture, Public Works and outside contractors. The County needs
a thorough and consistent method of tracking the details of pesticide use data. The
tracking system should be adaptable to the specifics of each department, yet provide
the overall ability to look at the use of pesticides on County property. This information
will allow Departments, the TAC and IPM Coordinator, outside contractors, and
concerned public to be able to communicate, share information, see trends and
improve IPM efforts. To satisfy these requirements, a centralized database is
necessary.
We were asked to review the San Francisco and Santa Clara tracking systems, both
of which are web-based. Of these two systems, we recommend San Francisco's.
(For more detailed information on this tracking system, see Section V in this report.)
The San Francisco system is in the beta testing phase, and the city has offered the
program free of charge to Contra Costa County.
However, it should be noted that the Contra Costa Agriculture Department has a
tracking database in Microsoft Access that is functional and has been in use for over
five years. This system should be evaluated for its suitability for County needs and
the ease with which it could be adapted.
Departments that apply or oversee applications of pesticides to County property
(General Services, Public Works, and Agriculture) together with the IPM Coordinator
should determine the kind of database that would best fit their needs.
Regardless of system that is implemented, it may be necessary to hire staff to enter
data for General Services and Public Works.
11. `Work with County's newly hired web designer to Incorporate an IPM program
section as the County web site is being redesigned.
The County is currently in the early stage of having its website redesigned. In order
for the new design to include an IPM Program section that is clear, user-friendly and
easily expandable, we recommend that an IPM communication consultant be hired to
work with the web designer. With information and recommendations from this report
(see Appendix D, Recommendations for General Website Form and Content) and
more detailed input from the IPM consultant, the web designer would better be able
to develop a format to address the IPM Program's various audiences and range of
content.
BIRC Final Report
60
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 61
The IPM Program section must be flexible and expandable in order to accommodate
information that will be added over time. Although certain content will need to be
developed before it can be added to the website, the section should be able to
initially include the following:
• An explanation of IPM
• The fact that the County has an IPM Program and why
• The County's IPM Policy
• Contact information for key IPM personnel
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members, meeting schedules, agendas,
minutes and reports
• Quick Tips for Keeping Your Office Pest Free
• Links to specific resources such as University of California Pest Notes (both in
English and Spanish); Our Water Our World fact sheets
• Specific information for staff(e.g., how to report a pest problem, etc.) and the
public (e.g., how to report a pesticide violation)
• Website links with structural and landscape IPM information, health and pest
information (see resources in Appendix")
• Any other relevant information that is ready to upload.
Highest Priority Policy Changes
12. Adopt EcoWise Certified Standards for structural pest management (pest
management in and around buildings) in the County.
EcoWise Certified is an independent, third-party certification program for licensed
structural pest management professionals who practice IPM. We recommend
that the County adopt Part 1, Pest Management Standard, of the EcoWise
Certified Standards for IPM Certification in Structural Pest Management. The
most current version of the Standards can be downloaded from the EcoWise
Certified Program website: www.Ecowisecertified.org. These Standards were
developed by the Bio-Integral Resource Center(BIRC), in collaboration with the
pest control industry, NGOs, and government stakeholders.
By adopting the Pest Management Standard, the County will have a clear, written
standard to which it can hold its structural pest control contractor.
13. Hire structural pest control contractors who are, or are in the process of
becoming, EcoWise Certified. EcoWise Certified professionals must pass a
rigorous exam and field audit to demonstrate expertise in IPM practices and
service. Hiring EcoWise Certified professionals indicates to the pest control
industry that professional standards for employment by the County are being
raised.
14. Use contracts with specific IPM language for structural pest control. This is
an additional way to hold structural pest control contractors to a high level of IPM
service.
We recommend starting with a Request for Qualification (RFQ) to eliminate
contractors who do not meet minimum requirements (such as being or becoming
EcoWise Certified). Taking the lowest bid should not be required.
BIRC Final Report
61
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 62
BIRC and the UP3 Project, in collaboration with the pest control industry and
government stakeholders have been developing guidance documents for
contracting for structural IPM services. The most recent versions of these
documents can be found at www.up3project.org/ipmcontracting.shtm].
15. Adopt Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines for design, construction,
maintenance, and pest control for County landscaping. Bay Friendly Landscape
Guidelines. Sustainable Practices for the Landscape Professional was developed
by Alameda County StopWaste with guidance from public and private landscape
architects and contractors and representatives of other Alameda County public
agencies. According to the Guidelines, Bay Friendly Landscaping is "[a] whole
systems approach to the design, construction and maintenance of the landscape
in order to support the integrity of one of California's most magnificent
ecosystems, the San Francisco Bay watershed." For more information and to
download a copy of the Guidelines, go to http://www.stopwaste.org.
The following are the seven principles of Bay Friendly Landscaping:
1. Landscape locally: understand & consider the context of the San Francisco
Bay
2. Landscape for less to the landfill
3. Nurture the soil
4. Conserve water
5. Conserve energy
6 Protect water and air Quality
7. Create wildlife habitat
The Guidelines provide details of each of these principals along with practical
ways to implement them.
16. Hire Bay Friendly Qualified landscape professionals when contractors are
used. Bay-Friendly Qualified landscape professionals have participated in a
comprehensive training program in a holistic approach to managing the
landscape. As with hiring EcoWise Certified professionals, hiring Bay Friendly
Qualified professions indicates to the landscape industry that professional
standards for employment by the County are being raised.
17. Use landscape service contracts that spell out Bay Friendly Guidelines. At
present the County has no specific guidelines for landscape services and uses
only purchase orders. Contracts with language that specifies adherence to the
Bay Friendly Guidelines will help provide the County with a more ecologically
sound service and help ensure compliance with the County's IPM policy
18. Develop pest tolerance levels for County landscaping, The County must
weigh aesthetics and safety standards with the health and environmental impacts
of pesticide use. In conjunction with assigning priorities to landscapes (number
8), the County should determine how many weeds or how much insect damage
is acceptable in Green and Yellow Zones. The tolerance levels may differ
depending on the site, because not all turf needs to be weed-free to be
functional, and a considerable amount of insect damage on plants in many
landscape settings may not harm the plant and may never be noticed by the
public.
BIRC Final Report
62
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 63
The General Services Grounds Division undoubtedly manages County
landscapes with intuitive tolerance levels. It is important to write these down and
discuss their implications so that the County's limited resources can be directed
were they are most needed.
19. Maintain a list of expert IPM consultants to advise on pest management as
needed, to take on special projects, and conduct technical training. IPM
consultants can also research and compile information about new alternatives in
pest management. Overburdened County staff seldom have time to do this kind
of research. Areas of expertise for consultants should include structural IPM,
landscape IPM, vegetation management (including aquatic and roadside
vegetation), sustainable landscaping, and toxicology.
20. Create an IPM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to replace the IPM Task
Force. We suggest this committee have as members technical personnel
representing the Agriculture Department, the Facilities Maintenance and Grounds
Divisions of General Services, the Maintenance Division of Public Works, Health
Services, the County Clean Water Program, the County Watershed Program, the
University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa Mosquito and
Vector Control, and the East Bay Regional Parks District; the Hazardous
Materials Ombudsman; and one member of the public. The IPM Coordinator
would chair the TAC.
The purpose of the TAC would be the following:
• Advise the County on technical issues pertaining to the IPM program
• Discuss new research on alternative techniques and products, brought to the
committee either by technical consultants who have done initial research on
the topic or by members
• Promote technical IPM education countywide for staff who are engaged in
pest management activities.
Notices of meetings, agendas, and meeting minutes should be posted on the
IPM section of the County's website. We suggest that meetings have a timed
agenda and that discussions of tangential subjects be tabled for discussion as
agenda items at future meetings (if appropriate).
Highest Priority Procedural Changes
21. Require Departments to provide basic IPM information to their staff: name
and function of IPM Site Steward and staff responsibilities in the County IPM
Program. A structural IPM program cannot function properly without the
cooperation of building occupants in the areas of sanitation and building
maintenance.
22. Provide structured education on pest prevention to County staff in buildings
(or on floors in buildings) experiencing pest problems. This can be provided by
the pest control contractor(Orkin) or by qualified Contra Costa Master Gardeners
with IPM training. Information can be delivered orally (one-on-one, or in small
groups) or in writing (faxed, emailed, or hand-delivered), but educational
activities should focus on the group or individual who is experiencing the problem
since those are the people who will be most interested and attentive.
BIRC Final Report
63
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 64
The Site Steward should have hard copies or PDF copies of the County's fact
sheets on common pests to provide as soon as possible to staff who log
complaints about particular pests.
23. Prioritize pest proofing needs and repairs related to pest management.
Work with Orkin, the structural pest control contractor, to accomplish this.
Prioritizing these needs will allow the County to use scarce resources where they
are needed most and will do the most good. The County should also work with
the contractor to decide on a reasonable timeframe in which repairs will be
completed, especially those of high priority.
24. Develop an electronic filing system for the data already collected by the
General Services Grounds Division. This information is invaluable in the
functioning of the IPM program, and is being lost.
25. Require technical IPM training for County staff engaged in pest
management activities. An IPM program cannot function properly if the staff
who are tasked with carrying out the policy are not trained in IPM. Staff who are
engaged in pest management activities need technical training on interpreting the
County IPM Policy for specific sites or problems. These staff also need periodic
updates on the latest research and information. A knowledgeable IPM consultant
who would be free of political constraints could carry this out.
26. Use the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) as a
sounding board for public concerns about pesticide use. We recommend this as
a more appropriate venue than the IPM TAC.
BIRC Final Report
64
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 65
Medium Priority Recommendations with Fiscal Impacts
26. Hire an IPM communications consultant to fully develop the IPM section of
the County website.
27. Include the remaining leased County buildings in the IPM program. These
buildings are currently serviced by Orkin on an on-call basis. This makes pest
prevention impossible because Orkin can only respond to pest problems after
they have become serious enough for someone to call.
28. Consider funding the IPM Program with a "Green Tax" assessed on
property in the County. This kind of measure might have to be coupled with
another, more popular and easily understood "green" issue. If the County has
any kind of"sustainability" program in place or in development, this assessment
could help fund that as well. It would probably help to couch the assessment in
terms of increasing the quality of life in Contra Costa. It would be hoped that
concerned citizens would campaign for the extra property tax assessment.
29. Have the TAC, along with the IPM Coordinator and a consultant, review the
pesticides used on County property. Contra Costa County's IPM program
could be improved by increasing the use of non-chemical methods, using fewer
pesticides of concern, and to the extent possible, replacing them with reduced-
risk pesticides. As a part of this review, the TAC and the IPM Coordinator could
also review Orkin's "No Post List" for additions or subtractions.
30. Consider using high school students with community service requirements
or justice system labor for tasks associated with the IPM program, such as
hand weeding, hoeing, spreading mulch.
31. Consider holding a joint meeting/training for Health Inspectors and the
structural pest control contractor technician to review and discuss pest
control and health issues in kitchens and child care facilities. The Health
Department and the pest control technician should be noticing the same
problems and supporting each other in their requests for timely correction.
Medium Priority Policy Changes
32. Consider re-classifying high priority pest-proofing and pest management
related repairs as health and safety issues so they can be dealt with on a fast
track. In conjunction with this, consider allowing the structural pest control
contractor to perform high priority pest proofing.
33. Consider re-classifying sanitation in break rooms and lockers as a health
and safety issue. Add a tab in the safety manual and post the guidelines on the
refrigerator in the break room.
34. Develop a policy and protocol for emergencies necessitating pesticide use.
This would require an IPM Coordinator to oversee and enforce the policy.
The following language from the Marin County Model IPM School Project could
serve as a model:
BIRC Final Report
65
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 66
Declaring an Emergency Necessitating Pesticide Use
In the Healthy Schools Act, "emergency conditions" are defined as
"circumstances in which the school designee deems that the immediate use of a
pesticide is necessary to protect the health and safety of pupils, staff, or other
persons, or the schoolsite."
Before an emergency ever occurs, the IPM Coordinator must establish a
communication "tree" with the names and phone numbers of people to contact in
a crisis. Each contact should have a set of clearly defined responsibilities. For
instance, the IPM Coordinator notifies the public information officer who then
handles contact with the media and the concerns of parents and the general
public. The IPM Coordinator also notifies administrators who decide who to notify
at higher levels. The IPM Coordinator must communicate effectively with all
those involved in the emergency and must choose information that is appropriate
for each person with whom he or she communicates. For instance, the
superintendent will not need to be informed of specific mixing instructions for the
pesticide, and the pesticide applicator will not need to know the names of the
students and staff involved.
The following questions should be used to determine and document emergency
conditions and to justify emergency actions:
• Who is the person who is alerting you to the emergency? Is the person
credible? Does he or she have the necessary knowledge to make a
determination of an emergency?
• What is the problem? Find out as much as you can about the problem and
what is causing it. What kind of pest is involved? Is the problem one of health
and/or safety?
• Where is the problem? Is the location such that it is an immediate threat to
health and safety? Can the area be cordoned off to prevent further problems?
• When did the problem occur? Is it happening at this moment, or did it happen
two weeks ago, and is just now being reported?
• How did the problem occur? What are the circumstances surrounding the
incident?
• Why did the problem occur? What factors contributed to the creation of the
problem?
Once an emergency is declared and the channels of communication are open,
the next step is assessing the possible options for solving the problem and
choosing the most effective one. Once the treatment has been chosen, the IPM
Coordinator should communicate this decision to all necessary parties. When the
emergency is over, it is important to assess the effectiveness of the chosen
course of action and to make adjustments in the pest management system so
that an emergency doesn't recur. This evaluation and the changes that are made
should be documented and reported to those involved in the emergency.
Medium Priority Procedural Suggestions
35. In buildings, or on particular floors of buildings, where clutter is a
problem, have an annual "clean-out day". The County provides the
dumpster and everyone spends the day cleaning. Clutter can provide shelter
and hiding places for rats, mice, cockroaches, and other pests and should be
kept to a minimum.
BIRC Final Report
66
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 67
36. Have the IPM Coordinator conduct an IPM Awareness Campaign for the
County. This should happen some time fairly soon after the IPM Coordinator
is hired and has settled into the job. Ideally, the IPM section of the website
would be functioning by that time.
37. Seek out and recognize county staff, offices, Divisions, Departments
and citizens who are working hard to help implement IPM (most
successful IPM program, cleanest offices, fewest pests or longest pest-free
building, best education campaign, best tips on pest prevention, etc.).
Recognition is important to people and provides positive publicity for the
County and its IPM program.
Recommendations for IPM Information/Education Topics
We recommend that any IPM education the County undertakes should be targeted to the
specific audience that needs the information and it should be entertaining, engaging,
relevant, and meaningful. When providing information to County staff about pest
prevention or management, we recommend solution-oriented, face-to-face meetings with
those affected by or causing the problem.
Information for County Staff
• An explanation of IPM
• The fact that the County has an IPM Program and why
• The name of the IPM Coordinator
• The County has an IPM Policy; the contents of the Policy
• The County is committed to its IPM Policy and to its implementation
• County staff are trying to make improvements in methods of handling pests while
working with very limited funds
• The pesticides used for structural pests are mainly contained in bait stations;
provide examples of those that are not and explain why
• In buildings, the County is using pest prevention first and doing everything it can,
given limited funds and budget constraints, to avoid spraying pesticides
• The role County staff must play in an IPM program
• The link between food waste/garbage and pests
• The name and contact information for their IPM Site Steward
• How to report a pest problem
• Don't bring pesticides from outside to use at work, contact the Site Steward if a
pest problems arises
• Up-to-date technical information for staff engaged in pest management activities
• Invasive weeds should not be planted in the County and should not be
transported around the County
Methods for Educating County Staff about Pest Prevention
• One-on-one or small group, informal informational meetings, oriented toward
solutions for pest problems
• Colorful, catchy, humorous signs for use in offices to remind people to close
outside doors (to prevent entry by mice), to clean up in the kitchen or the break
room, etc
BIRC Final Report
67
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 68
• Short fact sheets on pest prevention and other topics that can be faxed, emailed,
or hand delivered (see Recommendation #5)
Information for the Public
• An explanation of IPM
• The fact that the County has an IPM Program and why; one reason is that the
County wants to lead by example
• The name of the IPM Coordinator
• The County has an IPM Policy; the contents of the Policy
• The County is committed to its IPM Policy and to its implementation
• County staff are trying to make improvements in methods of handling pests while
working with very limited funds
• The pesticides used for structural pests are mainly contained in bait stations;
provide examples of those that are not and explain why
• In buildings, the County is using pest prevention first and doing everything it can,
given limited funds and budget constraints, to avoid spraying pesticides
• Contra Costa uses fewer kinds of pesticides in buildings and has reduced its
overall use of pesticides in buildings
• Pests in the home can be largely be managed by prevention and the U.C. Pest
Notes and the Our Water, Our World fact sheets can provide information
• Do not plant invasive weeds (the County could request the U.C. Master
Gardeners to create a "Do Not Plant" list as a special project)
• Dispose of invasive weeds in yard waste; do not throw over the fence, and
especially do not dispose of near waterways or creeks
• U.C. Master Gardeners offer pest management help and information about IPM
Target Audiences for Public Education
a. Parents of young children
b. Schools/Child Care/PTAs, scouts, church groups
c. People with property near waterways
d. People who live along creeks where it is most challenging to do weed control
e. Chemically sensitive people
Methods for Educating Citizens about IPM and the County IPM Program
• Short newspaper articles written by the IPM Coordinator; other outreach by the
IPM Coordinator
• The IPM section of the County website
• Through the U.C. Master Gardeners (during the IPM Awareness Campaign, the
Master Gardeners could be asked to mention the County's IPM program
whenever they appear in public in the County)
BIRC Final Report
68
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 69
Appendix B
Details of the Structural Inspections
Structural Site Assessment
(1)Contra Costa Regional Medical Center(CCRMC)
2500 Alhambra Way
Martinez, CA
Inspected on 5/11/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider,Antioch, CA
Background
• This is a campus style hospital. It was chosen because it presents a sensitive situation where
pesticide applications must be limited to protect the health of patients.
• This hospital also has a large industrial kitchen connected with a cafeteria.
• Orkin has divided CCRMC into 18 separate areas that each have their own service report:
admin building, cafeteria, etc.
• Several of these locations are on weekly or bi-monthly service.
• The main hospital at 2500 Alhambra is on a weekly service. (TL)
Discussion with County Personnel and Orkin at Site
• Orkin monitors inside buildings by using Tin Cats (mouse traps), Trapper Tunnels (sticky
traps) used by water sources, and glue boards
• Anthony (Orkin Tech) says he has plenty of time to do his job
• CCRMC is very clean- staff checks inventory for pests as it comes in
• No cockroaches in CCRMC
• Ants, mice are the main problems
• For ants Orkin uses Niban FG (boric acid bait)and Eco Exempt 1 C2 (rosemary and
wintergreen oil)
o They use the Eco Exempt product outside around the perimeter of all structures and
apply with hand tank sprayer
o The Eco Exempt has some residual, but doesn't last long: a couple hours to 1 day
o Niban bait is broadcast outside- probably_-1/3 Ib. per building
o Leaf litter near the admin and Building 2 necessitates the use of more bait
• For mice, Orkin uses Tin Cats (mouse traps)and Contrac Blox (rodent bait with active
ingredient bromadiolone)
• There is a pest sighting log book in Environmental Service
• Nobody at the hospital has complained about spiders
• 15' Friday of the month, the Orkin tech does the following:
o Checks log book every Friday morning
o Checks every building
o Services every bait station
o Sprays the Eco Exempt product, if necessary
o Looks at Tin Cats
o Checks on problem areas
o Inspects bathrooms, breakrooms, water sources, checks with head receptionists
• Note that the Cafeteria is serviced 2 times per month
• Doesn't have a list of all the places he checks regularly
• A schematic of the buildings is in the works
o Recommendation: schematic of the building need not be very detailed. Existing fire
escape route maps of the building could simplify the process.
BIRC Final Report
69
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 70
• The hospital seems to be overwhelmed with maintenance issues, so although Orkin has
pointed out doors that need sweeps and other pest proofing tasks, not all of the
recommendations have been followed yet.
• Although Orkin does not have a person doing pest proofing, the County said they might
prefer to have door sweeps and threshold sill plates in some places installed by the pest
control contractor
• The bottom floor of E Ward is having most problems with mice
o Orkin has 7 bait stations out
o Orkin has asked maintenance guy to cut grass back
o They leave doors open and door sweeps are needed
• At CCRMC Orkin uses only Tin Cats without glue boards. Have had issues with CCRMC staff
about mice being stuck to glue board.
• Orkin does not use snap traps because they have had problems with snap traps-liability
issues, lawsuits
o Orkin has used Eaton boxes (with snap traps inside) under vending machines in
other places, and people have bothered the traps and hurt themselves.
• Suggestion for handling mice: use non-toxic monitoring blocks to detect mouse feeding.
Monitor blocks, if evidence of mice, come back with glue boards, snap traps, and set at them
at night. In morning, come back and remove dead mice.
• Orkin has a sub-contractor that does all the wildlife removal for them-could provide that for
the county if needed
• Ants are pretty much under control; Orkin is baiting out away from the buildings
• Some places where Orkin hasn't been able to find the end of the trail
• Orkin needs more cooperation from County. Ideally, they would like to see all leaf litter
removed and all trees touching buildings cut back. If, when Orkin makes these kinds of
recommendations, the County could follow them within a week, it would help a great deal.
o Suggestion: Orkin make clear to the County which recommendations are top priority.
• Suggestions for managing ants:
o Try putting Niban in bait stations
o Try liquid boric acid bait(Terro PCO or Advance Liquid)
• Terro PCO is not on Orkin's"no post" list for the County. Need to see about
getting it on.
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cafeteria serving area
• Make sure garbage cans (under liners)are cleaned periodically
• Put sticky trap monitor under conveyor belt for dishes
• Under coffee machine found an empty box that should be removed
• Hoses from coffee machine going into the hole need sealing
• Clean under Electrofreeze machine (in cabinet under stainless steel counter)
• General cleaning of floor is needed
• Under sink- seal around pipe in wall
Kitchen
• There are a number of elements in this kitchen that are deteriorating (walls, baseboards,
doors,tiles, etc.)and could use attention so they do not provide habitat and food for pests.
• The kitchen needs a weekly scheduled deep cleaning (with deck brush, dry steam)to remove
residues that accumulate in grout on tiles, and in tight places such as legs of appliances and
baseboards. Over time, these areas escape daily cleaning and can provide food for pests.
Using a hose to clean the floor can drive food and other debris into cracks and holes.
• Suggestion: Develop a scrub down procedure for kitchens in the County.
• Other general recommendations:
o Fill holes around pipes and wires going into walls (allows access to walls for rodents
and rodents use pipes and wires in walls as highways to get around the building)
BIRC Final Report
70
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 71
o Check for and remedy gaps in equipment that would allow access to hiding places for
pests.
o Replace broken tiles
o Clean residues from garbage cans, inside and out, daily; don't leave food inside the
garbage can under the liner.
o Make sure to clean entire garbage can periodically and not to leave water inside the
garbage can under the plastic liner.
o Remove any milk crates in the kitchen or in storage areas, closets. They provide
habitat for cockroaches.
o Do not mix storage of food and utensils with notebooks, papers, satchels and other
items not used for preparing food.
o Make an inventory of every drain in the facility and make a cleaning schedule.
Designate a person to do it and a time.
o Make sure little-used drains have water in their traps
o Mops and brooms should be hung up (not sitting on the floor, in buckets or in cans) in
designated custodial closets
o Check screens and make sure they are intact and tight.
• Whiteboard- seal edges to wall to eliminate cockroach habitat
• Excellent: cans for recycling have been rinsed
• Under conveyor belt-seal wall where pipe goes in
• Fix stainless steel facing above conveyor belt- it is coming away from wall
• Sink in wash area- clean around legs, clean up under"In Sink Erator"- lots of goo up there
• Drain near washing area- needs cleaning- flies can breed in residues in drains
• Tile grout missing near back end of the dishwasher by legs-garbage gets in the cracks= flies
and roaches
• Ice machine drain- need to clean
• Walk-in by ice machine: to right and left of door near floor there are cracks in molding in wall
• Orkin should move the fly machine so it is not over potential food prep areas
• Cardboard boxes in storage room: if items need to be stored in boxes, transfer products to
plastic bins, otherwise store on open shelves. Cardboard boxes provide excellent roach
habitat.
• In storage room: remove empty cardboard boxes immediately to an area away from the
kitchen.
• Food items stored on the floor should be off the floor and away from the wall.
• All fly fans should be tilted out a bit and should turn off when the door is shut.
Custodian Closet near Kitchen:
• Door doesn't shut
• Fly trap sticky sheet is full- looks like flies coming to light
• Get rid of milk crates in storage area- collect debris, habitat for cockroaches
• Seal grease trap if not in use anymore
• Mops and brooms should be hung on wall, not left in garbage can
Storage Bin for Cardboard Boxes
• Check for food debris; flies seem to be attracted to the area
Receiving Clerk Store Room
• Gap under door
Store Room Upstairs
• Two doors that go to the outside need sweeps (substantial gaps under doors)
• Hang up mops
• Make sure cables/wires going to outside are sealed
Store Room 52-E
BIRC Final Report
71
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 72
• Perhaps this room could be used as a holding area for boxes rather than the hall?
• Dispose of items in the room that are not working
Carpenter Shop- Environmental Services
• Windows are without screens.
• Carpenter Shop— 1s` part of December they put out mouse traps-caught 59 mice in 30 days.
Just before the invasion, the hill burned probably removing habitat and food sources.
• Doors are not left open, but the outside doors need sweeps.
• If mouse droppings are found in the building, they should be cleaned up with HEPA filter
vacuum. They should not be left on the floor.
Janitor Closets in General
• Make sure mop heads come off at night and go to laundry
Break Rooms in General
• Environmental Services cleans the breakrooms; however, periodic, general cleaning is
needed in break rooms to remove accumulated clutter, old food, etc. Should be a designated
person who is responsible and every break room should have a schedule.
• Cabinets and other fixtures should be checked periodically for repairs needed.
• Lockers that we saw were caulked to wall-good!
• Staff told us that once a month all lockers are cleaned out. This is an excellent practice and
should be encouraged.At times they have suspected they have a dead rodent somewhere in
the room and it has turned out to be old food in a locker.
• Suggest that Orkin install sticky monitors in all break rooms.
Offices in General
• It would be preferable to not store materials on the floor.
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Loading Dock
• Door needs a door sweep and need to fix floor under door so sweep will work
• Add plastic strip curtain over loading dock entrance
• Dock needs cleaning weekly
• Wooden board along wall: need to seal to floor. This is habitat for crickets and cockroaches
• Outside garbage cans should be cleaned periodically (monthly, could be weekly). May want
to designate a wash area.
• Pipes and wires that go through walls- seal
• Eave screens- need to be fixed
• Elevator inside loading dock- needs to be cleaned
Loading Dock Drain
• Water here can produce mosquitoes, moth flies, drain flies
• Walls and grate: need to regularly clean
• Roof drains flowing onto driveway of loading dock: need to put screens over these so rodents
can't get in
• Stucco coming off of corner wall near loading dock doors
Biohazard Area
• Biohazard waste is picked up 2 times per week and personnel say it's frequent enough, no
overflow
• Personnel would like to have a washing room for garbage cans.
• Need to clean under biohazard dumpster every time it's removed
BIRC Final Report
72
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 73
Outside green plastic locked garbage cans
• Make sure to clean bottom when garbage is emptied
Landscaping
• Landscaping next to bottom floor offices may be contributing to ant problems. Is this area
watered a lot? Is the vegetation the kind that needs a good deal of water? Keeping the area
next to building too moist is a haven for ants, especially during Contra Costa's hot, dry
summers.
• Trim back trees away from building. No limbs/leaves should be touching the building. These
are avenues for ants and other pests to reach the building.
• Remove ivy, as much as possible. Ivy is excellent habitat for rodents. Some buildings have
solved their rodent problems by merely removing ivy from around the building.
• Inventory outside drains and catch basins for mosquito larvae.
Miscellaneous
• Review all doors for tight closure. Prioritize and begin installing door sweeps.
• Pest sighting log book in Environmental Services
o This is a good idea.
o Consult with Orkin on the best way to implement the use of the logbook.
• Suggestion: Develop County protocols for each major pest. When people call with a problem,
the protocol can be faxed or emailed to the person or department with the problem explaining
what steps County personnel should take first while the Orkin tech is on his way to check the
complaint.
BIRC Final Report
73
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 74
Structural Site Assessment
(2)West Co. Detention Center
5555 Giant Highway
Richmond, CA
Inspected on 5/15/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider,Antioch, CA
Background
This facility is a complex of buildings. There is an admin building with offices, an industrial
kitchen, a staff cafeteria, and 2-storey dormitories.
Discussion with County Personnel at Site
• Work orders are generated when there is a pest problem
• Work orders are not always generated when there is a problem. Sometimes Deborah Knodell
just calls Orkin or Central Control calls Orkin
• Work orders go to Deborah and she sorts them and gives those dealing with pests to Jerry.
• Jerry shows work order to Orkin Tech or tells him verbally
• People in the facility call Deborah or Central Control or Jerry depending on what is happening
in the facility.
• Discussed idea of a log book with Jerry and Tony(Orkin Tech) and using the people in the
faculty as monitors.
• Talked with Deborah about keeping MSDS and labels
• Talked with Tony about having IPM plans for each major pest
• Orkin was using Tin Cats (mouse traps)and sticky monitors in the cafeteria kitchen but they
were getting in the way so Tony made an agreement with cafeteria to not use them.
Suggested to Tony that he write that down for facility, and that he try to look for a place out of
the way to put monitors.
• Orkin is mostly using Niban (boric acid ant bait), mint oil, and mouse bait at the Detention
Center
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cafeteria
• Kitchen is very clean
• Next to entry door to kitchen-caulking done in past-needs to be renewed
• Holes around pipes going into wall-need to fill
• Check gaps around door frames-caulking has shrunk
• Check metal corners on walls-seal before they get worse.
• General deterioration of ceiling is happening-holes, ceiling tiles are buckling. Need to address
before it gets worse.
• Janitor closet-mops and brooms should be hanging up, not on floor or in buckets
• Remove any milk crates; can provide habitat for cockroaches
• Garbage and plastic bags mixed with boots on a cleaning trolley
• Legs of"Heavy Duty Safety Switch" near dishwashing sink table-debris and goo under base
plates (food for drain and other flies); a periodic deep cleaning with steam cleaner will prevent
this kind of accumulation.
• Drain cleaning should be on a regular schedule-1 time per month open and clean. Otherwise
sludge builds up providing food for flies
• Dishwashing sink table-foam rubber collars on 2 pipes going into floor. These could provide
good cockroach habitat.
• Small alcove with dishwashing table-large hole under sink, cement"base board" is cracked at
outside corner
BIRC Final Report
74
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 75
Inmate Break Room in cafeteria
• Baseboards cracking
• Break room table-gaps that should be filled
• Bathrooms-break in tiling under sink at floor
• Seal pipe drain under sink
• Crack around toilet-seal
• Sink-seal around edges
Storeroom in cafeteria
• Any packages in a storeroom should be away from walls to allow for easy inspection for
rodents and other pests, and for placement of sticky traps for monitoring
• Pallets should definitely be away from walls
• Could paint a white band around the edge of the room a foot to 18"wide and not put anything
on the white band. This makes it easy to inspect and to see any rodent evidence on the white
surface.
Laundry
• Behind the washers-there is a hole in wall and the drain needs cleaning
• Stored items should be off the Floor
• Inmates should not be allowed to eat in the laundry
• Room behind dryer-remove cardboard box marked "Victor" (old pest control device) that is on
floor
A168 & A166
• Doors to maintenance shop A168-needs sweep to prevent rodents and insects entering
• Door to A166 needs sweep
Staff Dining (Cafeteria for staff)
• Garbage area and cans are clean-good
• Behind milk refrigerator-plastic board at waist height needs to be sealed at edges, and there
is a hole in it
• Garbage can by door-need to clean hinges
• Popcorn/microwave station-looks good
• Fix window screens-some are torn
• Drains-should be on regular cleaning schedule
• Deep cleaning periodically in corners under soda machine
• Under soda machine-condensation on hose directly over an electrical outlet
Stockroom in staff dining
• On floor to right of sink-fix broken base board edge
• Under refrigerator found Tin Cat dated 3/28 along with garbage, debris, and sticky traps
• Caulk around towel dispenser and soap dispenser
Boiler Room-Door A116
• Drains need to be on a regular cleaning schedule
• Screening around outside door-needs to be a smaller mesh
Inmate Grounds Storage Room
• Pesticides and unlabeled chemicals on shelves
Door to hallway (access to perimeter drive adjacent to central control)
• Adjust automatic door sweep or replace
Small Exercise Room
• Cans of insecticide under sink
BIRC Final Report
75
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 76
• Make sure there is no liquid in bottom of garbage can beneath plastic
• Men's Locker Room: window screens missing and screen cover for handle on one is missing
• Shower room T138-make sure that drain traps are filled with water; put drains on regular
cleaning schedule
• SE door on 2"d floor across from locker room needs sweep
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Main Doors & Portico
• Fix main doors so they close automatically. Orkin says those doors are often open.
• Portico (covered walkway)outside main entrance-watch for birds resting on rafters
Outside of Staff Dining
• Move planter boxes farther from walls and clean behind them periodically
• Garbage cans across from staff dining-water staying in bottom under plastic providing
mosquito habitat and source of odors
• Roll up door to main building across from Staff Dining-big gaps in corners where rodents
could enter
Maintenance Shop
• Small gap in outside doors-could fix with hammer(on other side from loading dock doors)
Rodent Bait Stations Located Outdoors
• Nail to a concrete tile to comply with law
General
• Make sure to periodically clean behind dumpster at loading dock
• Put all drains on a regular cleaning schedule
• Make sure drain traps are always filled with water (don't let them dry out)
• Schedule periodic deep cleaning of food prep areas
• Do not store eating utensils in same area with chemicals
• Make sure there is no liquid in the bottom of garbage cans beneath the plastic liner
• Continue to periodically clean garbage cans (garbage cans at this site were quite clean)
• When people open windows, be sure to replace screens over handles.
• Behind Building 1 (exterior wall of laundry)dry berm needs to be cleared of black berries-they
provide food and habitat for rodents
• Place a sticky monitor under every water source inside.
BIRC Final Report
76
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 77
Structural Site Assessment
(3)Lake School (Community Services Headstart)
270011 th Street
Richmond, CA
Inspected on 5/15/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider,Antioch, CA
Background
• This is an old, modular facility, overcrowded with children.
• There is a need for education about sanitation.
• They have a kitchen where food is prepared, and classrooms.
• The building has a serious, intractable infestation of mice.
• Large numbers of traps are in use, and mice droppings have been found in light fixtures.
• There is a field on one side, construction another side, and houses on the other.
• Sanitation is not good in the neighborhood.
• The County has had trouble getting the janitorial company to come and clean thoroughly.
Discussion with County Personnel at Site
• Would like to have better communication with Orkin. Orkin does not communicate directly
with this Headstart.
• For any special problems, they put in a work request to County and County calls Orkin.
• Between 9 and 10 pm pick up garbage from building
• During all of 2006 teachers were catching 5-6 mice per week
• Used an herbal sachet called "FreshCab". As soon as they put them out, they say they didn't
have any more problems with the mice.
• No roaches, occasionally get ants
o Ants usually come into classrooms (looking for water, they think)
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Utility Closet floor needs cleaning
o Wet mops, high humidity, soiled floor, smelly—probably from sour mops
o Suggest putting wet mops outside to dry
• Bathrooms--seal around pipes and other holes going into wall under sink and toilet
• Kitchen—numerous items are stored on floor, against walls—impossible to see if there are
mouse droppings—desperately need storage space off the floor and away from walls
• Kitchen—old evidence of cockroaches—droppings on cabinet edges inside doors
• Kitchen—poor storage practices—cleaning products stored in same cupboards with food and
dishes
• Entire facility—large amounts of clutter here are conducive to mice and cockroach
infestations; throw away things not being used or that are broken
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Issues
• Remove ivy from around building—provides good rat habitat. Found mounds of dirt with rat(?)
holes
• Remove weeds, garbage and debris under ramp at door in back.
• Found gopher/ground squirrel(?) holes in weedy area in back. Seeds from grass are good
food for mice. Perhaps change this area to wood chips?
Gaps/Holes
• Gaps around building that are filled with foam need to be filled with steel wool, concrete
(something more permanent)
• Gap between building wall and asphalt needs to be filled—good place for rodents to enter
BIRC Final Report
77
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 78
• On outside walls, there are gaps between roof and metal "studs"that should be filled. There
are also holes in the metal studs.
• Found holes in an outside door that may go into the space for the water heater.
Garbage/Sanitation
• Clutter around door in back
• Garbage can outside is dirty and smelly—is attractive to flies, rodents. Remove water in
bottom of can under plastic (source of smell and mosquito habitat)
• Dumpster lid must be kept closed to prevent rodent access. Remove plastic buckets with
cement that are holding open the dumpster lid.
Miscellaneous
• Bird droppings on loudspeaker to left of front door. Loudspeaker provides a bird perch and
could be removed if not used.
• Rat bait stations around the outside need to be removed—not Orkin's
• Tires in play yard need holes to prevent them from holding water and providing mosquito
habitat
BIRC Final Report
78
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 79
Structural Site Assessment
(4)County Admin. Office Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA
Inspected on 5/17/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider, Antioch, CA
Background
• This building houses various County departments and was chosen because it is large, and
has a lot of pest complaints.
• It is a 90,000 square foot building.
• The main part has 12 stories and a connected part has 5 stories.
• There are mice, especially on the 91h and 10`h floors.
Discussion with County Personnel at Site
• In County Counsel's office they say they haven't had any pest problems since they mice were
taken care of
• Building inspectors on 4`h floor, Main Wing, say there have been no ants or mice for at least 6
months—in September and October there were lots of calls about pest, but no longer
• On 4`h floor, Main Wing, pick up garbage 1 time per day at 10 am-noon. It goes to basement
(there were budget cuts and janitorial service in this building was cut; then came mice)
• On 4`h floor, North Wing, did a big push when they were having mouse problems.Were
careful with food and garbage and Roland's stationary engineers emptied traps and reset
them each morning for a number of weeks.
• Community Development on 4`h floor, North Wing, had roaches but Orkin solved that-was a
temporary employee who brought them in.
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Main Wing of Admin Building
12`h Floor
• Human Resources storage room
o Stored items should not be on floor- need shelves and need to be away form wall
o Found carpet beetles on windowsill—not clear why they might be there
• Telephone/Electrical room
o Clean
• County Counsel's office
o Not much storage room so a lot of stuff is on floor-very difficult to inspect
• Break room on 12th Floor- lots of plastic bags under sink, otherwise in good shape
4th Floor- Building Inspectors
• Break room- pretty clean; not too bad
o Garbage can for can recycling garbage can looks completely full-make sure to empty
frequently and rinse and drain cans before placing in garbage can
• Custodial Closet
o Big hole in wall
o Another by sink
o Make sure drains have water in them
Front Entrance
• Doors need sweeps, but that may be impossible to do because of the nature of the doors.
Suggest putting Tin Cats (mouse traps) on either side of doors. If traps need to be hidden,
put behind a planter or something similar.
BIRC Final Report
79
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 80
Basement
• Custodial Closet
o Storage should be off of floor
o Make sure to clean drains periodically
• Men's Bathroom
o Seal holes through wall under sinks
o Seal gaps between toilets and wall
• Elevator shaft
o Needs to be inspected and cleaned on regular basis
• Vinyl wallpaper coming off wall in hall
• Copy room
o By service elevator (used, but not a lot): found oriental roaches in sticky trap
o Fill gaps in corners of walls
o Need more sticky traps in this area to monitor for roaches
North Wing of Administration Building
4th Floor-Community Development
• Baseboard in lobby coming off and also in conference room
• Storage on floor in offices; makes it very difficult to inspect for pests
• Break room- pretty clean; some debris on floor near water cooler and refrigerator
General
• Recommend advising staff to use plastic or metal containers for food in desks, or keep in
break room refrigerator, or don't bring to work
• Mouse problem: contributing factors were probably the garbage handling, a harsh winter,
perhaps someone bringing them from home?
o Need to know which room and who is reporting the mice and when they are reported
so you can trap in the right places
• Work on tightening up building to prevent insect and rodent access from outside.
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Check gaps under doors to outside and add sweeps (for roaches as well as mice)
• Rodent bait stations need to be attached to something; can be nailed to a cement tile
• Fix gaps between concrete and building walls to prevent rodent and insect entry
• Sump pump near cooling tower- need to check periodically for mosquito larvae
• Fill hole in drain line from cooling tower
BIRC Final Report
80
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 81
Structural Site Assessment
(5)Finance Building
625 Court Street
Martinez, CA
Inspected on 5/17/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider,Antioch, CA
Background
• Built in 1907
• Houses the County Auditor, Treasurer, and Tax Collector
• It was chosen because older buildings would be expected to have maintenance problems
that contribute to pest problems.
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Basement Floor
Front door
• Needs sweep to prevent entry of cockroaches, mice
Mailroom
• Base board, near entry door, coming away from wall
• Check for excess water in potted plant saucers; overwatering will encourage fungus gnats in
soil
Alternate Dispute Resolution Offices
• Orkin sticky trap from 1/8/07 filled with Oriental roaches near entry to door; needs to be
replaced; suggest Orkin mark dates inspected on sticky traps
Break Area
• Paper bags should not be stored behind water cooler; excellent roach habitat
• Under sink- cluttered, lots of plastic bags
o Found can of Raid (active ingredient: Methoprene)
o Orkin sticky trap dated 1/8/07, still sticky
• Milk crates under the refrigerator- warm habitat for roaches
• Found some drain flies stuck to sticky card in Tin Cat(mouse trap); may be or have been an
infestation in a dirty drain
• Vent to left of refrigerator-no screen or screen mesh is too big-couldn't tell
• Recycling should be in plastic bin, not cardboard (corrugations are excellent roach habitat)
Elevator
• Bottom of shaft is not too bad-could be cleaner
Filter storage room
• Was flooded at some point and dried toilet paper is covering floor; provides cellulose for
roaches; should be cleaned up
• Drain is dry
• Oriental cockroaches seen as well as lots of droppings
• Miscellaneous stored items should be removed if not in use
• Need traps and bait for roaches here
BIRC Final Report
81
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 82
Boiler room
• Drain may be dry
• Should be screens around ducts
• Need traps and bait for roaches here
Telecom Room
• Lots of debris in corner
• Lots of wires and pipes for rodents to use as highways
• Should concentrate on sealing outside of building to keep pests out
Hallway B-011
• Holes in wall behind main switch gear
Storage Room
• Lots of empty boxes on floor
• Data Floor-can't monitor under there but can't do much about that; it looks like they are
keeping the floor clean
Break room (Used for breaks but maybe not lunch)
• Under sink
o Nothing in sticky trap
o Smell of moldy wood
o Newspapers and other minor clutter under sink
o Old Orkin sticky trap from 10/06
• Seal cracks and gaps around sink and counter-good cockroach habitat
• Wall deteriorating, need to fix cracks
• Very dirty behind vending machines; found an Oriental roach in sticky trap
• Small hole in wall next to pipes above vending machine
Custodial Closet
• Items stored on floor-should be stored off the floor
• Broom should be hanging, not left on floor
Near Custodial Closet
• Side double doors to outside need sweeps
Custodial Storage
• Mops and brooms should be hanging
• Don't store items on floor
Women's Bathroom
• Cracked couch with stuffing showing; this is a bedbug hazard; dispose of couch
• Foam covers over sink drains could provide cockroach habitat
• Seal behind toilets
• Drain needs cleaning
Men's Bathroom
• Mop room:
o Drains with no cover
o Cockroach eggs cases under yellow boiler
o Walls deteriorating
o Need to screen holes in walls or plug them
o Need to place sticky traps in this room
o Maybe install a good door sweep to seal off the mop room
• In toilet stall:
BIRC Final Report
82
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 83
o Large hole behind toilet into wall
o Need to fix hole in ceiling
First Floor
Auditor's Office
• Looks good
• Some dirt and debris on ledges and windowsills
Break Room in 15` Floor Auditor's Office
• Looks good
Tax Collector's Office
• Windows don't have screens
• Staff there says they don't have any pest problems-maybe a fly now and then
Break Area in Tax Collector's Office
• Under sink-remove anything not using now-shouldn't store utensils and pesticides in same
place
• Garbage is emptied very early in morning everyday—ideally it should be emptied in the
evening so there is no food waste in open receptacles overnight for rodents and insects to
feed on. If this is not possible, food garbage should be collected in one or two garbage cans
with liners and the liners tied closed at the end of the day. See below for policy instituted by
employees in Room 203.
Break Room with Refrigerator in Tax Collector's Office
• Many plants; monitor for fungus gnat problems
• Make sure to keep garbage cans clean under plastic liner
Second Floor
Auditor's Room 203
• Break room looks pretty good
• Windows have no screens
• "'Employees have instituted an excellent policy of putting all food garbage into the break
room garbage cans and not their individual office trash cans
General
• Make sure to clean garbage cans under plastic liners. Debris can easily build up and provide
food for various pests. Do not leave water in garbage cans under liner. Can be a source of
small flies and odors.
• Put drains on a regular cleaning schedule
• Make sure drain traps have water in them
• Baseboards (rubber)-some coming away form wall; corners are broken
• Remove rodent and insect evidence (bodies and droppings); these can be food for other
insects and rodents
• Fix holes in walls to prevent rodent entry into wall and access to rest of building
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Vents need finer mesh screen and any large holes around them sealed
• May want to install a bait station with Niban (boric acid) bait for Oriental cockroaches
• Windows need replacing-frames badly deteriorated
• Irrigation Control Box- maybe install a bait station for roaches
• Recommend attaching rodent station to cement tiles
• Someone is feeding birds on a windowsill; this is very attractive to rodents
BIRC Final Report
83
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 84
• Perhaps Oriental cockroaches are living under telephone manhole in sidewalk
• Evidence of pigeons on various pipes
• Deterioration on outside wooden door across from jail, also needs kick plate
• Left of main entrance
o There maybe excess water collecting next to building from damaged basin up near
roof that is connected to downspout
o Large hole into building where pipe goes into wall
o Vent with opening to interior-make sure to keep screened
• Seal cracks in sidewalk
General
• Trees should be away from buildings-no branches touching
BIRC Final Report
84
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 85
Structural Site Assessment
(6)Employment and Human Services
1650 Cavallo Street
Antioch, CA
Inspected on 5/24/07
Inspector: Luis Agurto, Sr., Pestec IPM Provider,Antioch, CA
Note: We would like to commend this site for exemplary cleanliness and attention to pest
conducive conditions. Leah Miller, Building Maintenance Coordinator, is doing a superior
job.
Background
• This is an older building that formerly housed the Contra Costa Times. It was remodeled
recently for EHS occupation.
• During the renovation, temporary trailers were to store boxes that became infested with mice.
• Mice multiplied and infested the building as well.
• The building was generating almost daily calls for pest management services.
Discussion with County Personnel at Site
• In 2006 (April, most likely)trailers were moved onto the site to be used for storage.
• Mice appeared shortly thereafter in building.
• They found mice in the trailers, so they sealed the trailers.
• Employees were told not to bring food to desks or if they do then has to be in plastic.
• Orkin hasn't reported any mice caught recently.
• Custodians haven't reported any dead mice.
• Months since anyone reported sighting a mouse
• Luis recommend monitoring blocks (non-toxic food blocks)to monitor for mice
• Custodian has been working at this site for 6 months
• Custodian keeps a tight seal on plastic liner in the garbage cans so nothing gets under the
plastic
• Custodian wipes down window sills two times a week
• This is a "paperless"department, so once paper documents are scanned, they recycle the
paper
• They have electronic case files so don't need to store paper
• Leah Miller, Bldg. Maint. Coord., periodically walks around to see if people are doing things
that might invite pests and reminds them about it
• Leah works closely with the custodian and helps him with whatever he needs
INTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Break room
• Behind water cooler-clean
• Recycling can clean, looks like they've rinsed cans
• Garbage can also clean
• Found a cockroach bait station that was very old; Orkin should collect old bait stations
• Tin Cats (mouse traps) not checked since December-sticky cards inside are still sticky
• Found a Trapper Tunnel with 1 earwig-hasn't been checked since October?
• Recommend Orkin mark monitors with date inspected.
Custodian Closet
• Closet clean and tidy
BIRC Final Report
85
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 86
Fire Alarm Control room
• Electrical conduit in floor should be sealed
Elevator shaft
• Clean
Boiler room-2nd floor
• Great door sweep! The automatic kind
• Room pretty clean
• Small box on floor
Access to roof
• Doesn't seal
• Boxes stored on roof-they are air filters stored as evidence that filters have been changed-
would be better if they could be stored in building
Bathrooms
• Make sure drain traps always have water in them
2nd Floor break rooms
• Drawers need cleaning otherwise clean
• Make sure to rinse and drain recycling or remove everyday; fruit flies can develop in the food
residues
• Garbage can clean
• There are plastic guards on edges of plastered walls-good
Front Entry
• Both sets of doors need sweeps
• The sticky traps in the area between the 2 sets of doors show evidence that there is a
problem with insects entering the building through the outer doors that have no sweeps
EXTERIOR INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• No major problems outside
• Left of Front Entrance
o Hole in concrete pad at edge of building where large pipe goes through-could be
access for rodents
o Irrigation pipe at corner of building appears to have a leak-ground is wet
• Found a crack between building and concrete walkway/pad (it is separating from building)-
good place for oriental roaches to hide and water to get under
• Trees are trimmed well away from building-good!
• Feral cats next door?
• West side door, employee entrance, needs door sweep
• Rodent bait stations are not attached to substrate; can nail to a concrete tile
• Dumpster should remain closed; otherwise, it was pretty clean
• Could use drip irrigation around trees in parking lot that don't have plants around them to
prevent weeds from growing
• Could use drip on landscaping and adjust more carefully; some places are quite wet
• North Employee-Only Entrance
o Outside door jam is short at bottom leaving a gap
o Door sweep is too high leaving a gap
• Outside garbage can next to main entry-make sure metal can is cleaned as often as
necessary
BIRC Final Report
86
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 87
Appendix C
List of BIRC's Tasks for Contra Costa County
Task 1: Review IPM Policy and Pest Management Contracts and Make
Recommendations for Improvement.
A. Visit 6 County structures to assess current pest problems and current
management practices by occupants, County staff, and pest management
contractors. The County will help BIRC decide which structures to assess and
will facilitate the arrangements for the visits including gathering documents
necessary to the assessment and providing them to BIRC (in an electronic
form, if necessary).
B. Visit 3 landscape sites to assess current pest problems and current
management practices by County staff, and pest management contractors.
The County will help BIRC decide which sites to assess and will facilitate the
arrangements for the visits including gathering documents necessary to the
assessment and providing them to BIRC (in an electronic form, if necessary).
C. Interview 6 key people in the County who are familiar with the IPM policy,
current pest management hiring and procedures, and public concerns with
pest management. The County will help BIRC decide which people to
interview and will provide BIRC authorization to do so.
D. Review 4 pest management contracts for consistency with IPM principles
and County policy. The County will help BIRC to decide which contracts
should be reviewed and will provide BIRC with copies of the contracts in
electronic form. If electronic copies of the contracts are not available, the
County will provide 4 photocopies of each of the 4 contracts.
E. Provide written recommendations for possible improvements and changes
in County policies, procedures and contracts.
Task 2: Assess the Pesticides Used on County Property
A. Compare the pesticides used on County property with those on the San
Francisco Approved List. The County will provide BIRC with a workable
electronic list of pesticide formulations that are used on County property.
BIRC will identify those that are on the San Francisco Approved List.
B. Among the remaining pesticides not on the San Francisco list, BIRC will
screen formulations using the San Francisco toxicological evaluation process
or by using comparison with the Santa Clara approved list up to the limit of
the resources available for this Task. Of the pesticides screened, those of
greatest concern will be identified.
BIRC Final Report
87
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 88
C. Additional toxicological screenings requested by Contra Costa County will
use the San Francisco evaluation process, and will be billed at $250 per
formulation.
Task 3: Provide Recommendations on IPM Education
A. Review County procedures for educating and informing County Staff and
the general public. The County will provide access to County personnel who
are knowledgeable about these subjects.
B. Provide recommendations for educating County employees about the
cooperation needed from County staff to ensure the success of an IPM
program.
C. Provide general recommendations on educating the public about the
County's IPM policy.
Task 4: Identify IPM Educational Materials and Provide Recommendations
on IPM Content for the County Web Site
A. Provide a list of resources for obtaining educational and informational
materials on IPM
B. Provide general recommendations for the form and content of County IPM
web pages. The County will provide access to County personnel who are
knowledgeable about the current County web site.
Task 5: Advise on Methods to Track IPM Data.
A. Review San Francisco and Santa Clara's procedures for tracking IPM data
B. Make recommendations on which, if either, procedure might be useful for
Contra Costa County
Task 6: Advise on Public Input to the County's IPM Program
A. Interview up to 3 local government staff in Marin, Santa Clara, and/or
Contra Costa Counties to gather information about successful inclusion of
public comment.
B. Develop recommendations on incorporating public input into the County
IPM Program
Task 7: Provide Two Status Reports
A. Provide 2 status reports on contractor progress to the IPM work group
and/or a board of supervisors' committee.
Task 8: Provide One Final Report
A. Provide the County with a final report summarizing the information BIRC
gathers and detailing our recommendations for the County's IPM program
BIRC Final Report
88
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 89
BIRC Final Report
89
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 90
Appendix D
IPM Resources
I. Introduction
In California IPM Resources are available through Cooperative Extension, through the
Internet, and from IPM Publications produced by the University of California, the Bio-
Integral Resource Center, and various public agencies.
The University of California has Pest Notes, which are fact sheets on IPM methods for
various pests. These publications are free and online. UC also has a complete series of
IPM publications produced by the Statewide IPM Project (www.ipm.ucdavis.edu). These
can be found at University of California Publications, 800/994-8849;
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu.
The University of Maryland has IPM information at http://www.sustland.umn.edu/The
University of Florida maintains an excellent website on IPM methods:
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu and schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu. The University of Pennsylvania
(paipm.cas.psu.edu), the Unversity of Massachusetts (www.0mass.edu), and Ohio
State University (ipm.osu.edu) all have good online IPM resources.
The Bio-Integral Resource Center has over 150 publications on IPM methods. Some of
these are online at www.birc.org. The complete publication catalog is available online at
www.birc.org. BIRC also has an IPM curriculum and a list of IPM Service Providers
online. Certified IPM professionals are also listed at www.ecowisecertified.org
Public Agencies such as the Marin Stormwater Pollution Prevention Project and Contra
Costa Central Sanitary District have fact sheets for pest management online at
www.ourwaterourworld.org and http://www.centralsan.org/
The federal EPA at www.epa.gov and the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation at
www.cdpr.ca.gov maintain websites which are valuable sources of pesticide
information. The USDA at www.crees.usda.gov/integratedpestmanagement.ctm also
has good information. Other websites are also useful for IPM information. Some of
these are listed below in internet resources:
II. Internet Resources
IPM information on the Internet is overwhelming. There are more than 2 million websites
listed. Some key websites organized by subject matter are listed below:
1. Turf Management
The University of California Davis, Michigan State, and Purdue have good
information on turfgrass management on their websites:
BIRC Final Report
90
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 91
UC Davis - Lawn Care
(http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.turfgrass.html)
UC Davis - Care for Established Lawns
(http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/TOOLS/TURF/MAINTAIN/index.html)
Michigan State - Athletic Field Research (http://www.turf.msu.edu/field.html).
Purdue - Turf Publications (http://www.agry.purdue.edu/turf/publicat.htm),
2. IPM for Weeds
The Nature Conservancy, the federal goverment, Universities, and various
organizations maintain weed information on their websites, which are listed
below:
Nature Conservancy
(http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/alert/archive.html)
IPM for Weeds
http://members.efn.org/–ipmpa/weedster.html
Invasive Species Biology and Management—Invasivespecies.gov
(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/profiles/main.shtml)
Invasivespecies.gov - Species Databases
(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/databases/main.shtml)
Invasivespecies.gov - Manager's Toolkit
(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/toolkit/main.shtml) is also extremely useful. The
Control pages provide links to articles and reports on managing invasive species
Invasivespecies.gov - Resources
(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/other/main.shtml) provides links to agencies and
organizations, educational resources, publications (including newsletters, books,
monographs, scientific journals) and listserves.
California Invasive Plant Council
(http://cal-ipc.org/index.cfm
California Invasive Plant Council - Plant Lists
(http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php)
3. Insects
Insect and Related Pests of Flowers and Foliage Plants
(http://ipm.ncsu.edu/AG136/index.html)
IPM for Insects
BIRC Final Report
91
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 92
http://members.efn.org/—ipmpa/invpests.html
Invasivespecies.gov - Gov. Fact Sheets Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service fact sheets (http://www.invasivespecies.gov/other/govfactsht.shtml)
4. Landscape IPM
Alameda County Stopwaste has a Bay-Friendly Landscape Program. IPM and
sustainable landscaping are key components at:
http://www.stopwaste.org
Reducing Pesticides with Landscape IPM
Since the bulk of the pesticides used on landscapes are herbicides and
fungicides, practices and plantings should be chosen to produce an IPM program
that especially reduces these inputs. Landscape IPM involves monitoring, proper
plant choices and locations, good cultural methods, and application of biological,
physical, mechanical, or least-toxic chemical controls as a last resort. A basic
program is first outlined, then developed in more detail below.
Landscape Design
http://members.efn.org/—ipmpa/D-Mhome.html
Landscape IPM
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/proipm/default.htm
http://www.sustland.umn.edu/
IPM for Diseases
http://members.efn.org/—ipmpa/diseases.html
PlantFacts
(http://hcs.osu.edu/plantfacts/)
This site, maintained by Ohio State University has merged several of its digital
collections "to become an international knowledge bank and multimedia learning
center".
5. Interiorscapes
Interiorscape IPM Manual
(http://ipm.ncsu.edu/InteriorScapes/)
6. Structural and Public Health Pest Management
Ecowise IPM Certification Program
http://www.ecowisecertified.org
DPR School IPM Site
http://www.schoolipm.info/
BIRC Final Report
92
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 93
EXTOXNET (Extension Toxicology Network) Oregon State University:
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet
EPA Public Health Pest List
http://www.epa.gov/
Purdue University Public Health Pests
http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/ext/targets/e-series/househol.htm
University of Florida Public Health Pests
http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/
Pesticide Safety Information Series
(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/psisenglish.htm)
Pesticide Safety Publications
(http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/pesttrain.html).
7. Wildlife Management
The University of Nebraska, the USDA, Oregon State Unversity, the Wildlife
Federation, and the Berryman Institute have good information online for
vertebrate pest management:
Center for Wildlife Damage Management
(http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu/)
National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC)
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/)
NWRC Library On-line Catalog
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/catalog.htm1)
gives you access to a huge collection of books, journals, and reports on wildlife
management around the world. Photocopies of all NWRC-authored reports and
reprints can be ordered directly from the library by emailing nwrcCa),usda.gov.
Most books and other monographic works are available for loan to all USDA
Wildlife Services (WS) personnel. Non-WS personnel can to request loans
through a local library.
NWRC Citation Databases
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/databases.htmI#ocic)
for wildlife management can be accessed through this site.
You can access a list of downloadable fact sheets and other publications from
universities across the country at:
BIRC Final Report
93
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 94
Center for Wildlife Damage Management - University Pubs
(http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu/showPage.shtml?menulD=950628779).
You can also order the University of Nebraska Wildlife Damage and Control
Handbook from the site either as paper copy or CD ROM. Although this
handbook was written for the Mid-west, it covers many of the species of concern
in California and is a valuable basic reference for identification, biology and
management.
IPM Resources on Vertebrate Pests
(http://ippc.orst.edu/dir/pests/vertebrate.htm)
Database of IPM Resources a web site hosted by Oregon State University
Integrated Plant Protection Center. DIR has over 6,500 IPM links, organized by
topic and searchable by keyword. Internet IPM Resources on Vertebrate Pests
lists over 40 sites dealing with vertebrate pest management
(http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/),
The Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management
(http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/
National Wildlife Federation
http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/esa/policy.cfm
EPA Endangered Species Website
http://www.epa.gov/espp/
California Endangered Species
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/es/index.htm
County-By-County Listing
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/es/intmenu.htm
8. Effects of Pesticides
Integrated pest management includes the judicious use of pesticides. To make
rational choices, managers should understand some of the problems for water
quality, air quality, wildlife, and human health. Some of these resources follow:
A. General Pesticide Information
Extoxnet Database
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/ghindex.html
Material Data Safety Sheets
http://www.cdms.net/manuf/manuf.asp
BIRC Final Report
94
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 95
National Pesticide Information Center
http://npic.orst.edu/Iinks.htm
PAN Toxicology Database
http://www.pesticideinfo.org
USEPA Reregistration Fact Sheets
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
B. Protection of Water Quality
Information on water quality can be found at websites maintained by the U.S.
Geological Survey, ,California Water Quality Boards, and various public
agencies. Some of these are listed below:
USGS Nutrients and Pesticides
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/FS-1 16-99/
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters--
Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS Circular 1225. 82 pp. Online:
http://water,usgs.gov/pubs/fsiFS-116-99/
State Water Resources Control Board
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/
SF Regional Water Resources Control Board
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb2/
The Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPP)
maintains a website with a number of fact sheets on water protection. There is a
linkage called "Ask the Expert" where questions involving pest problems and
pesticides are answered by email.
Stormwater Protection
http://www.ourwaterourworld.org
Contra Costa Central Sanitary District has a "Less Toxic Home and Garden"
section dealing with water quality issues.
Contra Costa
Iitt p,/lw w.ceiit:r l , ?,t.erg r
C. Air Quality
Effects on air quality can be found at websites maintained by the EPA and the
CA DPR.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
http://www.cdpr.cagov
D. Human Health
BIRC Final Report
95
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 96
Pesticide effects on human health are summarized at a number of websites
maintained by public agencies and private organizations. Some of these are
summarized below:
Pesticides and Human Health
http://www.psrla.org/pahk.pdf
CDC Body Burdens
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Mount Sinai Study
http://www.ewg.org
Toxicology Abstracts
http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/
Children's Environmental Health
http://www.cehn.org/cehn/resourceguide/rgtoc.html
Beyond Pesticides
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/facts&figures.htm
E. Environment
Effects of pesticides on the wildlife and environment are available at the websites
below:
US EPA ECOTOX Database
http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
Audubon Society
http://www.audubon.org/bird/pesticides/
(9) General IPM Resources
The Association of Natural Biocontrol Producers
(http://www.anbp.org/)
Directory of Least Toxic Pest Control Products
(http://www.birc.org/products.pdf)
CDFA Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services
(http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/
Mosquito Abatement Services
http://www.mvcac.org/agencies.htm
BIRC Final Report
96
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 97
Provides contact information for each County in California.
III. Organizations
A number of organizations maintain information that is useful for practicing IPM
methods. Some of these are listed below:
Association of Applied Insect Ecologists
http://www.aaie.net/
Association of Natural Biocontrol Producers
(http://www.anbp.org/)
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC). P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. 510-524-
2567. www.birc.org; birc@igc.org. More than 150 publications on alternatives to
pesticides. Publishers of the IPM Practitioner and Common Sense Pest Control
Quarterly.
California Department of Health Services, Occupational Health Branch, 1515 Clay
Street, Suite 1901, Oakland, CA 94612; 510-622-4300 or 510-622-4328 for free
publications; www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 1001 1 St, Sacramento, CA 95814;
916/324-4100, www.cdpr.ca.gov
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Pesticide and
Environmental Toxicology Section (PETS), 1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor, Oakland, CA
94612; 510-622-3200; www.oehha.org/pesticides/programs/service5.html
California Poison Control Center, 800-876-4766; www.calpoison.org
CDC Toxic Substances registry http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html
Environmental Groups and Government Resources
Environmental Protection Agency:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/handbook/handbook.htm; 703-305-7666
Excellent booklet for physicians and others- Recognition and Management of Pesticide
Poisonings, 1999.
EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460; 202-260-2902; www.epa.gov/pesticides; Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS);
Extoxnet: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.htm —A joint effort of UC Davis
and Oregon State University that provides excellent pesticide profiles as well as other
toxins.
BIRC Final Report
97
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 98
Handbook of Pediatric Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.aap.org/pubserve/
National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN), Pesticide Hot Line, 800-858-
7378, 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily except holidays;
nptn@ace.orst.edu;ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC): http://www.nrdc.org 415-777-0220
Pesticide Action Network: http://www.panna.org/panna and http://www.pesticideinfo.org
415-981-1771. An international coalition of groups working to reduce pesticide use and
provide education on pesticides and alternatives. For specific information on
pesticides, they have a database at www.pesticideinfo.org
National Institute of Environmental Health www.niehs.nih.gov/
Pest Control Operators of California
http://www.pcoc.org/
Pesticide Applicators Professional Organization
http://www.papaseminars.com
Pesticide Education Center: Dr. Marion Moses, 415-391-8511- Author- Designer
Poisons: How to protect your health and home from toxic pesticides. A practical and
easy to read book with great advice on pesticide alternatives! www.pesticides.org
Physicians for Social Responsibility:1) Greater Boston Area Chapter published In
Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development. May, 2000. http://www.igc.org/psr/
617-497-7440. An excellent and easy to read book summarizing the role of synthetic
toxic chemicals on brain development and how prevention can be approached 2)
Greater San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Chapters published Generations at
Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California.
www.igc.apc.org/psr/index.html 310-458-2694
IV. List of Publications
Specific publications that might be useful for integrated pest management are
listed below:
Alameda County Waste Management Authority. 2003. Bay-Friendly Landscape
Guidelines: Sustainable Practices for the Landscape Professional. ACWMA, 777 Davis
St. #100, San Leandro, CA 94577-9873. www.stopwaste.org
Barbash, J.E. and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water: Distributions, Trends,
and Governing Factors. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI. 588 pp.
BIRC Final Report
98
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 99
Benbrook, C.M., E. Groth, J.M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest
Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY. 272 pp.
BIRC. 2006. 2007 Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products. BIRC, PO Box 7414,
Berkeley, CA 94707. 52 pp.
Christians, N. 1998. Fundementals of Turfgrass Management. Ann Arbor Press,
Chelsea, MI. 290 pp.
DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West.
University of California, Oakland, CA. 442 pp.
Dreistadt, S.H. 2004. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest
Management Guide, 2nd ed. University of California ANR Publication 3359.
Drlik, T. and S. Daar. 1996. IPM for Schools--A How-To Manual. BIRC, PO Box 7414,
Berkeley, CA 94707.
Duke, S.O., J.J. Menn and J.R. Plimmer. 1993. Pest Control with Enhanced
Environmental Safety. No. 524 ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C. 357 pp.
Ebeling, W. 1975. Urban Entomology. University of California, Div. Agriculture and
Natural Resources, Oakland, CA. 695 pp.
Flint, M.L. 1998. Natural Enemies Handbook. University of California ANR Publication,
Oakland, CA. 154 pp.
Flint, M.L. 1998. Pests of the Garden and Small Farm:A Grower's Guide to Using Less
Pesticides. 2nd ed. University of California ANR Publication 3332.
Flint, M.L. and P. Gouveia. 2001. IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Integrated
Pest Management. University of California ANR Publication 3418.
Green, M.B., H.M. LeBaron and W.K. Moberg. 1990. Managing Resistance to
Agrochemicals. ACS Symposium Series No. 421. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC. 495 pp.
Hanson, B., ed. 2000. Natural Disease Control. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn, NY.
111 pp.
Johnson, W.T. and H.H. Lyon. 1988. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY. 554 pp.
King, S. and S. Daar. 1997. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Manual. BIRC, PO Box
7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. 250 pp.
BIRC Final Report
99
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 100
Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel and M.S. Majewski. 1997. Pesticides in Surface Waters. Ann
Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI. 373 pp.
Leslie, A, ed. 1994. Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 659 pp.
Majewski, M.S. and P.D. Capel. 1997. Pesticides in the Atmosphere: Distributions,
Trends and Governing Factors. Ann Arbor Press.
Mallis, A. 1997. Handbook of Pest Control, 8th ed. Mallis Handbook and Technical
Training Company, Cleveland, OH. 1454 pp.[2004 edition now available]
Marer, P.J. 1991. Residential, Industrial, and Institutional Pest Control. University of
California ANR Publication 3334.
Moses, M. 1995. Designer Poisons: How to Protect Your Health and Home from Toxic
Pesticides. Pesticide Education Center, San Francisco, CA. 412 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1981. Indoor Pollutants. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. 537 pp.
NRC (National Research Council).1993.Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 386 pp.
O'Connor-Marer, P.J. 2001. The Safe and Effective Use of Pesticides. 2nd ed.
University of California ANR Publication 3324.
O'Connor-Marer, P.J. and K.K. Garvey. 2001. Aquatic Pest Control. Pub. No. 3337,
University of Californian, DANR Publications, Oakland, CA. 168 pp.
Olkowski, W., S. Daar and H. Olkowski. 1991. Common Sense Pest Control. Taunton
Press, Newton, CT. 715 pp.
Olkowski, W., S. Daar and H. Olkowski. 1995. Gardener's Guide to Common Sense
Pest Control. Taunton Press, Newton, CT. 303 pp.
Ott, W.R. and J.W. Roberts. 1998. Everyday exposure to toxic pollutants. Scientific
American 248(2):86-91.
Pimentel, D., ed. 1997. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use: Economic and
Environmental Benefits. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 444 pp.
Quarles, W. and S. Daar, eds. 1996. IPM Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. BIRC, PO Box
7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. 52 pp.
BIRC Final Report
100
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 101
Sachs, P.D. and R.T. Luff. 2002. Ecological Golf Course Management. Sleeping
Bear/Ann Arbor, Chelsea, MI. 197 pp.
Sachs, P.D. and R.T. Luff. 2002. Ecological Golf Course Management. Sleeping Bear
Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 197 pp.
Salmon, T.P and R. E. Lickliter. 1984. Wildlife Pest Control Around Gardens and
Homes. University of California ANR Publication 21385.
Solomon, G., O.A. Ogunseitan, and J. Kirsch. 2000. Pesticides and Human Health:A
Resource for Health Care Professionals. Physicians for Social Responsibility;
Californians for Pesticide Reform, San Francisco. 60 pp.
Van Driesche, R.G. and T.S. Bellows, Jr. 1996. Biological Control. Chapman and Hall,
New York. 539 pp.
Watschke, T.L., P.H. Dernoeden and D.J. Shetlar. 1995. Managing Tungrass Pests.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 361 pp.
Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R.
Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West. 9th ed. Western Society of Weed Science. Available
from UC ANR Communication Services as Publication 3350.
Newsletters, Magazines
Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly
HortScience
IPM Practitioner
Journal of Arboriculture
Journal of Economic Entomology
Journal of Environmental Horticulture
Pest Control Magazine
Pest Control Technology
Pesticide Outlook
Weed Science
Weed Technology
BIRC Publications maintains a large list of IPM publications. The publication
catalog can be found at www.birc.org
BIRC Publications for Professionals
Contracting for IPM Services. 50 pp.
Delivering IPM Services. 50 pp.
IPM Implementation Manual for Landscape Gardeners. 80 pp.
IPM Implementation Manual for Nursery Growers. 80 pp.
IPM Policy and Implementation. 16 pp.
Model IPM Contract Specifications. 10 pp.
BIRC Final Report
101
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 102
What is IPM? 8 pp.
Weeds
Corn gluten meal: a least-toxic herbicide. IPM Practitioner 21(5/6):1-7
Herbicide-free lawns. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly 19(1):3-7
Improved hot water weed control system. IPM Practitioner 23(1):1-4
Integrated control of leafy spurge. IPM Practitioner 20(7):1-12
Integrated management of knapweed. IPM Practitioner 24(4):1-12
Integrated management of purple loosestrife. IPM Practitioner 24(10):1-9
Integrated management of tansy ragwort. IPM Practitioner 23(4):1-8
Integrated management of yellow starthistle. IPM Practitioner 21(7):1-10
Integrated weed management of gorse. IPM Practitioner 18(10):1-9
IPM for school lawns. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly 13(4):5-13
Managing roadside vegetation without herbicides. IPM Practitioner 23(7/8):1-10
Managing the blooming algae. IPM Practitioner 18(7):1-11
Managing weeds in broccoli with purslane living mulch. IPM Practitioner 23(10):1-9
Native plants and integrated roadside vegetation management. IPM Practitioner
25(3/4):1-9
Non-toxic weed control. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly 19(1):8-18
Sweeping away broom. IPM Practitioner 26(3/4):1-7.
BIRC Final Report
102
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 103
Appendix E
Website Form and Content - Recommendations
IPM Programs Website/Web section of Contra Costa County Website
Contra Costa County's IPM Program can greatly enhance it efforts in both employee and public
education, outreach, and internal communications through an IPM Program website or web
section of the County website. The County is currently in the early stages of having its overall
County website redesigned. This provides an opportunity for the IPM Program to have an IPM
Program section added to the new County site. We recommend that an IPM communications
expert be hired to coordinate with the IPM program leaders and the designer for the new County
website to ensure that the new design will accommodate the content and flow of information that
should be included and to gather the initial information that is nearly ready to be uploaded onto
the site. The site should very user-friendly, and flexible and expandable for changes and
additions.
Sample IPM Program Website Home Page:
The sample web home page is provided for discussion (See Appendix F, IPM Documents)
Actual look and format will depend on the designer and the decided needs of the site. The
website will be an important tool for disseminating the Information for the County Staff and
Information for the Public as discussed in Appendix A. Additionally, certain internal
communications can be included on the website such as meeting schedules, agendas and
reports, tracking data, training opportunities, upcoming conferences, or new IPM information.
Across the top of the sample page (under the name of the program) provides access to pages for
key players in the County IPM Program. These would have pull down menus as needed for
information aimed at each specific group.
Middle bar offers an opportunity to have fact sheets for key pests easily accessible in English
and, ideally when available, in Spanish.
The lower bar across the top includes basic navigating information and general resources. On
the left side is IPM Program information and other specific information.
Sample pullout menus for the categories on the left hand column could include the following
(some sample language is also included):
County IPM Program
IPM Policy
County IPM Policy
EcoWise Certified Standards for Structural IPM
Bay-Friendly Guidelines for Landscape IPM
Meet Our IPM Coordinator
Photo of Coordinator
Statement from the Coordinator
Coordinator's Bio
Department Program Leaders
(Each of these Departments would have a brief description of their
department and what it is doing in terms of pest management, IPM,
education, training, and pesticide regulation.) Sample language that
might be included is provided to serve only as an example:
BIRC Final Report
103
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 104
Department of Agricultural,Weights and Measures
Contra Costa's Department of Agricultural, Weights and Measures has
regulatory responsibilities in a number of areas including agricultural
production, non-native pests, agricultural imports and exports, and
pesticide use.
Department of Agricultural staff, by virtue of training and continuing
education, are knowledgeable in various areas of Integrated Pest
Management, including pest identification, pest exclusion, and treatment.
We will, upon request,consult with other departments, helping to
evaluate their pest management concerns. For more information,
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/agricuIture/.
General Services
To help educate employees, the General Services Department has
initiated an employee IPM awareness program that will focus on training
and outreach.
General Services Grounds Divisions
Health Services & PEHAB
Public Works
Public Works is working to reduce pesticide use associated with Public
Works activities. Efforts are focused on best management practices
concerning pesticides and increasing opportunities to utilize more
alternative methods to pesticides. For more information, contact the IPM
Program Coordinator at xxx-xxxx.
When Pesticides Are Needed
(This is where an explanation is given as to why pesticides are needed at
times and that when they are used they are tracked. County Pesticide
Tracking Reports and Statistics should be made available.)
Working to Improve
(This is where the County might highlight where the county has made
improvements using IPM to minimized pesticide,and procedures and
programs that are working.)
Pesticide Information
(This would linked to UC IPM's Resources for Pesticide Information and
additional resources re:pesticides and health and environmental impacts)
To Register Pest and Pesticide Concerns
(This where citizens are directed to the appropriate people/departments
depending on their concern, e.g., the IPM Coordinator, the Ag. Dept.
PEHAB. This would also be available on the pull down menu under Specific
Information for:. . the Public on the top bar of the website.)
Sample Page: IPM Program Website County Employee: Preventing Pest Problems . . .
(See Sample #2- This is what a page might look like if you pulled down the menu on County
Employees on the top bar and selected Pest Problems at work (pull down menu options for
BIRC Final Report
104
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 105
County Employees not shown on sample)]Page shows important to keep information focused,
interesting, simple. (See Appendix F. IPM Documents)
Resources for Website Design and Content
Before beginning to plan the website or talking to a web designer it is good to map out what
should be included and look at how other websites handle access to information and how content
is presented. This will help in deciding what works and what doesn't work. An IPM
Communications Consultant can help in gathering, organizing and outlining the content and work
out detailed specifics for the site with the designer to make sure that flow of content makes
sense.
When exploring other websites note that it is important to be clear and structured when there is
large amounts of information. It needs to be easily accessible and the order in which information
is available must make sense in order for the user not get lost and confused. It is also important
for the site to be easy to look at and to provide entertainment(something to help make it
enjoyable or pleasant to be at the site without being too busy). Two examples on the sample
home web page provided is the pest/pesticide cartoon on the right hand side and the IPM Tip.
The area of the cartoon might be made to rotate pictures after a number of minutes to something
else, perhaps artwork on IPM by students in the County or employee's children. The IPM Tip may
change periodically and/or if you click on it might go to a page that covers that tip in more detail
(in this case, it might go to Preventing Pests at Work.
Having a number of ways to access the same information can help with getting people to the
information you want them to have. For example, the same information and links re: health
issues and pesticides could be found as a category under"the Public" on the top bar, Web links,
Additional resources, Why IPM and Pesticide Information. Or, there may be information on
Aphids found by clicking on the OWOW Fact Sheet"Aphids"on the middle bar on the top or by
going to a subcategory under Landscape IPM or Preventing Pests at Home. One might be able
to get to Pesticide Tracking data from the Pest Management Staff or TAC pull down menus or on
the left hand column under When Pesticides are Needed (or this could be alternately called When
Pesticides are Used).
The following resources will provide clues about what formats work and don't work:
A good resource for formats for websites can be found at:
Best of the Web and Digital Government Achievement Awards (2000- 2007)
http://www.centerd ig ita lgov.com/surveys.ph p?tid=2&survey=cdg_bow&loc=2006
A list of other county websites with IPM programs is included to facilitate discussion with
specific sections recommended for inclusion in the County IPM Program website:
County of Santa Barbara's Green Team web section:
http://www.countyofsb.org/GreenTeam/IPMParks.htm
King County's IPM web section:
<http://www.govlink.org/hazwaste/interagency/ipm/index.cfm>
US EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing- IPM Resources
http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/ipm.htm
San Francisco Environment:
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/topics.html?ssi=2&ti=1
Santa Clara County Integrated Pest Management
http://ipm.sccgov.org/portal/site/ipm/
BIRC Final Report
105
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Final Report Contra Costa IPM 106
US EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing- IPM Resources
http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/ipm.htm
Washington State University
http://ipm.wsu.edu/
Appendix F
IPM Documents
Documents for Appendix E
1 . Sample No. 1 , IPM Webpage
2. Sample No. 2, IPM Webpage
Documents for Section IB
1 . Chemical Applied record has summary and individual site
sheets.
2. Pest Control Advisor Recommendation form
3. T/C 80 Labor Distribution/Daily Time Card
4. Grounds Maintenance Building Budgets Quarterly
5. Weekly Maintenance Hours Report by site and crew
6. GSD Work Request
7. Phone maintenance request (message pad)
8. Grounds Work Request form
9. Weekly Equipment Checklist
BIRC Final Report
106
F
OO CDC
inn o ® m a
H K. Q m m c� 2 �' �p 9D m c
m = O m ac X o m O cp m 7 Q O
_ d FD _ m 't7
CA N
y i w m O be= �. L1 y A y m y'
o w ti
m m n cps
-O tp m cn ami t �L tG 8 `
n CD
0' jf(0 O N N 3 R•
NO N �p 2) per` (w
CD <b Ci
M /no a
U O O 0 CD (D S CD D O w o w
lyD{ p F n `C C M �
O 0. O � `< �••i � � � �, T f� -
`C cD O 'O vO w' 7C dq
�T N �? '� ' Q
o () �. O �y O O n N
'o cSo n ,n�-• w' a0i `C CDD fD O ,rn _
CDrD
CD
0 w o .a O• a � w 'P y ` CD
a o cD 0 w w °
'O S D n o w O < cD (D C O Cr rt w r.
CD S0
w D w a w ,� D o w
w o a✓ w p U o
CD CD
wCDD y p w y S n7 w �c y pa, rh
� y D CD W N
a o n
O
o oa cr ,e U
x < CD 0 0 �. o
o o < o o CD
CL
rd
x w o v
CD O
CD
a a A o o- ao o cr w a
w v,
o
CD CD
M
CD 0
os . ....:,.w
0 S
a Vy D C D b C%
T C { < { b A N -
MO
y n O N y O IO ?r � ! II $ a C
3 O
3-m !! F
jo
N
ie. d 3• R -3 YN S
OM c5r C)
cp
l0 � t
C") -1 _0 r (n
O O (D E =z 3 1
CIO t� C. Q = - (on arc = o m O to m �_ � � � - �
OD m 37 O cII y m 'a (a <D (D
to ID
06 °' w c o' (D m � a °= v m _v n
:m 0� � � m L7 O y O O n (D
<p fin m�. oA� CCD m a lII O 't om.. T
4J O 61 N N a. A N a- S'
fD C7 N N O
N CD
CD 3
ILM
AM
CD CD A
CD CD
AD
o ° o w °' 0 o wCD 0 n ° w Z A� m
CD
-
�G w r N CDa
OCD
Cb Cb G. C uA C ^C o N CCD
a C N '�
� C 90 w °� w v, CD n a X o
_ co
_ orCD _
Q -rz C.3- ° e n 0 :7' I= f-D c �c
n eD A p
O z O - y , cD Cl) 'd
O R 0
CD
CU
C - = C/) .0fD
fi Lo cn w n H e
Cn (n qq
0 A7 l
R. n � •T T,7YkI
o 7D o { cm m Q co C7 0 o O m
CID =r CD p� O
CD _ Cv H NO o O coO — :x-
C)
cD lD G1 d O -
. .t =3CD CD a O_ co .t = C° cD h a
CD = C)
CD
(D g CD- Q �_ o CD °_�' m o 0 CD O
C3 N "O cD CD
N -. _
CD p) (D N `C p 0'C1 y
CD w Lv
w CCD =t (D N CD T
LU fIC
co CL Co
CU Co rr '-' ,�-• CQ yC1 d CD CL
O
Cl) CP
con
O N �F
O H N C N d CD CD H
a
�
CL CT O CZ N CA ? C M
N m
Geo
Chemical Applied
From 7/1/2007 To 7/31/2007 Page I of I
Wednesday,August 08, 2007
Chemical Work Auth Date Quantity Unit
Roundup
T009w 07/12/2007 32 oz
T00323 07/16/2007 8 oz,
T00470 07/23/2007 2 oz
T00102 07/23/2007 2 oz.
WJIRON 07/23/2007 4 oz
T00045 07/31/2007 2 oz-
T00041
z.T00041 07/31/2007 4 oz
T00029 07/31/2007 6 oz
T00632 07/31/2007 6 oz,
T00044 07/31/2007 6 oz
72 oz
Date From Date To I Work Auth Item Chemical Quanitd
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00029 2 Roundup 6
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00041 2 Roundup 4
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00044 2 Roundup 6
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00045 2 Roundup 2
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00102 2 Roundup 2
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00323 2 Roundup 8
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00470 2 Roundup 2
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00632 2 Roundup 6
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 T00999 2 Roundup 32
01-Jul-07 31-Jul-07 WJIRON 2 Roundup 4
O L O
N t/1 61 L
d J C
�.. LID i O CD L1 to
+ L O
a�
J C O
Ln
L 1 G C..C7
L � 4-
ci
� � O
r_
T a �
L L
N C)O L C
U C d \
Q r-�)t G V
L \
N
Z U
41
Lal o O _
< . v �w q
-- d L
Uy J::cCD'
i C C o
d
Ca-c o �.J v
Q L J
LL1 ac
D CJ L
G
b
Lo O
LJ O
L
n2 \
J^b a
G o G —r
v N u
o
= c w _
u
LJ
w cu c cu
Q) �1
CJ 7 L
}--• L ++ CC C b
J b ' v
W C o c-� v � ,� w �a
Lt C •^ � L �
J O L O
cu o A N
a
41
G
0
U
Li
N , �
v
T 6J v L
C
u c o
C � V
O �
i O
q � '
CJ
L
QIW
L r
N
o I - y `4- d a rd 4
V ✓ V ?L
O L O .�
4 of d
OCL 7Q�
QI J C
r ro
yL Q
Chi O C7 d N
�( b
0
z U 1 v1 O
ro
H Q
L �
s q o
ro a a r_
41
OI"DJro
a L a1 L(.D
T
✓ DID L
U Cd
K a
L
N
Tm
� r
45
J' T
W r0 M C
~ �d L
Vy pl J3 V
C C T
b Y
d N
L
W a.4J
w
0 i.41 L
►r i� C v
C
4
F 1 p'C N
V)
E �O
O+L+
W
C d ro 0]
-J:;:ro L rho \`R
Q O r < J W
U to D D a
_ C W
41
Ql
LL,C Ql C N
y C N v CI-
1-
L E O
1 f �( N
1-' L Y .O C n J-
10
cG�- Iv o z
O U
L-
41 41LL,
J ro
�¢ aO+ Cul Y L w ro -
_ O d L
N
W v nr• m 0 V) O
LL rC-.al'VO- L w .
� a
n Z
w
c
r
L
T \
U
rl
4
4 �
C) J
U
U
d
r
L
d O
a L
4 ✓
c 0
c u
b ..
U ✓ o >,
aroi ✓ m
L '
-� L
.... �� .o ✓ a H E L
w a a Q
cu w
r-
d N aJ
N V1 al L
dj0'D
1) C
•'-- --j J C
.— .! L
ry L q L a1 O
C7 i OC70.{A
L�.-
�q� L N O o
V ) w a-r-C7
S
yc\'l/`fc c M
= o
6! 0
N o
q
ci
CL
a3
�r
C]b J ro
? N U
u cn O L
U C N
drll d
L
"O N
O
7 V b
24-3 >,
W- N L
C 1. ••
daJ 3 aJ
L. N
Cl-Lu
-FJ
J4.
D:•`QJ L
U.0 d
LE ro in
N o+L+
LU L r
QJ A N
¢ o ¢ a
U v>
c ami o )
_:r v
U c i" +'
a- F- N
LL. a C aJ
.-+ c aJ 4- a
a L E O
W 3 61
U O
2
J� o
�¢ sC' r ►� o w W.ro
a) 4- � O L
r]-0 41 Y �l
V
CL—
C:
r— QI I//��
tL �a w b}- w� € a
4 _
v
C
CL
0
U
v
v b
v
L
y O
CL L
N V
C C
C ] O
O .7 V
ro d
V u -.
q O >1
CL
M L
ON
L \ ,W , Ql N Q ,
u u aJ d a
V- A`�
O L O \
O N N
N V1 O L
ova
.-- C)J C:C
•- :( A L
q•r L L N CT
EM,i 0 C7 d to
b
L O
17-
41 41 a C7
J y
O
�-
N O
41 L
L V--
4! � O
L J \
74-
�a r.
r L L-
uu a O L
U C N
L
b N
T
U
p L Y
ra taJ b41
0. o J
d+�
O
c a
)
CA O�+
W R'L LlO. - O A N
L d 1]
G o� ¢ O
U cn
w c v �
l
�'p ate-+ C d
6) !�-- N J.J
' A L E O v?
�3 N
}--' d*1 A G L b
4!H . (1) O +�
Ov L
`� V
J 4) L L
J A
Q L
ai Y H
J
Lu.10
W
to
cr-,
w
C C
V$ Q J
41 U S
O.
cu
O
V
� V
61
L r0
O �\ 4+
v C
G �
�] N
U O T
N cu
p7
r
Q \ \ L c
w �O ♦ \ d) b
\1 E ca
.1
m v R
w " u
C',
a ¢
M p A N�-
0
Pest Control Recommendation
1 Operator of the Property 2. Recommendation Expiration Date
esti_ co urn - -- - 12- 3 i- ®b
Address City County
Ra costa-
3. Location to ba Treated
shadow Ce,56IC - o=.n I7 W S_5-4_'V-8
4. Commodity to be Treated 5. Ades or Units to be Treated
�hd,s C ajr� ' a 4f
6. Method of Application: 7. Pest(s) to be Controlled A-, JJ
0 Atr Ground E] Fumigation 0 Other 14!�&5se-5 ' fR f ��t✓ES
8. N&of ppcsticide(s) Rate Per Acre or Unit Dilution Rate Volume Per Acre nit
C� ofandu 3-lq 77112 9 J2-2..
z .S-a or
2/bs- 0O 50
3 Ca. 2 16s-/a0 �0
D �z� 0 0Z
9. Hazards ind/or Restrictions: 10. Schedule, Time or Conditions
❑ 1. Highly toxic to bees S`
❑ 2. Toxic to birds, fish and wildlife 11. Surrounding Crop Hazards
❑ 3. Do not apply during irrigation or when run-off A__
is likely to occur /�
❑ a. Do not apply near desirable plants 12. Proximity of occupied welli gs, People, Pets or Livestock
El 5. Du not allow to drift onto humans, animals, ff s:IL4 j
desirable plants or property
❑ 6. Keep out of lakes, streams and ponds
❑ 7. Birds feeding on treated area may be killed 13. Non-Pesticide Pest Control, Warnings and Other Remarks
❑ 8. Do not apply when foliage is wet(dew, rain,etc.)
❑ 9. May cause allergic reaction to some people - -- -
❑I O.This product is corrosive and reacts with
certain materials (seejabel)
❑1 1.Closed system required
❑12.Restricted use pesticide (California and/or Federal) 14.Criteria Used for Determining Need for Pest Control Treatment:
❑ ❑Sweep Net Counts ❑ Leaf or Fruit Counts ❑ Preventive
13.Hazardous arca involved(sec map and warnings)
❑Field Observation ❑Pheromone or Other Trap ❑ Soil Sampling
❑14.0ther (see attachment) ❑History ❑Other
15. Crop and Site Restrictions: N
❑ 1. Worker reentry interval days
❑ 2. Do not use within days of harvesUslaubhter
❑ 3. Posting required ❑Yes❑No days
❑ 4. Do not irrigate for at least days after application
❑ 5. Do not apply more than application(s) per season
❑ 6. Do not Iced treated foliage or straw to livestock ........„. .
137, Plantback restrictions (see 1nbe1)
❑ X. Other (sec attachment)
16. [ certify that alternatives ane!mitigation measures that would
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the W E
environment have been considered and, if feasible, adopted.
Advise' na r Date -
- - - `-=----------1-z-°6---- .................. . ................... . ..................
Adviser Ltccnsc umber
--------------0 b
-----------------------
Employer
-----�oiR�
Employers Address
12-2-0 Mat"'cR Ca . q4L S
PR-ENF-092 (Est. 8/94)
Q � >
oU d
o �
\ cv L
`D
Cl)
O
00 („) OM
0 0
N
CM, a CS qS
v
� � O
O �
9n
H o
DO
i�l ani
> a H cn
Q
alctl
P.
E E E
U �
W �
b �
-
Q ~ A � z u 4
rU � a b
Qd ' CIO A -
05 I
cc c�~d
o �
L6
o
al 4) E z s3
ti Q w W
C N
d �
E 7
N
U > >> >> O > > o >
ol O ol O O U O O z O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h o 0 0 � o o � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
00 N O M CA O N N O MN O O (D CF)
Ti O 00 r` O O O 6 r O O O 06
O O r M LO LO O (D N N Cn (D O M Nr
m r r r r r r
0
F ti �� O --(b-T- N O N oo t- I� M CO O O N N
Ot = 00 r 00 00 1l r M N
O M (V lV
N C O 0 C
O ti
5E cn v
p a OrE Q
Q1 F` ti 4) N r- N ti N N O ODL O O N Iq
O ��. M r r M
C O O _
� m
LLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UL oo o �0 o0 �0 o0 o � 0 0 0 0
Q O O M O O O O O O O O O N
r O O O O O M O O O O O O f-
O O CA O O O O �-
m r r r r r r r r
O
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O o 0 0 0 o o O
J �+ Lf) O M CA O M N O Ln M M O N M
Ch « m Cl? O N M O N CA O N N N O CO N o
(D O OD N O CA (D CA r 6 M O � 6 r
r OD Ln Ln O CD N N CA (D 0 O M Iq
W 0 � r r r r r r 4
U 4) Q c a
Z 0) r (D N r' N M ti r• M (D r N OD
Z r CD M ti r 00 I- M (0 N N
LLJ m 0 V r r M N r
Q
T O LC) L!) N (D (D O O N (D O (D O
O N r r f- N N O M LD O N N
O Co i M
Z ca _
O m
N F- F- !- F- !- F- F- F- F- F-
LU _
C D L1J N _
o U �- _ U) � �- � z N
F- ch U �j O C7
N z LU
N _ Z =O Q N p L U CA LU N N
C~j F-
Cf) N-� LL U 2 m0 Q w U J
J
Q N N0 p LU D w
' z z p p p
3 3: w (o Q
U o LL w
0
r O LC) Ln V- N O O (A N
to LO N N V M O O N O N N N
OD � 00 V O Ln
r N1 Ln (A f� OA O N 14 LA if (D CD
J O O O O O O r T- r r N N N
O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0
12-1-06 L�eJ
Route # 2- Martinez Corridor Lead- Mike Coday-# 5554-nextel #51 l�
# 5552/5642-nextel 131
Monday 40 hrs.
V-400029 1220 Morello Ave. Administration �� 2
r,3"' T00564 2530 Arnold Dr.- Summit Center t 010
I T00376 2471 Waterbird Way- Fueling Station 1
T00634 4849 Imhoff Dr.- Animal Control / 01 _ 15-5
T00038 255 Glacier Dr.- Public Works- mow 5 r 33
T00130 1980 Muir Rd.- Sheriff's Patrol -5-
T00015 40 Muir Rd.- EHS 1 =
i T00034 30 Muir Rd.- EHS 5S
8
T00277 595 Center Ave.- Health Services- mow 5,-8
` T00265 597 Center Ave.- Health Services- mow 6;- 6 3
I WX0557 595 Center Ave.- Movie Theater Cleanup 1 -
T00129 1960 Muir Rd.- Forensic/Morgue 2
T00050 30 Glacier Dr.- Sheriffs Dispatch 3 `Fs
T00048 40 Glacier Dr.- Sheriff's Dispatch
T00934 1801 Muir Rd.- Sheriff's Monument
Tuesday 65 hrs.
T00015 40 Muir Rd.- EHS 9
T00034 30 Muir Rd.- EHS 9
T00044 202 Glacier Dr.- J-Hall 1 /
T00632 202 Glacier Dr.- New J-Hall 6 - L�
T00564 2530 Arnold Dr.- Summit Center 16
T00372 2475 Waterbird Way- Public Works 8 —
T00367 2467 Waterbird Way- Fleet/Facilities 10 - 6-0
T00376 2471 Waterbird Way- Fueling Station 4
T00375 4785 Blum Rd.- M & T Lab 2
Wednesday 71 hrs.
WJ5443 Zone 61- DBW- Silfer Park- mow 30
WJ5068 Zone 61- DBW- Village I & Park & Ride-mow 20
WJ5052 Zone 61- DBW- Village 11 8
WJ5484 Zone 61- DBW- Village III 6
WJ5485 Zone 61- DBW- Vill 'ge lV 6
WJ5449 Zone 35- DBW-San y Cove Medians .5
T00173 Orin Allen- Byron B ys Ranch- check turf 1
Thursday 50 hrs.
T00029 1220 Morello Ave.-Administration 3
T00038 255 Glacier Dr.- Put lic Works 13
T00045 100 Glacier Dr.- Pro ation 9
T00041 220 Glacier Dr.- Gro nds 8 - 4_�
T00036 50 Glacier Dr.- OESA EMS 3
T00277 595 Center Ave.- EIS 1
�..w....... ....- w . w . 6/ A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
y WORK REQUEST
/1
korkrequest#/R1998
ate: 7/17/2007
Department: Y �/►J Accounting use only
Superior Court
Contact Person: Title: Phone: Org#: Activitv:
Sgt Conro)r i 965-4100 4309
Alternate Contact: Title: Phone: _ Task: Option:
Dana Terrill ,' Administrator 965-4050
Location of Work Site(.Address, Room#,City):
100-37th St, Richmond(courtyard) i
Select at least one of the below service types:
C Service/Repair ❑ Estimate E7 Maintenance Emergency (Call-in 313- C Attachments (.After
7052) submission print work request and
send to GSD Administration)
Description of Work Request:(Explain fully)
Prune/top trees in courtyard near handicap parking to allow visibility for
safety and security. Trees are blocking security camera view of Health Center
and District Attorney entrances. Also, prune/top bushes along courthouse wall
near handicap parking lot.
Ccharacters left
Authorized Signature: Date:
Jon Wintermever 7/17/2007
(Must be on file with the General Services Department or request will be returned)
GENERAL SERVICES USE ONLY
171 Capital Projects 31(3-7200) F_Facilities Maintenance 31(3-70.52) F Custodial 64(6-5900)
Surplus/Recycling 64(6-4322) C Grounds 64(64150) C Real Estate 31(3-7250)
Assigned to: WJ, Date: /f z'f Q 7 By:
Completion Notes:
Date In: Completion Date: Completed by:
GSDO02(11/05)
t,++.. ii..�,t.,P+ nn rnntra_rncta PA tlq/gqd wosite/multinrint.asp 7/17/2007
71� -o7 kv�-
Ae
F.�
MOWs
Generel Service
TEAMWORK TO EXCELLENCE
d
WEEKLY EQUIPMENT INSPECTION CHECKLIST
DMSION DATE EQUIP#
ODOMETER OR HOUR METER READING
OK DEFICIENCY CORRECTIVE ACTION
'1. OIL LEVEL
'2. COOLANT LEVEL
3. FUEL LEVEL
'4. LIGHTS& REFLECTORS
'5. BRAKE LIGHTS
'6. PEDAL& HAND BRAKES
'7. STEERING
8. GAUGES
'9. WIPERS&WASHERS
'10. MIRRORS INT&
'11. SEAT BELTS
TOOL BINS&SCREENING
12. SECURE
13. MOUNTED EQUIP.
14. DAMAGE TO EQUIP.
15. EQUIPMENT CLEAN
16. FIRST AID KIT
OPERATOR SUPERVISOR
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Deficiencies on arty gems derated with an asterisk(').nu be corrected before vehicle can be operated.
2 M accident report will be corrtpieted for any observed darrrages and hurtled into Garage.
3. This form wia be kept in Division file ura netd vehicle service at which time loans will be turned into Garage with vehicle.
vehticie.frm 8/98: hdw
a
GROUNDS WORK REQUEST DATE- FROM-
H20 REPAIRS-DAN SUPPLIES
LOCATION&REQUEST
DATE COMPLETED-
GROUNDS W RK REQUEST DATE- , 3 C% FROM-
H2O REPAIRS-D SUPPLIES
LOCATION&REQUE
_2�7 - Gua__� � .S
OL" gck
DATE COMPLETED-