Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06172003 - C.99 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE : i +`. Costa COMMITTEE (SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR) County w, DATE: June 2, 2003 SUBJECT: Report on the Status of Integrated Pest Management IPM Recommendations SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On November 12, 2002,the Board of Supervisors approved a series of recommendations from the Committee related to IPM, including a request that the Interagency Task Force on IPM report to the Committee on the status of these recommendations in one year (See Exhibit A). On June 2, 2003,the Task Force submitted a progress report on their activities (See Exhibit B). The Committee is forwarding that report to your Board. The next progress report from the Task Force is scheduled for the Committee's meeting in November. Exhibit A: November 12, 2002 Board Order, Item SD 6. Exhibit B: May 27, 2003, Report on Status of IPM Recommendations CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): S }a rvisor John Gioia, Chair Su ervisor District 111, Vacant ACTION OF BOARD ON 110.1 IfZs APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN uNN(ABSENTO,'UO S AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE AYES; NOES: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ABSENT; ABSTAIN: DISTRICT III SEAT VACANT SHOWN. 10) ccs Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED Ed Meyer, Agriculture Commissioner JOHN SWEE EN, CLERIC OF Michael Kent, Health Service THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. BY ­ C, &�EPUTY G:\Transportation\TWIG\Board Orders\200lipmreport.doc EXHIBIT A , rte � TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ContraFROM: Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee Costa DATE: November 12, 2002 ..» - SUBJECT: Proposed Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Policy County SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION R COMM NDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT and ADOPT the attached Findings and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy developed by tate Integrated Pest Management Policy Task Force, 2. DEFER a decision to fully implement the IPM policy until the Board of Supervisors completes an assessment of financial priorities for the County. 3. DIRECT the County administrator to work with the Agriculture, Health Services, Public Works, and General Services departments to carry out the intent of the IPM policy within the County's existing administrative structure and financial resources. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the IPM Policy Task Force to estimate the cost to implement the IPM policy and to identify potential funding sources. 5. DIRECT the County Administrator and the Agriculture, Health Services, Public Works, and General Services departments to incorporate the concept of Integrated Pest Management, as described in the IPM policy, into County pest control contracts with the assistance of the IPM Policy Task Force. 6. REQUIRE the Integrated Pest Management Task Force to report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure committee on the status of these directives in one year. BACKGROUND: In March 2001, the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) issued the report, Pesticides in Contra Costa County. Although scientists have not conclusively proven that pesticide use in the County is causing significant harm, the report recommends that action should be taken now to prevent possible exposure to pesticides. This recommendation is based on studies in Contra Costa County that found pesticides in groundwater, in the effluent from wastewater treatment plants going into Sart Francisco Bay, and in drift from agricultural applications. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ,,,_L_ ES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _____OTHER SIGNATURESGro ACTION OF BOARD ON_ 01"B E R 12 s 2 0 0 2 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENTAND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ( ; l AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE MATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN, ABSENT: ABSTAIN: �� ATTESTED JOH SWE TEN,CLERfC OF TH19 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: County Administrator Agriculture,Weights&Measures Director Health SoNceis Director General Services Director Public works Director BY s EpUTY 4 �I- On June 26, 2001 the Board of Supervisors referred the PEHAB report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for recommendations on follow-up actions to consider. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee initiated a review of the report on July 7, 2001. Input was requested from County Departments and Special Districts as well as representatives for other interests. As a result of that input, the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure committee recommendation to the Board of Supervisors was to direct the Agricultural Commissioner and the Health Services Director to jointly establish and chair a Task Force to develop a recommendation on a formal Integrated Pest Management policy. An IPM Policy Task Force was formed and met for the first time in October 2001. This task force has held a total of 7 meetings. Task Force members were invited from a wide range of entities. Some attended all meetings, while others attended just a few. Represented in the Task Force were: CCG'Dept of Agriculture, CCG Health Services, CCC General Services, CCC Public Works, CCC Office of Education, University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa Water District, Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, East Bay Regional Park District,West CCC Wastewater District, CCC Clean Water Program, Town of Danville Maintenance, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Goff Course Superintendents Association, Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, California Landscape Contractors Association, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the California Association of Pest Control Advisors. Other special interest groups were invited to participate but did not choose to do so. The Task Farce initially presented their recommended IPM policy to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on ,lune 24, 2002. After receiving suggestions to improve the structure and functionality of the policy, the Task Force resubmitted the final version to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on October 21, 2002. FISCAL IMPACT: No current fiscal impacts. Future fiscal impacts dependent upon level of implementation and the availability of grant funding. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY To protect public health, county resources and the environment it will be the policy of Contra Costa County to manage pests within county pest management programs in and on county maintained properties and facilities, using Integrated Pest.Management (IPM) principles and techniques. 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. For the purposes of this policy the County adopts the Integrated Pest Management definition provided by the University of California Statewide IPM Project: 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. Peat 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. The goals of this countywide policy are to: I. Minimize risks to the general public, staff"and the environment as a result of pest control activities conducted by County staff'and contractors. 2. Require County departments to create, implement and periodically review written IPM programs specific to their operational needs and consistent with the U.C. definition above and this policy. 3. Promote availability, public awareness and public input into written county pest management programs and records. 4. Help create public awareness and education of IPM techniques. To achieve these goals the County has established the following objectives: I. Require County departments to use IPM programs. 2. Incorporate County IPM policies and practices into county pest control contracts. 3. Require annual reporting of development and implementation of IPM programs. 4. Create or designate a County IPM Coordinator to report to the County Administrator and.Board of Supervisors. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY 5. Create an IPM Advisory Committee to assist Departments in reviewing pest control alternatives and related costs or impacts. 6. Provide annual IPM training and outreach programs to address the needs of County Departments and employees. Require Departments to Use IPM Programs` • The Agriculture, General Services, Health and Public Works Departments who use pest management techniques when providing services will be required to develop a written IPM.Program and designate an IPM Coordinator responsible for implementation. These Departmental IPM Coordinators will be members of the County's IPM Advisory Committee. • Departments who do not use pest management techniques when providing services to the public will designate Facilities Coordinators who will receive periodic training in the County IPM program and IPM concepts. Facilities Coordinators will be responsible for adherence with County IPM policies at their designated sites. Incorporate County IPM Policies and Practices in County Pest Control Contracts • general Services will work with the IPM Advisory Committee to develop Pest Control Contract Specifications that will insure the County's IPM Policy and Practices are adhered to by all licensed pest control contractors performing work on county maintained properties and facilities. Require Annual Reporting of Development and Implementation of IPM Programs. • It is understood that development and implementation of IPM programs will take time. Department IPM Coordinators will prepare annual reports on department pest control activities to the County Administrator. Facilities Coordinators will also annually report any pest control activities that have taken place at their site. The department annual reports will be reviewed by the IPM Advisory Committee. The IPM Advisory Committee shall compile the information into an annual report that will be submitted to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors. Create or Designate a County IPM Coordinator to Report to the Board of Supervisors. • In recognition that development, implementation and oversight of a County IPM Program requires allocation of resources, the position of County IPM Coordinator should be established and funded. The County IPM Coordinator will serve as a resource for Department Heads to insure compliance with the County IPM policy. The County IPM Coordinator is required to also work as part of the IPM Advisory Committee to assist Department Heads in identifying priorities and in acquiring data to properly evaluate pest control needs and appropriate solutions. _ ... 11-X2-041 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY • The County IPM Coordinator will serve as chair of the IPM Advisory Committee. • The County IPM Coordinator will provide two annual updates to the PEHAB and Fish and Wildlife Committees. Create an IPM Advisory Committee to Assist Departments in Reviewing Pest Control Solutions and Related Costs or Impacts. • An IPM Advisory Committee will be created consisting of the County IPM Coordinator, Department IPM Coordinators, a University of California technical and advisory member,one Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board member, a public member from the County Fish& Wildlife Committee and one representative selected to represent both the Pesticide Applicators Professional Association and the Pest Control Operators of California. The Advisory Committee will serve as a resource to help both Department Heads and the Board of Supervisors review and improve existing programs and the-processes of making pest management decisions. • The IPM Advisory Committee may use Technical Advisory Committees to develop information regarding pest control decisions. The IPM Technical Advisory Committee will include a representative from East Bay Regional Park District, Contra Costa Mosquito &Vector Control District, Contra Costa Water District, the University of California Cooperative Extension, Pesticide Applicators Professional Association and/or Pest Control Operators of California and other appropriate representatives with expertise in a specific field. • Information regarding preferred pest control solutions must include data regarding comparative efficacy, cost,environmental impact and hazards to the public and applicator. Information and recommendations must be based on the best science available. • The IPM Advisory Committee would also work with the County IPM Coordinator to develop IPM training programs for County Departments and their employees to assist in compliance with the county's IPM policy. Additional support could also be provided to County Departments who wish to develop public outreach programs to address environmental and public health concerns. Provide Annual IPM Training and Outreach Programs to Address the Needs of County Departments and Employees. • Training programs will be developed under the direction of County IPM Coordinator with the concurrence of the IPM Advisory Committee to ensure that Department Facilities Coordinators understand IPM techniques and County policy. Utilizing resources such as the U.C. Pest Management Guidelines that have been developed by CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY the University of California Statewide IPM Program, training classes on integrated pest management techniques will be developed and made available for County employees. Public outreach programs to address environmental and health concerns will also be developed to compliment existing county programs. Board of Supervisors Technical Advisory Committee: County Administrator May Select Appropriate individuals/Consultants With Expertise in Specific Fields: Mosquito&Vector IPM Advisory Committee: Control County IPM Coordinator and EBRD Dist Advisory Committee Members Water Dist U.C.Extension Agriculture U. C.Technical Department Advisor TPM coordinator One member of Health Department PEHAB IPM,coordinator General Services Department Public Member Facilities from County Fish Department Coordinators &Wildlife IPM coordinator Committee Public Warks Department One representative IPM coordinator selected to represent PAPA& PCOC Date: June 24, 2042 To: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee From: Ed Meyer, Agricultural Commissioner - Director of Weights & Measures Michael bent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman Health Services Department Subject: IPM Task Force Report and Recommendations BACKGROUND In March 2001, the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) issued the report, Pesticides in Centra Costa County. Although scientists have not conclusively proven that pesticide use in the County is causing significant harm, the report recommends that action should be taken now to prevent possible exposure to pesticides. This recommendation is based on studies in Centra Costa County that found pesticides in groundwater, in the effluent from wastewater treatment plants going into San Francisco Bay and in drift from agricultural applications. On June 26, 2041 the Board of Supervisors referred the PEHAB report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for recommendations on follow-up actions to consider. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee initiated a review of the report on July 7, 2001. Input was requested from County Departments and Special Districts as well as representatives for other interests. As a result of that input the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure committee recommendation to the Board of Supervisors was to Direct the Agricultural Commissioner and the Health Services Director to jointly establish and chair a Task Force to develop a recommendation on a formal Integrated Pest Management policy. An IPM Task Force was formed and met for the first time in October 2001. This task force has held a total of 7 meetings. Task Force members were invited from a wide range of entities. Some attended all meeting, others attended just a few. Represented in the Task Force were: CCC Dept of Agriculture, CCC Health Services, CCC General Services, CCC Public Works, CCC Office of Education, University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa Water District, Centra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, East Bay Regional Park District, West CCC Wastewater District, CCC Clean Water Program, Town of Danville Maintenance, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Calf Course Superintendents Association, Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, California Landscape Contractors Association, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the California Association of Pest Control Advisors. Other special interest groups were invited to participate but did not choose to do so. FINDINGS After review of existing county department programs and after reviewing IPM programs that have been formally adopted by other public jurisdictions, the Task Force made the following findings: • In general, County Departments and other public agencies already use many IPM strategies in making pest management decisions. These strategies have different levels of implementation and documentation, and the decision making process is not always visible to the public. • There is a high degree of professionalism exhibited by public agencies when making pest management decisions. The decision making process is complicated by trying to balance the choice of IPM techniques with the ultimate goal of the public agency. Often the activities of the public agency are based on other high priority issues such as addressing fire and flood control responsibilities, protecting public health and safety, or the control eradication of non-native invasive pests that have economic, public health or environmental impacts. All of these goals are complicated even further by fiscal limitations that can threaten the ultimate success of the program. • County Departments would welcome assistance in developing a more formal IPM program and in evaluating pest management alternatives. • County Departments are concerned about creating a program that generates an additional workload to the Departments without funding that workload. • Based on discussions with other entities that have adopted formal IPM policies, success of adopting an IPM policy would require hiring at least one full time person that would be responsible for coordination and implementation of the program. The Task Force feels the county and public would benefit by creating a formal IPM Policy that would provide a process for education, public review and evaluation of County pest management programs. The Task Force developed the attached policy with these goals in mind. To be effective the Task Force recommends that a County IPM Program Administrator be hired to handle IPM education and assist in the review process of Department programs. The logical location for this position would be within the office of the Administrator, Environmental Health, Department of Agriculture, or University of California Cooperative Extension. The IPM Program Administrator will dive a statin report twice annually to PEMAB and the Fish &Wildlife Committee and an annual report to the Board of Supervisors. The Task Force recognizes that development and evaluation of Department IPM programs will take time and suggests that the Board of Supervisors review the policy and the Administrator position for effectiveness after 3 years.