AgdaPkt 2011-09-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.2.A. - Page 2 The primary changes to the 2003 version of the IPM policy were to incorporate more specificity and clarify IPM is not a recommended activity, but a description of the city's commitment to minimize the use of pesticides that threaten water quality. More specificity was incorporated into the updated IPM policy by incorporating ten steps that will be followed to control pests through a process that includes pest prevention, biological and habitat controls, and chemical controls when needed using reduced risk pesticides at the minimum amounts needed to be effective. In addition, the MRP's requirements that are included in the updated version of the IPM policy include the following: 1. Clarify that the pesticides of concern are those that threaten water quality. The MRP contains a list of these pesticides. 2. Commit the city to establishing written standard operating procedures for pesticide use to ensure implementation of the IPM policy and to require employees and pest control contractors to comply with the standard operating procedures. 3. Track the use of pesticides and summarize this information in the annual municipal stormwater report consistent with the MRP's requirements. 4. Review purchasing procedures and service agreements with pest control contractors to determine what changes, if any, may be needed to support the implementation of the IPM policy. In accordance with Item 2, above, the Countywide Program's Parks Maintenance and IPM Workgroup developed written standard operating procedures for pesticide use that can be customized for utilization by each agency. The City is already implementing those procedures. Further, at the suggestion of Water Board staff and similar to other IPM policies adopted in the Bay Area, the IPM policy states that each department that performs pest management activities will identify an IPM coordinator who will be responsible for assisting staff to implement the city's IPM policy. By adopting an updated policy meeting MRP requirements, the City will likely avoid future enforcement actions that could include financial penalties based on Water Board staff's determination that the 2003 version of the IPM policy was inadequate. ALTERNATIVES There is no alternative to adoption of this resolution and the updated IPM policy that would ensure the City is in compliance with the requirements of the MRP. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with adopting and implementing the updated IPM policy are considered to be negligible because the city has an existing IPM policy. The updated policy mainly adds specificity to the existing IPM policy so that the city's hierarchical pest control decision - making process is clear and consistent with the MRP requirements.