8 - Update and Endorsement of Integrated Pest Management Task Force RecommendationsCITYOFBOULDER
WATER RESOURC~S ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DAT~: Apri121, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 14, 2003)
AGENDA TITLE: Update and Endorsement of Integrated Pest Management Task Force
Recommendations
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinatar
Nancy Stemberger, Engmeering Pro~ect Manager
Alice Guthrie, City Il'M Coordinator
rISCAL IMPACT:
None at the present time. Over the long term, domg more mecharucal and cultural
control, usmg alternative products, and using less synthetic pesucides could be more
expensive.
PURPOSE:
The purpose is to update the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on the progress of the
Integrated Pest Management (II'M) Task Force, get mput from the WRAB on the draft
recommendations and endorsement of the process to date.
BACKGROUND:
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Task Force was established by the City Manager m
October 2002. It was created to make a recommendahon to the City Manager and City Council
on the feasibility of implementing a ban on peshcide use with a list of excephons The scope of
the IPM Task Force is urban and natural lands. The Task Force has had twelve meerings to date.
It is comprised of 15 citizens, representatives of crty advisoiy boards, environmental groups and
professionals from the private sector and academta. Staff from several city departments are
participatmg (Environmental Affairs, Parks, Greenways, Open Space/Mountam Paiks and
Transportation).
ANALYSIS:
As the Task Force work has progressed, we realized that it is important to have the decision-
makmg process used by city staff be transparent and defensible Therefore, Best Management
Practices that are clear and useful far assessmg whethei pesticide use is appropriate for a
AGENDA ITEM # : PAGE 1
particulu location are crucial. The Task Force has reviewed and revised Best Management
Practrces (BMPs) and Current Management Practices for crty lands. This is a very large
document and lists weed, msect and disease species, and types of locations (e.g., perennial flowei
beds, wetlands, etc.) foi all city deparCments. It mcludes best practices from research studies and
mdustry norms and current methods used by ciry staff, which can vary from department and
location Staff is m the process of revismg the practices as recommended by the Task Force and
compihng them into one standardized document. A copy is not mcluded with this memo due to
its length, but is available by contactmg Ahce Guthrie A Srte Assessment for Chemical
Appropriateness (Attachment A) has also been created as another check on whether or not
chemicals should be used. Staff has followed the guidance of the Task Force in devising this tool
and has made numerous revisions as it is finalized. The Task Force also developed a flow chart
(Attachment B) that shows how the various elements are connected and utilized m the decision-
making process The fmal IPM Task Force meeting on April 16 will include developmg the list
of pesticides that can be used for the 2003 season and discussmg whether to propose bannmg the
use of certam pesticides on city properry.
The Task Force has approved the following list of Goals.
Short Term Goals
1. First rteration of IPM decision-maktng process that ts consistent across departments.
The elements (in a standardized format) mclude the followmg.
a. Revised Best Management Practices & Current Management Practices
b. Srte Assessment for Chemical Appropriateness
c Pesticide Evaluation Matrix
d. Flow Chart of entrre process
2 List of exemptions to peshcide ban/moratorium far 2003 and justificahons (will be
distributed at WRAB meeting).
3. List of chemicals banned on city property (wili be distributed at WRAB meetmg).
Long Term Goals
1. Contmue working to lessen environmental impacts of pesticide use and to use less
synthetic pesticides. This includes goals to reduce amounts of specific peshcides used
m specific situahons such as existmg sites, new property purchases, new infestations
of pests and emergmg pest issues.
2. Update and augment BMPs based on available research and informahon, particularly
in the areas of non-chemical controls and factois such as soils and ecological
imbalances that contribute to pest problems. Include mformation on percent
effectiveness of inethods and a way to assess the impacts of the treatment options.
3. Evaluate BMPs for weaknesses and revise.
4. Develop monitormg protocols to evaluate effectiveness of new methods and products
Protocols will be standardized across departments, provide for practical field
assessment and trackmg of new methods, and involve staff across departments.
5. Annual review of pesticides and determinahon of allowable ones
6. Annual review of process
A recurrent theme throughout Task Force meetmgs is that there will need to be annual ieviews
AGENDA ITCM # : PAGE 2
and evaluations of BMPs and pesticides used. The form that this review will take has not been
decided upon, but there is general agreement that rt is wairanted.
The recommendations from the Task Force will be presented to City Council on May 6. Council
will be asked to approve or change the recommendations and endorse the program as amended so
staff can proceed wiCh clear guidance for the remamder of the growmg season.
Questions for WRAB
Your feedback on the following questions will help staff as we move forward with discussions
wrth other city boards and City Council:
1 Recogmzmg that the recommendation of the Task Force is not the end pomt of this process,
does WRAB agree with the general direction of the Task Force efforts and proposed goals?
2. What concerns does WRAB have about the potenhal impacts of the proposed approach on
city lands and resources?
3. Are there additional items that WRAB would like to see addressed under Long Term Goals?
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
This item is bemg heard at this public meeting as advertised m the Daily Camera The Open
Space Board of Trustees received an update on Apri19 and endorsed the process The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board will hear this item on Apri128.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Assessment for Chemical Appropriateness (Draft)
B. IPM Flow Chart
AGENDA ITEM # : PAG~ 3
L Whl-JIICII J .1 ~U ~1. ~l(~ Y0.11_l6 R J11
SREASSESSMENTFOflCHEMICALAPPRO PRIA7ENE5 5 rvOiE Scoreaeovea=nocnemraius e Omerassumoh onsareaescnoea beiow oeseSpeaesBiwanan I
I I oare
POTENiNLENVIliONMENTALIMPACTS I
~
OPPl1CAT10N PLIBLIC IEGAL ENVliONYEtR01 IbJAGENiPflOPEATY
PUBLIC115E .n.pE S~y qEa~ 56EOFNFEST~TpN FESOUNC EVALUE BQlEFRS COHCFANS
LOLATION - Pxka RapMy Nmre Baelaspmketl by
C~
PmbhAYtle[ P~a Vwlwse( 9 VerW8Ne0~e1 yyQ~PW MMWPauca fla¢~m(ea~ PoIV4sIMM~b FNmMJMFbb
Ymt~xmu wvcsemqcm uv~am Feaere~~srne~ ~a'm an F.unM~canea oveaea~eurarsn. vNUmf.oee mmvm.em~~varl y~,s,ammN~g ~reatl~mn
NOTGenh ~'~Mem~1v mlaztla
~ L~I/CePtPqa FeasDZtlGCmud atSOS'le va~wzl FeM~namiPrtYw hmM1evM re~a+
a~ pWfceAave S~ a[CC54e P+w Patluatrn
Patv64
v.uKs
PskT c4cMare lavNA LevNB LavelC
C alturtvw
MM1N4c FiWG-
51uuhM1loxabed
Fiaed rbedv
T2a s
Pap M
Facksa 1
tldwal sen
M~er
fi~fFCMIPg I
Gteenn
Fvwaya
Taa
P la
PflOGi WIIE6 ATHIt[IC FB.QS.
PI~eNV~ew
YyMOn
Sl~o
UPCANIXGHM1SSL~1t10.5
I
LOWLPNUIRPAFi6lflTEARAC@i£O~
~
PtRNME0.9~
I
~¢I r~br
mtmeWlyes
peelatlin6rh
vwVSaej-pAYEIXarWRpoi~d
I ~
I
ACUATICd pGTNE~.SfliEAY Cf W!l~.45mn au~ISV.~Ar+ w~~lN~ ~6~6~d vaY-XAVE.~vM AnNec3
I
PJdcruM&cS'
E~ ~~Y iM9h
Mbemvead PreaceN
martlaM1d Pe4 TBE~ppeaaril'M1gM1
TzvuW 9~W palertulbaprw!
1 T
Inwvt L6earbx PoWASw cebtawry
Yskedb/ FewormYere!(6 $eve.ala
~A ~aNep~6EWrtrsR/ I(g~
Gmvrva Ma~' Figl~pNeMLb oYaalyp~aM
~
Clanolra0.nFmV OW4cia h ma4 G~M1~J ~SFYCSFS~ o~daves)
We=-~] /mrefue9ererzNN/ resauce2eevslue EevMbemfRS gareaG WWellaltle M V'
aGP~Nax<F d+^Sema PPHIS ~~~~p~ iTUt=M1O~erTa
mtlsWl~rA' vacess
mm~ P
W
kmigMben Pesm~ceW ~~~~
or~~. ~
9
Npemava penz
ma,m~aam~ Nm~mM¢lea
hre~aamew NaGervefec.e~tvtt
'
vAaer~ TxvuWmo]erdery
n+xamac+emm M1Men~eqhiAL fT
IMaeb=3
tlevgieteyo~
e 9e isex~katlqA maM21e~'
oi6e~.'aaWhi Os~dy(6l~o~S50 OF
pW)ry dsl
rveehy/mo]erele
¢urtbTeavdue pnwrveMnrce
~o~reaE bsp~cadmbery tlas
'~~~ ~~.LnRa] P~*1~)'
m~ arFe6f'as) GmIL/rxvalue tlm~bemks
aTP.M
bwEmat Eansemc
PWGC
xvWEen Sppresasim Furtry Lw
X Tf~ .. Ca~zmmerR Seve.alor Txr.aJLmumeGY Vbe~mW~
Hk~=S arearv8 Ge4vJe WzG atl
tl
i50fi
'~' GeBUNOT
~e mar~'IadtlNN wdespreal(at0~v OX Fe'vu5m~e~aY M~tydSM1AUtlaees Low
d
~ peqggrvqq~ymrca ~
~~~^
E ~°~PRPoM1Y
X
N
lf
~ ali
h
HOCiVmYalnBppOryMa tlcu'9~eEtrak (x~
n
1 G~Y cweretlU~uSfi a0raes) reav
~x
e~c tlwrWtwnnfi6 Wna e
e
a
vypt tlareemn
~~ M1d+Wii=MerTz
aGP4M¢ v¢ess
WR~O
~
0.SSUMPIlONS I I
Pu~lic ~eaX~ antl emimnmen~al ~a~tls (negaWe envimnmenfal impacis) will Oe NMe~ assessetl w~en evaluaLng spectfic chemicals Examples incluGe
1 sRespec~fic publiC u5E consitlera-ons suCM1 d5 a!¢25 near piCnic bbl¢5 or pldygrountl5 grountlwd~er tl2ptl1 Vireaten¢tl dntl entl2n9er¢tl spECies
ronsiaerztians eic
2 ALL ONf~V¢dpn¢~R oppOnS M1dv¢ alrea4y bEen evaminetl antl cfiemical use ~a5 ~een 4¢tertnmed ~o be an dpp/Opndl¢ Op~on I
3 CFiemral treatrnenis wiil be useU in conluncTOn with o0~er techmpues far fie bes[ possible resNt I I ~
Urgency-COntrd Ettoris / Cosis -ASSUmes ihat in 1liese cases na[ usrtg ~ei0~cides vnll resul[ in ircreasetl eROrS wM oMer control meNoES Cos6
4
assaclatetl ~I~Clu~e stdff nme as well 25 o~IIH 2554CiatEtl Ery¢ns¢5 (otlter ¢qui0ment r¢pNr¢tl fuel etc ) I
5 (Tx7 Treatrnent means c~emmal applicaoon T&E means iTrea[eneE anE Endanqered I I ~
Cbavvner6satl SetMqzMaderlVUalSethgs\Temo4SrtearasiW a_tt_p3 P~m t W t