Integrated Pest Management Committee Meeting Minutes

Date: January 11, 2013

Time: 9:30 A.M.

Attendees:

Henry BrouwerGSA Grounds

Scott GrayPWA Watershed Student Aide

Pam LindseyPWA Watershed

James MartinezGSA Parks

Ed NiedzweickiDept. of Airports

Steve OffermanSupervisor Bennett’s Office

Sean PayneGSA Grounds

CyndyTaschmanGSA Grounds

Background – Sean discussed the County’s Strategic Plan, specifically Focus Area #3, Goal 2, Objective 6, which states the IPM objective:

  • Reduce the amount of pesticides/encourage integrated pest management on all County properties and facilities (GSA, PWA, Harbor Dept., Dept. of Airports).

and the performance measure specified for the IPM objective is:

  • Pounds of pesticides applied on County property/facilities.

Criteria for Tracking of Pesticides – Sean refreshed the requirements from the last meeting, stating that pounds of Tier I and Pounds of Tier II pesticides applied are reported for the strategic objective. Handouts of the pesticide usage reported in prior periodswere distributed. Sean asked that efforts be made to provide missing data from prior periods and suggested contacting the Ag Commissioner to obtain prior period usage reports if needed.

Sean reminded the committee that usage reports for the period of July 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012 are requested for submission by January 31, 2013.

IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use

Pam suggested we still need to use some of the higher tiers in an effort to prevent rodent infestation, rather than attempt to manage infestation later on. Bait stations are used to prevent infestation, but Fish and Game have already learned they cannot leave bait in the box. Alternative chemicals are on the list, so we may be able to trade out some Tier I to Tier II or Tier III. She also suggested working with Henry Gonzalez at the AG Commission in order to change some of the labels.

Also discussed was the difference between a closed system of application and an open application. The closed system is much safer system, even with Tier I pesticides, because of the lack of exposure to the public and other, untended targets.

Henry explained the differences in the Tiers, and said that while Tier III is less toxic, it is also less effective and requires more applications.

Benchmarking

Sean suggested that measuring pounds of pesticides is an objective quantitative measure but may not be the most indicative measure of IPMprogram success or improvement. Sean asked the committee if they are aware of any other means to measure success or improvement. Sean suggested the potential of identifying and measuring the environmental harm caused by pesticide application that exceeds the intended target of the pesticide, as a reflective measurement.

The committee was asked to submitalternate measurement ideas to better define IPM program success and improvement.