IPM Citizen Task Force Meeting Summary and other written
public comment.
5-29-2008
General comments:
LPRD staff gave an overview of the draft policy and asked
for open discussion. The maps were explained as snapshots of current
policy.
Citizen review members would like to
see a pro-active plan (not reactionary) to include current
Citizen review members suggested a protocol approach to define the thought process for accessing these issues. Suggested neighborhood associations could be tapped for volunteers, feedback, public awareness and to define problem areas. Citizen review members asked about future plans and protocol, maps and lists of issues in each park. Will this be a changing policy? How can we help to educate the public on this issue? Suggest media. Noticed policy to read the parks are currently 81% ‘Green’.
Citizen review members thought the draft document created a practical approach to issues such as tick problems, mentioned specifically Dad Perry Park. Other high profile public grounds were important to city property management and wanted to allow staff enough latitude to do their jobs.
Members generally appreciated the staff not using
strong chemicals (Category 1&2) and asked to explain why are separate crews
spraying in park areas. LPRD explained that existing staff are working
together, but work under different supervisors in defined areas of each
park. Example Landscape staff working
only in landscape beds where park crews might be working near sign posts,
around trees, and noxious weed problems, etc.
LPRD staff emphasized current no- spray policy near playgrounds or shelters.
Citizen review members also suggested determining problematic plants and getting rid of these a certain amount each year. Need to explain the economic threshold vs. aesthetic threshold section, what does this equal, how are decisions made? Vague on thresholds, maybe create a weighted system to show cost vs. loss that includes resources available, equipment, expertise.
LPRD staff would need to determine a cost(spraying
or replacement) vs value loss analysis, actual worth of plants, specifically
related to trees, athletic turf areas, and functional landscape areas to make
decisions.
Citizen review member suggested the parks look into short season perennial Buffalo grass, such as he had done in his yard or parks remain as open green space ….leaving islands of native non mowed grass. LPRD explained this had been done in the recent past resulting in complaints from the public about litter collection, loss of recreational space, and weed problems and violations.
Citizen review members thought the parks were not getting credit where credit was due. Therefore staff is needing to clarify and better communicate what we are doing so the public will better understand. It’s hard to spread awareness if the general public doesn’t care. LPRD staff explained that public awareness is very important in this issue because they help establish aesthetic and other standards.
Citizen review member suggested a stronger ecologically friendly IPM description with quality control to help explain policy. In definition of IPM include that it is a sustainable and continuous system of managing pests and it minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks pertaining to site specific requirements. Many times a combination of efforts are required to achieve pest reduction.
Monitoring should include the total area impacted, forecasting disease and pests through KSU. Cultural controls should include water management and species/vegetation management.
Recording keeping should include cultural/mechanic/physical controls and their effectiveness after multiple observations so a pest is initially found. Then a non-chemical control is attempted for two weeks, if it doesn’t work, then use pesticides. All of this should be noted to show IPM is continuous and sustainable.
Signage suggestions:
Citizen review members suggested that as weeds are noticed by the public, as so is the need for awareness of chemical use.
Would like to see WEB space with information all the time.
Suggested one large, all-weather sign/central kiosk with changeable area to update pesticide use in each park entrance.
Communicate to public when pests have been controlled non-chemically. Comments on how long application signs should be required, currently it is 24 hours.
Questioned the logistics of long term signage, for different types of user groups. Suggested a known reference area location for permanent signage.
LPRD and some Citizen review members suggested too much
signage becomes litter and is ignored. If we continue to use signs, need to
better designate posting increment distances. Requested by staff to have less
posting in larger-less populated park areas.
Citizen review members asked about
a
Citizen review members asked if the
city will keep current pesticide free parks as they are. LPRD
explained the maps will show Green Zones or Green parks which are
pesticide free, but the name and signs will be changed. For the most part there are no changes,
except where noted with yellow zones.
The parks do not have any red zones or use level one or two category
level pesticides.
Citizen review member suggested the mapped yellow areas possibly give an impression, that parks are blanket spraying all areas marked yellow. Describe specifically what we spray in these areas on maps to show spot spraying and other techniques. Are yellow zones significantly away from surface waters so that existing vegetation between treated areas and surface waters acts as a buffer?
Would a site specific list help in the establishment of an allowed pesticide list?
Funding and future staffing:
Citizen review members asked LPRD to explain the staffing section, and itemize the list of tasks and other functions needing the funding. How will more staffing directly relate to reduction of pesticides, why not integrate and use own staff. Suggestion to include description of staff needs in the field such as scouting assessments, monitoring, training and resource needs. LPRD staff explained the funding needs for manual labor, growth of park system, time needed to post signs and other public communication needs.
Citizen review member asked what is the scope of the Taske Force committee, would like to see them meet once a month. LPRD stated that currently the committee would meet initially for the draft overview, then again on June 10, and take public comments during this time.
Consultation and
consultants:
Citizen review member suggested
consultation with cities that are pesticide free in other states such as Waterloo
& Cedar Rapids Iowa, (currently 50% pesticide free),
LPRD staff
did research some of these and other cities in the course of
writing the draft and will continue to search specifically for cities
requested.
Citizen review member
requested staff research
Exemptions:
A citizen review member questioned
how the exemption board will be set up. LPRD draft calls
for staff and Park Advisory Board.
It was suggested citizens other than the Park Advisory Board, that would
have a science or biology based education or profession would be
preferred. Citizen review members asked
for clarification on change a Green Zone to a Yellow and if an exemption must
filed to make the change. LPRD explained that
is correct.
Non park areas:
Citizen review members asked about R/W areas, downtown, and other city areas, how they are maintained, and if these areas could be shown on the maps. It was questioned whether the public would understand the difference in Parks vs ‘City’ spraying on the levee or even schools, which are not parks jurisdiction.
LPRD explained that this policy was ‘Parks Only’ at the
present time.
Respectfully submitted,
Crystal Miles
Horticulture Manager