FIRE PREVENTION AND VEGETATION

Use of Herbicides in the Wildfire Prevention District

Two important City hearings are scheduled on whether or not herbicides should be used on city-owned land within the Wildfire Prevention District to control such flammable vegetation as Eucalyptus and French/Scotch Broom. An active e-mail debate has been under way during the past two weeks among Hills residents. Thoughtful arguments have been posed both in support and in opposition. If you support or oppose this proposal, please let your voice be heard: plan to attend the City Council hearing: City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Council Chambers. You’ll need to sign in as a speaker before the meetings begin:

• City Council Meeting, Tuesday, April 5, starting at 7:00 p.m.

If the council approves the resolution, the next step is to develop detailed plans and procedural manuals, which also must be approved by Council, estimated during early summer. There will also be an Environmental Impact Report.

For more information and positions:
Resolution for Council approval.
Report to Council
Friends of Sausal Creek position statement
Arguments by Piedmont Pines residents

To post your own opinions, ask questions, click on Open Forum, then go to Current Issues, then join the discussion on Herbicides.


Arguments for
1. Eucalyptus and Broom are highly flammable, non-native vegetation. Eradication is nearly impossible without herbicides. It is too labor intensive to hand-pull; clearing without eliminating roots merely brings back thicker growth. These non-natives tend to form monocultures, which, rather than co-exist with other vegetation, tend to take over, destroying ecological diversity in their path. Monocultures destroy habitats for native flora and fauna.
2. Only two herbicides will be used—one is like Roundup, the other like Pathfinder—both of which carry the least toxic ranking according to the EPA. Under proposed application procedures (hand painting stumps) the herbicide is absorbed within the plant or tree’s system and does not migrate into the surrounding soil. Herbicides are the treatment of last resort, and limited to specific species that elude other eradication/control techniques.
3. Application will be tightly controlled and will be preceded by public notification, signage, dye markers. Plan will include certification of contractors/staff handling herbicides, monthly reports, ongoing monitoring, buffer zones.
4. Experience shows that appropriate use of these herbicides over a 2-3 year period reduces the need for continued chemical treatment and major vegetation maintenance

Arguments against
1. It is environmentally unsound to use poisons; claims as to their safety are untested over multiple generations.
2. The 1991 firestorm happened as a direct result of failure to respond quickly and effectively, not because of vegetation. Fast and effective intervention in addressing small fires is the way to prevent a firestorm.
3. Only 1% of the acreage will be treated, providing little or no wildfire protection. It’s a red herring…taxpayers should focus on more realistic and effective protection.
4. Imagine fields of poisoned stumps dotting our hills…
5. What once were non-native plants have become natives, and the surrounding eco-systems are adapting.

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION N0.______________C.M.S.

INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER ____Jean Quan__________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A LIMITED EXEMPTION TO THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY TO USE HERBICIDES ON CITY OWNED LAND IN THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT AND OTHER CITY PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AS AREAS OF HIGH FIRE HAZARD

WHEREAS, in 1997 the Oakland City Council approved the implementation of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy and passed Resolution No. 73968 C.M.S., that prohibits the use of pesticides on City property except as specifically exempted; and

WHEREAS, the Oakland Fire Department is responsible for reducing wild land fuels through vegetation management in Oakland’s Wildfire Prevention District; and

WHEREAS, Oakland’s Wildfire Prevention District includes City owned public open space such as Joaquin Miller Park, Knowland Park, King Estates Park, Dimond Canyon, Dimond Park, rugged canyons, public pathways, fuel breaks, roadsides, medians and steep hillsides; and

WHEREAS, there are a handful of other areas in Oakland with comparable topography and vegetation to the established Wildfire Prevention District with potentially the same high risk of fire danger; and

WHEREAS, the proliferation of non-native trees and shrubs such as blue gum eucalyptus, acacia, broom, and pampas grass creates a continuous fuel bed and fire hazard throughout the City’s high fire hazard urban/wild land interface; and

WHEREAS, invasive, non-native trees and shrubs have few natural enemies, propagate readily in Oakland’s climate and are resistant to eradication or control without the assistance of herbicides; and

WHEREAS, the offending trees and shrubs sprout profusely after hand or mechanical clearing and require cutting several times per year to fully abate growth; and

WHEREAS, the uncontrolled growth of non-native, invasive trees and shrubs constitutes a greater risk to native plant communities and wildlife habitat than does the use of selected herbicides as a component of a strategic vegetation management plan; and

WHEREAS, pulling or mechanically removing trees and shrubs may be ecologically damaging in some circumstances as it disturbs soil and creates an inviting seedbed for weeds. Herbicides leave soil intact and undisturbed, making it easier for native plants to survive as well as preventing erosion; and

WHEREAS, the Oakland City Council seeks to improve fire prevention and reduce wild land fuels within the City of Oakland in a cost effective and environmentally sensitive way; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council hereby directs the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report consistent with CEQA regarding a limited exemption to the Integrated Pest Management policy for the selective use of glyphosate (in formulations such as Round-up or Rodeo) and triclopyr (in formulations such as Garlon and Pathfinder) on City owned land in the Wildfire Prevention District through revisions to standard practices, protocols and developing a Wildfire Prevention Assessment District vegetation management plan; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That whenever said herbicides are used, they shall only be painted or applied directly on the plant or tree stumps and shall only be used when conditions and best management practices demonstrate that a chemical treatment would be the most effective approach to control the following plant and tree species:

• all species of Eucalyptus (E. globulus (blue gum), red gum, and others)
• all species of Acacia (A. dealbata (silver wattle) and A. melanoxylon (blackwood acacia) and others); all non-native species of Prunus (plum and cherry)
• all species of Ulmus (elm)
• Ilex aquifolium (Holly)
• Maytenus boaria (Mayten)
• all species of Cotoneaster (C. franchetii, C. lacteus, C. pannosa)
• all species of broom and gorse: Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), Genista monspessulana (French broom), Spartium junceum (Spanish broom) and Ulex europea (gorse)
• Crataegus monogyna (Italian hawthorn)
• non-native species of blackberry: Rubus discolor (Himalayan blackberry) and R. ulmifolius (thornless blackberry)
• Cortaderia selloana and C. jubata (pampas grass, jubata grass), when these plants cannot be removed with a hand or power tools.
• other non-native, invasive species threatening native plant communities and wildlife habitat identified in the Wildfire Prevention District annual report;
and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the selective use of herbicides on City owned land in the Wildfire Prevention District shall be implemented in accordance with best management practices, a strategic integrated vegetation management plan and other applicable local, state and federal requirements concerning the safe use of herbicides such as public notification, use of colored dye and return intervals; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City’s current IPM guidelines shall be revised and updated utilizing BMPs including buffer zones around creeks and wetland; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That changes in protocols and practices shall include that all vegetation management service contracts shall be developed in accordance with the vegetation management plan and stipulate compliance with the City’s IPM policies and procedures, including those specific to the use of herbicides, and shall require that contractors provide the City with a copy of their state herbicide use reports;

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the limited exemption to the IPM policy to selectively use herbicides on city owned land in the Wildfire Prevention District shall be expressly limited to undeveloped, non-landscaped areas (excluding developed fields, playgrounds, picnic, and other high use areas as currently stipulated in the City’s IPM policy); and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That only certain strategic areas outside the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District shall have a limited exemption to the IPM policy if the Fire Marshal determines that the proliferation of a non-native, invasive plant species is contributing to the creation of fuel beds that are a high fire hazard;

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Fire Department shall annually prepare a report to the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District Advisory Board and the City Council on vegetation management efforts over the past twelve months that includes a detailed account of amounts and types of herbicide used and a vegetation management plan for the upcoming year: and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Planning Department shall prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the limited use of herbicides in the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Environmental Impact Report, a revised IPM policy and the vegetation management plan for the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District (WPAD) shall be approved by the City Council prior to changes in practice and policy concerning the limited use of herbicides.

City of Oakland
Agenda Report

To: Public Works Committee
From: Councilmember Jean Quan
Date: March 8, 2005

Re: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT REGARDING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LIMITED EXEMPTION TO THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY TO USE HERBICIDES ON CITY-OWNED LAND IN THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT AND OTHER CITY PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AS AREAS OF HIGH FIRE HAZARD

SUMMARY

This report is supplemental to the report submitted to the Public Works Committee and the Pubic Safety Committee on February 22, 2005. It addresses concerns raised at both meetings by Councilmembers and the public about the proposed policy. In order to further address concerns raised about proposed revisions to the policy, the resolution has been revised to direct the preparation of changes to the policy, including the analysis of approaches, best management practices and protocols for the ten year strategic plan as part of the implementation of the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District (WPAD). This work will also include the necessary environmental documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed changes and all documentation will then be presented back to the City Council as part of the vegetation management plan.

KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS

Current IPM protocols require change in order to allow for limited use of herbicides under certain conditions, requirements and restrictions. This change is necessary in order to develop an effective and integrated vegetation management plan for the WPAD. By directing that this work be initiated, the community will be able to review how and when the limited use of herbicides will occur. The resolution has been revised to clearly state that the Council is directing staff to prepare the necessary revisions and analysis for limited herbicide use. The next step will be for the Council to review the revised IPM policy and an annual vegetation management plan within the next year.

If direction is given to initiate this work, a consultant with IPM and vegetation management expertise will work with city departments and community stakeholders to finalize a revision of the City’s current IPM protocols, prepare the required environmental documentation and frame an overall strategy for vegetation management for the WPAD. The vegetation management plan will provide an opportunity for the public to review, on a yearly basis, the fuel reduction work proposed for the WPAD. Utilizing protocols from the IPM policy, the consultant will propose a plan detailing where, how and when fuel reduction efforts will occur and how, when and where herbicide use would be appropriate. Opportunities to receive public comment will occur during the WPAD Board review process and during the review and approval process by the City Council. Herbicide use will only occur if the Council finds that the both plans adequately address safety and environmental concerns.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy

An IPM policy is a set of protocols and procedures for effective and safe management of vertebrate and invertebrate, insect, plant and fungi pests. In this case, it will define the most appropriate strategy to control plant pests and specifically reduce the fuel load within the WPAD, including when and how herbicides should be used on a species-by-species basis. There are many resources from which to draw on when identifying the best protocols for the plan. The Nature Conservancy (see attachment A) is one example of an available resource from which to model a policy concerning the appropriate procedures for herbicide use.

Integrated pest management is a pest management strategy that focuses on long-term prevention or suppression of pest problems, with minimum impact on human health, the environment and non target organisms. Preferred pest management techniques include encouraging naturally occurring biological control, using alternate plant species or varieties that resist pests, selecting pesticides with a lower toxicity to humans or that reduce pest problems; or changing the habitat to make it incompatible with pest development. Broad spectrum pesticides are used as a last resort when careful monitoring indicates they are needed according to pre-established guidelines. When treatments are necessary, the least toxic and most target specific pesticides are chosen. Implementing an integrated pest management program requires a thorough understanding of pests, their life histories, their environmental requirements and natural enemies as well as establishment of a regular, system program for surveying pests, their damage and/or other evident of the presence. [“Establishing Integrated Pest Management Policies and Programs; A Guide for Public Agencies”; Flint, Daar, & Molinar]

The proposed resolution requires that standards already established in the City’s current IPM policy will be reviewed, updated and amended to address fuel reduction work specific to the WPAD. Some of the IPM requirements include but are not limited to:
· Public notification;
· Signage;
· Dye markers to indicate exactly where herbicide was applied;
· Monthly reporting;
· Buffer zones;
· Compliance with all state and federal regulations for applying and dispensing herbicides, including training or certification of all city staff and contractors who handle herbicides;
· Monitoring areas where herbicides have been applied

An IPM establishes guidelines for the choice of formulation for each type of herbicide application based on environmental factors, such as wind and rain conditions, as well as the product’s capabilities. The WPAD’s IPM protocols will include a list of the highly flammable non-native plants considered “pests” (as identified in this Resolution) and those native plants species that will encourage natural biological control or are a protected native species.

The most important component of the IPM policy is the annual reporting requirement that details when and where herbicides have been applied in the past year, the type of herbicide used, quantities used, and the success rate of the application, if possible. This report not only is presented annually to the City Council, but also, by law, must be filed with the Alameda County Agriculture Commission.

Vegetation Management Plan

Before the limited use of herbicides is triggered, the IPM/vegetation management consultant, Fire Department and the WPAD Board will develop a vegetation management plan that incorporates IPM protocols and complies with CEQA requirements for City Council review and approval. The plan will literally map out the fuel reduction priority areas for the year, identify sensitive plant and habitat locations within the priority areas and identify the various non-native plant species and the methodologies planned for their eradication or suppression including when, where and how herbicides will be used. Additionally, if the high priority areas include a creek, watercourse, endangered species or habitat, the plan should detail the necessary permits required from agencies such as the Alameda County Clean Water Program or the City’s Environmental Services Creek Protection Program and any mitigation measures that are deemed necessary.

The vegetation management plan will be developed using Best Management Practices (BMPs) garnered from other public agencies with vegetation management responsibilities. These include the East Bay Regional Park District, the University of California, and East Bay Municipal Utility District, and other public agencies in the greater Bay Area. The California Invasive Plant Council and The Nature Conservancy, and other conservation groups provide valuable research on their web sites. BMPs from the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be adopted for areas containing endangered species.

Herbicide Application

Aerial or ground spraying is not permitted under this policy. When herbicides are needed for vegetation control, best management practices call for direct application to the plant or tree either by hand painting the herbicide directly on to the cambium of the freshly cut tree or plant stump or bottle spritzing, no further than six inches away, onto freshly cut grass clumps. In order to apply the herbicide to the stump or grass clump, all of the plant or tree’s foliage (leaves, branches, trunks) must be hand or mechanically cut away until nothing is left but a stump or clump. When glysophate and triclopyr are applied in this manner, the herbicide is absorbed within the plant or tree’s system and does not migrate into the surrounding soil.

Herbicide Formulations

The exemption will be limited to the use of two herbicides – glysophate (in formulations such as Roundup or Rodeo) and triclopyr (in formulations such as Garlon and Pathfinder). These are federally- and California-registered pesticides for the control of woody plant species and broad leaf plants in right of ways, forests, open space parks, ditch banks and maintenance of wildlife corridors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency categorically ranks herbicide toxicity on a scale of one to four as follows: Category One – highly toxic; Category Two – moderately toxic; Category Three – Slightly Toxic; Category Four – Not Acutely Toxic. Both glysophate and triclopyr have received the lowest ranking for toxicity or a Category Four. In accordance with the city’s IPM policy and BMPs, the choice of formulation for each type of application will be determined based on environmental factors as well as the product’s capabilities.

Glysophate and triclopyr will only be used when conditions and BMPs demonstrate that a chemical treatment would be the most effective approach and will only be applied to the list of plants previously identified in this report and those new non-native plants that may be identified in the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District’s yearly report

A copy of the EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (R.E.D.) Facts document is attached to this report for your review (attachment B).

Certification and Training for Herbicide Applicators

The City currently has one staff member that has a Qualified Applicator Certificate issued by the State Department of Pesticides in the laws, regulations, and basic principles associated with pesticide application. This position supervises employees who work with Category Three and Category Four herbicides, such as Garlon or Roundup. Employees applying Category three and four herbicides do not require state certification, however state law does require employees to receive annual training in the following areas:

· Safe handling procedures;
· Proper cleaning and disposal of containers;
· Drift;
· Storage;
· First aid and contamination;
· Emergency medical contact information;
· Employee rights to receive information regarding pesticides;
· Location of documents such as access to Hazard Communication program, information, labels, pesticide use records, medical records and other documents;
· Heat stress recognition, treatment, prevention;
· Respiratory equipment fitting, use and maintenance;
· Reading labels;
· Proper use of protective gear.

The City is further required to maintain records of the annual training for each employee. Inspectors from the Alameda County Agriculture Department make scheduled inspections of records and employees in the field to monitor compliance with procedures for the safe handling and dispensing of herbicides. County inspectors also make frequent unscheduled inspections and cite employers if workers are found not complying with safety procedures.

The annual training is conducted in house by the City’s State certified employee.

Environmental Impact

This resolution directs staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the limited use of herbicides in the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District. The resolution does not authorize the actual change in policy but merely directs that the components of the policy change be prepared and brought to the public, WPAD Board and city Council for review.

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council approve the attached revised resolution directing staff to prepare the information, revisions and analysis necessary to allow limited use of herbicides on City-owned land in the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District and other City properties identified by the Fire Marshal as areas of high fire hazard, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, revised IPM policy and a Wildfire Prevention Assessment District vegetation management plan.
Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Jean Quan
Councilmember, District 4

Position of Friends of Sausal Creek

The Friends of Sausal Creek (FOSC) is a local, community-based environmental restoration group that has been involved in the ecological enhancement and water quality protection of the Sausal Creek watershed for over eight years. Much of our work includes the regular and sustained hands-on removal of invasive plant species in Dimond Park and Joaquin Miller Park. Years of fieldwork have proven that many invasive species can be combated successfully by groups of diligent volunteers, but some invasive plants defy the work of hand crews.
When the Wildfire Prevention and Assessment District (WPAD) was formed in 2004, members of iits citizens advisory board began discussing the role of herbicides in controlling invasive, fire-prone non-natives. FOSC decided to take a proactive approach, and assist the City of Oakland in crafting a resolution that would ensure restricted, responsible, and safe use of herbicides. We believe that such a policy could reduce fuel loads, and simultaneously aid in restoration efforts.
Throughout the drafting of the resolution and months of discussions with City representatives, FOSC has consistently made it clear that our support depends on the application of herbicide being strictly limited to the cut stumps of a specified list of invasive plants. These plants are explicitly listed in the current resolution. After consulting with integrated pest management specialists, we requested that the resolution specify only the two safest herbicides that are effective against the target plants. We have stressed accountability and adequate training. We have insisted that herbicide application take place as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and that an IPM plan needs to be completed before herbicide use can begin. All of these concerns are incorporated in the current resolution or are governed by state laws.
We are greatly concerned about the use of toxics in the environment and are reluctant to use chemicals to manage invasive species. However, we also find that we are losing ground in our ecosystem restoration efforts in the face of certain invasive species. In some areas of Oakland’s parks, invasives are moving into healthy stands of native vegetation, at a pace that far outstrips the Park Department’s resources and the efforts of volunteers. These cases, in which restoring native California vegetation is unachievable by manual methods, have led us to conclude that extremely limited use of chemical methods is necessary for maintaining biodiversity. In order to have successful ecological restoration projects, we need additional tools to effectively deal with invasive species that are beyond the scope of volunteer efforts. We see herbicides strictly as a last resort.
We believe there are considerable benefits to creating a habitat free of invasive exotic trees and shrubs. We are also very concerned that toxic materials are not misused, abused, or used by improperly trained people. The currently drafted resolution addresses these concerns: it allows herbicide application only directly to cut stumps, limits the herbicide to the two least toxic chemicals, lists the only species on which herbicides can be used, and requires that herbicide use occur subject to an integrated vegetation management plan.
FOSC now feels that the resolution could be strengthened by requiring the IPM plan to include buffer zones around creeks and wetlands, explicit restrictions on the timing and environmental conditions allowable for herbicide application, and restrictions in areas with special status species. We advocate a public review and comment period during the development of an IPM plan so that FOSC and others can be involved. In addition to a robust IPM plan, we will strongly advocate for adequate training in IPM methods for all involved City staff. In response to the feedback we have gotten from FOSC members and others, FOSC also advocates review of the herbicide policy one year after its implementation and every five years thereafter. This would allow the resolution to be revoked if standards are not met.
If the resolution passes, FOSC intends to continue its participation by monitoring the policy as it is implemented. We urge you to join us in crafting a workable solution to invasive species in Oakland's open space, and to join us in ensuring that the full intent of the resolution is put into practice.
Friends of Sausal Creek
P.O. Box 2737, Oakland, CA 94602 (510) 501-FOSC www.sausalcreek.org

Arguments by Piedmont Pines Residents

Lori Menachof writes:

1. Non-agricultural use of herbicides have been linked to all kinds of human health problems: cancer, lymphoma, reproductive harm, neurological problems, etc. This is not an issue of multiple generations (implying that they are safely used for the current generation), but an immediate risk of harm. Both the Pesiticide Education Center (Dr. Marion Moses, a Public Health physician and pesticide expert) and the Cancer Research Institute have reviewed the proposed Oakland ordinance and have determined that it will likely raise the cancer load in the area. With the Bay Area already suffering the highest breast cancer rate in the country, why would we knowing put more herbicides/pesticides in our public parks?

2. Animals--both wild and pets--will be exposed to the herbicides. The hills are home to an abundance of wildlife--a rarity in our mostly-paved Oakland. Herbicides will most certainly harm wildlife, as well as dogs etc. who are able to be off-leash in our public parks (and don't recognize the dye that will be used to show where herbicides have been applied).

3. The proposal is being touted as necessary to save costs, but the cost savings are never quanitifed. The ONLY quantification of cost is the disclosure of an ADDITIONAL $124,000 a year to be paid to an herbicide consultant. Question whether the use of herbicides will save any money--let alone any significant dollars. The dead brush will still need to be removed by hand (an even greater fire danger exists from dead, rather than live brush) and replanting by hand will still need to be required (to avoid erosion). Where are the cost savings? How can we be sold this proposal as saving costs without any quantification of a penny of savings?

4. There are proven, safe alternatives. If done correctly, eucalyptus and scotch broom can be safely and effectively removed by hand. The City has not kept work records of the hand methods tried to date (or at least won't make those available), so has no evidence that other methods have failed. Many, many private hillsides have been successful cleared of non-natives without the use of herbicides.

5. This ordinance does not apply only to eucalyptus and scotch broom, as most people think. It applies also to elm, cherry, plum, blackberry, acacia and pampas grass--species many of us would like to see continue to live in the parks providing a beautiful view to our eyes, and much needed homes to wildlife. And, the ordinance permits more than just hand painting on tree trunks--again as the proponents often describe it. It permits hand application--i.e. spraying. Many of these species do not have trunks to hand-paint. Those will have to be sprayed. Spraying is not prohibited by the ordinance.

Lori Menachof, Piedmont Pines Resident