Advisory Board: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Advisory Committee-IPM & Nature-Based Climate Solutions (NBS) Subcommittee
Subject: 3. DISCUSS land-management practices whose co-benefits are relevant to IPM and nature-based climate solutions and DETERMINE areas of focus for this Subcommittee.
Presenter: Wade Finlinson
Contact: 925.655.3214
Information:
The bylaws of the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee (IPMAC) allow the formation of subcommittees to research and explore specific issues within the purview of the Committee. The first goal of the County IPM Policy is to “Minimize risks and maximize benefits to the general public, staff and the environment as a result of pest control activities conducted by County staff and contractors.”
Referral History and Update:
IPMAC has made a variety of recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (Board) that encouraged a heightened level of stewardship of various County-owned landscapes over the years. Most recommendations have not gained traction due to a variety of factors. They include:
• Operational constraints across many of the divisions associated the IPM Program to perform services beyond minimum levels.
• Limitations in access to information to adequately propose plans of action to implement recommendations in a way that promotes implementable practices.
• The lack of land management research directly related to certain types of urban landscape systems under the care of the County.
IPMAC initially formed an ad hoc subcommittee to focus on the potential implementation of NBS on County properties in September 2023. In part due to the above constraints and the daunting nature of this wide-ranging subject matter, the Subcommittee has not been activated until today. Over the last two years, the County has adopted key guiding documents that help to illuminate potential pathways forward. Those include Healthy Lands, Healthy People: A Carbon Sequestration Feasibility Study (HLHP) and the 2024 update of the Contra Costa County Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). Applicable excerpts from the CAAP and HLHP are attached. Another robust resource on this topic at the statewide scale includes California’s NBS Climate Targets.
Each document is vastly broader than land management practices on County property. However, elements of each Contra Costa-specific plan help clarify a starting point that is rooted in Board-approved priorities. Some initial considerations that may help generate the discussion include the following actions from CAAP and HLHP:
• NI-4 (CAAP): Sequester carbon on natural and working lands. Examples: compost application, biochar application, prescribed grazing, tree planting, maintenance of trees, wetland restoration.
• NI-2 (CAAP): Protect against and adapt to increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. Examples: prescribed fire, maintenance of fire breaks and defensible space, vegetation clearance.
• NI-5 (CAAP): Minimize heat island effects through green infrastructure, tree canopy, etc. Examples: Establish shaded fuel breaks, increase tree planting and maintenance, preserve green stormwater infrastructure, support development of Urban Forest Management Plan (coming soon).
• CE-1 (CAAP): Access to green jobs. Examples: partner with local conservation entities and jobs training programs to supplement land management activities.
• CE-3 (CAAP): Increase access to parks and open space. Examples: explore conservation easements on underutilized open space, increase tree canopy on County properties.
• CE-4 (CAAP): Access to affordable, local fresh food. Examples: explore feasibility of leasing or selling underutilized open space parcels for urban agricultural production.
• HLHP Action 1.8: Explore potential equipment sharing arrangements between County departments and partner agencies. The acquisition of seeders, compost spreaders, and similarly specialized equipment may be more likely if jointly procured.
• HLHP Action 2.4: Establish a proactive practice of compost application and overseeding of desirable species on burn scars on County property.
• HLHP Action 3.4: Implement shaded fuel breaks
• HLHP Measure 4: Support the implementation of upcoming efforts to protect and enhance the urban forest on County properties.
• The HLHP also lists the top five sequestration activities. Compost application (#1), urban forestry (#3), and riparian forest buffer (#5) are applicable to some types of County-owned property, while the others on the list are more specific to agricultural systems.
The above list is a sample of what practices may be relevant to the current pursuit, but is not exhaustive. Exploration of other practices not listed may be worthwhile.
The IPM Coordinator will provide a general overview of a few County-owned sites during the meeting in order to stimulate a discussion about the potential pairing of IPM practices and NBS with certain land types. This overview is not intended to be prescriptive. Any proposed action on County property will require extensive coordination between stakeholders. Each location varies widely and applicable site managers would make the final determination on whether any recommendations are implemented. This represents a disclaimer that site-specific discussions are conceptual at this point and are intended to promote innovative evaluation of practices that enhance stewardship of community resources.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends engaging in a discussion of these and related practices in order to determine what information will be most useful for further dialog at the next meeting.
IPMAC bylaws allow inviting subject matter experts from other agencies to provide input on issues studied by subcommittees. Such invitations require a majority vote of subcommittee members. The IPM Coordinator encourages the input of the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, researchers from the UC and CSU system, Stopwaste, Civicorps and other applicable parties. Staff recommends voting to invite applicable guests to present at future meetings if desired.