HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Use of Pesticides in City Parks and Buildings
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Use of Pesticides in City Parks and Buildings
Meeting Date: March 13, 2013 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Public Works/Central Services Contact: Kevin Finney
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-4809
ISSUE STATEMENT
This item is in response to council direction to hold a work session to discuss the use of pesticides
in City parks and other City–owned property.
BACKGROUND
The council has asked several questions related to current park and facility management practices,
the use of Integrated Pest Management strategies, and alternatives to chemical control methods
for managing pests. Staff has prepared a memo to the council (Attachment A) reporting on the
types of chemicals used, amounts used, storage and disposal of chemicals, and how staff is using
pesticides for some specific management challenges. The broader questions about Integrated Pest
Management and how it is used in managing City lands and facilities will be addressed in the work
session.
What is the current practice?
The management of pests in City buildings and parklands is the responsibility of the Facility
Management and Parks and Open Space (POS) divisions. City staff follows the principles of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to manage pests (unwanted plants, insects and other animals)
on over 4,400 acres of parklands and 200 community centers, pools, office buildings, and other
facilities.
IPM is a coordinated decision-making and action-taking process that uses the most appropriate
pest control methods and strategies in an environmentally and economically sound manner to
meet the City’s pest management objectives. The IPM strategy is based upon monitoring of pest
levels, establishing thresholds for actions against the pest, evaluation of control options, selection
of the most effective control method (chemical or non-chemical) with the lowest non-target
impacts, and timing control actions according to the pest’s life cycle and biology. Once a control
action has been taken, results are monitored and future actions are informed by the results. A
commitment to IPM does not preclude the use of chemical pesticides, but the application of the
strategy results in the pesticide option being exercised only when necessary.
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130313\S130313A.doc
When IPM is implemented, cultural practices are modified to reduce pest populations and least
toxic non-chemical control methods are tried before pesticides are applied. If a pest cannot be
controlled without the use of pesticides, the IPM strategy dictates use of the least toxic effective
pesticide that will have the least non-target impacts. For example, staff might try hand-pulling and
sheet mulching invasive weeds at Hendricks Park before using a pesticide. If non-chemical
methods are not successful in controlling the invasives, staff might reconsider whether control of
the plant is critical to the function of the plant community. If it is critical, staff will choose the least
toxic herbicide that is known to be effective against the weed in question.
City staff has used an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy to manage parklands since the
early 1980s, and have been leaders in the IPM field for 30 years. City staff has been invited to
make presentations about its pest control methods at several regional conferences in the past few
years. The current edition of the POS IPM Policy and Operations Manual (IPM POM) was published
in 2007 and has been updated several times since then. The IPM POM document runs to nearly
100 pages and contains guidelines for the management of pests in many types of developed
landscapes, vacant lands, natural habitats, rights-of-way and medians, the golf course and rose
garden, as well as bioswales and waterways. The manual contains information on cultural
practices to prevent or limit the impacts of each pest and describes the effective control methods
for the pest, including non-chemical methods, and where applicable, the pesticides which are
known to be effective against the pest.
The POS IPM policy also outlines two programs which further limit the use of pesticides on
parklands: the Pesticide-Free Parks Program and the No Pesticide Zone policy. In partnership with
the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) the City launched the Pesticide-Free
Parks program in 2007. Staff chose parks which could be reasonably maintained without the use
of pesticides, obtained the support of the neighborhood association for each park and launched
the program. Additional parks have been added to the program and the City currently has eight
pesticide-free parks, sites which are managed entirely without the use of pesticides, often with the
assistance of neighborhood groups or other volunteers. Additional parks are added to the
program when volunteer groups adopt them, committing to help with weed control on the site.
The No Pesticide Zone policy establishes no-pesticide zones around certain park features,
including: playgrounds, picnic areas, dog parks, swimming and wading pools, spray-play areas and
stormwater catch basins and inlets. These areas are managed without pesticides and weeds are
pulled by hand, burned or controlled with other non-chemical means. When it is necessary to
apply a pesticide in a No Pesticide Zone, for example when a nest of stinging insects is very near a
playground, the area is fenced or taped off and posted to alert park users. Depending on the
circumstances, hard surfaces near where the application was made may be washed down after the
application.
The Facility Management Division officially incorporates an IPM requirement into its Landscape
Maintenance contracts referencing the POS IPM manual.
The landscapes of several City facilities (Facility Management Campus, Lincoln Yards, Police
Services Building, The Train Depot, Washington Park Community Center, River House, Police
Headquarters Building, and the Kaufman House) are maintained through the use of hand pulling
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130313\S130313A.doc
of weeds, mulching, and other mechanical, non-chemical means. Plants and lawns are treated with
only organic, natural fertilizers. On occasion it is necessary to use a chemical treatment on an
insect pest, but care is taken to choose the least toxic pesticide.
In addition, the standard operating procedure when dealing with pests at all City facilities is to
follow least invasive procedures first. As part of this policy, staff meets with the occupants of the
site to go over the situation and identify any non-chemical ways of treating the problem. Facilities
staff does a physical audit of contributing factors in the affected area which is then shared with
building staff. As many pests become a problem because of the direct actions of humans,
modifying these actions can often substantially reduce the pest problems. Facility Management
prefers the use of a structured program of pest control starting with low-impact and working
upwards to chemical treatment only if needed. Often deep-cleaning, elimination of breeding
grounds, removal of food sources or addressing the physical structure will address the pest
problem. If all low-impact steps are unsuccessful, a state-licensed pest management contractor is
hired to resolve the issues.
Facility Management secures contracts and/or price agreements with established IPM procedures
with vendors who do supplemental pest control work for interior building pests, as well as
landscape pests.
Does the City have a least-toxic pesticide purchasing list?
Although there is not a shared list, implementation of the IPM policy drives a decision-making
process which selects the effective control method with the lowest non-target impact – the least
toxic effective option. The decision to purchase and apply a pesticide is made based upon the pest,
the alternative control methods available, the type of damage the pest is causing and the risk to
health, safety and public infrastructure that the pest presents. Purchases and applications are
made after careful consideration of the balance between the impacts of the pest and the impacts of
the control method. POS staff work with partner agencies to share best management strategies
and compare results of control efforts and they have developed least-toxic approaches to weed
management that are considered state of the art and are approved for use around waterways and
other sensitive habitat areas. All pesticide purchases for POS and Facility Management are made
by state-licensed pesticide applicators that hold certifications for pesticide laws and safety and
application of pesticides on public lands.
Has staff explored non-chemical alternatives?
For several decades POS staff has led the field in development of alternatives to toxic chemicals for
controlling pests. Significant resources have been invested in trialing and evaluating many
alternative weed control methods. Some methods that are currently used in the City’s parklands
include: hand pulling and grubbing; propane torch burning; sheet mulching; compost, leaf and
wood chip mulching; alternative plant selection; solarizing; shading; installation of mowing strips
and pads under fences, signs, picnic tables and other park amenities; and seed bank depletion
before new plantings are installed.
In addition, staff has tried the following alternative weed treatment methods which were largely
ineffective, dangerous for staff, or impractical at the parkland scale: clove oil, citric acid, vinegar,
corn gluten, desiccating soaps and fatty esters, and steam treatments.
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130313\S130313A.doc
POS staff has partnered with the NCAP and a coalition of other parkland managers to research,
develop and publish alternative approaches to maintaining parklands. POS staff developed and
use many of the best management practices which are featured in a series of four publications
produced by NCAP titled “Non-Herbicidal Weed Control Strategies Implemented by City Parks
Staff in the Northwest.”
Some of the non-chemical methods Facilities Management has utilized include:
Crane fly management at Fire Stations 2, 6, and 11: Implemented a monitoring system to
track numbers of larvae. Decreased the irrigation of lawn areas to reduce the successful
incubation of larvae. Removed thatch and aerated lawns to remove incubation habitat and
increase the vigor of the lawn to better recover from pest damage. Discontinued the twice-
yearly scheduled spraying for crane flies at these sites.
Squirrel damage to tree limbs at new police headquarters site: After pruning branches,
deer antlers were hung in the tree to serve as a “preferred food/chew source” to keep
squirrels from chewing on branches. The problem was solved without the need to trap,
poison, or remove squirrels from site.
Anthracnose on London Planetrees at the Park Blocks: Deep root feeding using fish oil and
kelp increased the general health and vigor of trees to aid tree in naturally fighting off the
effects of the disease. No chemical treatment was necessary.
Fleas at Peterson Barn Community Center: Implemented an aggressive floor and furniture
cleaning treatment and worked with the supervisor and manager to remind employees of
the departmental policy not to bring pets to work. No chemical treatment was necessary.
Mice at the Animal Shelter: The Facility Management IPM information sheet was reviewed
with staff at the animal shelter and a physical site assessment was made for point of entry,
potential food source, and housekeeping. Recommendations were made to staff for keeping
food sources securely closed and areas kept swept and clean. No chemical methods were
needed.
What are other cities doing?
There is a wide range of approaches to pest management in other municipalities. A few
municipalities have declared all of their parks to be pesticide-free. Other communities value a very
manicured and weed-free appearance in their public places and they support the ongoing use of
pesticides in all their parks. Many more cities and towns are struggling to maintain their
parklands and cannot find the resources to manage them without the use of pesticides. Cities such
as Seattle, Portland and Corvallis are taking an approach similar to Eugene’s, designating some
pesticide-free areas, managing their parklands through IPM and working with their communities
to bring volunteers into the parks to help with the maintenance of the pesticide-free areas. Eugene
continues to be on the forefront, partnering with other agencies to develop management
strategies which minimize the use of pesticides in the parklands, and working with volunteers to
manage some parklands without pesticides.
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130313\S130313A.doc
Facility Management staff contacted other major cities in Northern California and the Northwest.
The facility managers in those areas reported they do not have an IPM policy established for
buildings.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Eugene City Council has adopted policies that direct the City to pursue sustainability
(Resolution #4618, adopted in 2000), protection of natural resources (Growth Management Policy
#17), and recovery of threatened Upper Willamette Spring Chinook Salmon (Resolution #4615,
adopted in 2000).
As part of its role in implementing these policies, and to implement sound land management
practices, it is the policy of the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division to practice
Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Staff is presenting information requested by the council.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Staff is presenting information requested by the council. No recommendation for action has been
developed.
SUGGESTED MOTION
There is no suggested motion.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Memo to Mayor and Council: Use of Pesticides in City Parks and Facilities
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kevin Finney, Park Operations Manager
Telephone: 541-682-4809
Staff E-Mail: kevin.p.finney@ci.eugene.or.us
Staff Contact: Brian York, Facility Management Landscape Program Coordinator
Telephone: 541-682-5321
Staff E-Mail: brian.s.york@ci.eugene.or.us
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130313\S130313A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Memorandum
Date: March 5, 2013
To: Mayor Piercy and City Council
From: Kevin Finney, Park Operations Manager
Brian York, Facility Management Landscape Program Coordinator
Subject: Use of Pesticides in City Parks and Facilities
The City Council has scheduled a work session for March 13, 2013 to discuss the use of pesticides
in City parks and facilities and Councilor Brown has submitted several questions to staff related
to the subject of the work session. In this memo we will provide responses to the specific and
technical questions presented to staff, and at the work session we will offer responses to the
more general questions and provide the broader background on the concept of integrated pest
management (IPM) and the City’s implementation of IPM. In the work session we will answer
questions on any of the information presented here. Councilor Brown’s questions and the
responses from the Parks and Open Space and Facilities Management Divisions are presented
below.
1. What pesticides are we currently using where (indoors and outdoors) and in what
quantities, to control what pests, and at what cost?
A. Parks and Open Space Division Response
The application of pesticides in Oregon is regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture
(ODA). Each year Parks and Open Space (POS) staff report to the ODA on the amount and type of
pesticides that are applied by POS staff. For the latest reporting period, 2011, the following
pesticides were applied in parks and/or natural areas by POS staff:
Herbicides Pounds applied
Glyphosate (e.g. Roundup or Aquamaster) 58.61
Triclopyr (e.g. Garlon 3A) 31.44
Triethylamine Triclopyr (e.g. Milestone VM Plus) 9.13
Aminopyralid (e.g. Milestone) 1.25
Diethylamine salt (e.g. Sterling) 0.12
Clethodim (e.g. Envoy Plus) 0.11
Insecticides
Tetramethrin (e.g. Blast’em wasp and hornet killer) .007
Permethrin (e.g. Blast’em wasp and hornet killer) 0.018
Piperonyl Butoxide (e.g. Blast’em wasp and hornet killer) 0.035
1
In addition to the applications made by POS staff, licensed commercial pesticide applicators
make some applications on parklands at Laurelwood Golf Course and at the Owen Rose Garden
(see details below). Contractors who make applications at the golf course or rose garden must
comply with the standards and procedures in the POS Integrated Pest Management Policy and
Operations Manual. Commercial applicators may also apply pesticides on City land under
contract as part of a park development project or a habitat restoration or enhancement project.
POS staff has requested that contracted pesticide applicators provide the information on types
and amounts of chemicals applied on City lands and that information will be made available to
Council when it is received from the contractors.
Insecticides have not been applied to protect vegetation in Eugene’s parklands for over a decade,
however small amounts of insecticides are applied with the aerosol insecticide “Wasp Blasters”
used by POS staff each summer season to eradicate yellow jacket and hornet nests near
playgrounds, park paths and other high-traffic areas.
Herbicides are applied on parklands to control invasive weeds and other unwanted vegetation
during the course of regular parkland maintenance or habitat enhancement projects. The most
commonly treated weeds include aggressive invasives such as thistles, non-native grasses, Scot’s
broom, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, blackberry, and poison oak. In developed parks staff
may treat weeds along fence lines and in shrub beds and tree wells.
The cost of pesticides, in the minimal amounts applied by POS staff, is not tracked separately
from other incidental materials and supplies. Based on the totals reported to the ODA, we
estimate that the total cost of the pesticides applied by POS staff in 2011 was about $2,700.
B. Facility Management Division Response
Pesticide Chemical Used Location Pest QuantitCost
name (Active Ingredient) y of (per
Chemicyear)
al
Imidacloprid Imidacloprid, 1-[(6-Atrium, Fire Aphids 1 gal $706
2F Chloro-3-Station No 1,
pyridinyl)methyl]-N-Police
nitro-2-Headquarters,
imidazolidnimine Train Depot
Imidacloprid Imidacloprid, 1-[(6-Downtown Aphids 18 gal $3,768
2F Chloro-3-Flower Pots
pyridinyl)methyl]-N-
nitro-2-
imidazolidnimine
Imidacloprid Imidacloprid, 1-[(6-Downtown Thrips 3 gal $2,826
2F/Conserve Chloro-3-Flower Pots
pyridinyl)methyl]-N-
nitro-2-
imidazolidnimine/
spinosad (including
2
Spinosyn A and
Spinosyn D)
Avid Abamectin Downtown Spider 2 gal $2,826
Flower Pots Mites
Upstar Bifenthrin Emergancy Crane Fly 920 gal $1,111
Services
Campus, Fire
Station No 6
SuffOil-X Petroleum Oil Police Golden 1 gal Incor-
Headquarters Beetle porated
into
yearly
maint.
contract
Speed Zone 2-4-Emergency Broadleaf 3 gal Incor-
DichlorophenoxyaceServices herbicide porated
tic acid; isooctyl (2-Campus, Fire for turf into
ethylhexl) ester; 3,6-Station No 6, yearly
Dichloro-o-anisic Fire Station maint.
acid (Dicamba); 11 contract
Carfentrazone-ethyl;
R(+)2(2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxy);
propionic acid
(MCPP)
2. Where are the chemicals stored and what does the City do with chemicals no longer in
use?
Parks and Open Space staff store and mix pesticides in a centralized storage facility designed and
used exclusively for that purpose. Access to the POS pesticide storage facility is limited to staff
who hold a state pesticide applicator’s license. The facility has a spill containment floor, lockable
storage cabinets and a regulation mixing area. Pesticides that are no longer useful are disposed
of according to State and Federal law and depending on the material in question. The chemicals
go to a hazardous materials handling contractor (e.g. NW Hazmat Inc.), or to Lane County’s
Hazardous Waste program for disposal.
Facility Management does not store pesticides. All chemicals are applied by vendors who are
State licensed to handle and store pesticides at their place of business.
3. What specific chemicals are used in the Owen Rose Garden?
The following fungicides are applied by the City’s contractor to the roses at the Owen Rose
Garden to control the fungi that attack them: Miclobutanil (e.g. Eagle) with Supreme (dormant
3
oil); Propiconazole; Chlorothalonil; and Fenarimol (e.g. Rubigan). The fungicides are applied in
rotation to improve their efficacy and reduce the development of resistance in the fungal
pathogens. Applications of fungicides have decreased at the rose garden over the last few years
as a result of careful attention to cultural practices and the selection of disease-resistant varieties.
Herbicides are applied at the Owen Rose Garden to control weeds in the rose beds and the
flowering borders. Weeds in the turf areas are treated every few years as the population of
weeds reaches the established threshold for treatment. The following herbicides were used at
the Owen Rose Garden in the past year: Glyphosate (e.g. Roundup or Aquamaster) for weeds in
the beds and paths; Diethylamine salt (e.g. Sterling) for weeds in the turf; and Clethodim (e.g.
Envoy Plus) for grasses in the beds and flowering borders.
Some aerosol wasp and hornet killer is used at the Owen Rose Garden for control of stinging
insects in high traffic areas. The spray cans used contain permethrin and tetramethrin and they
are of the type available at retail stores.
4. What specific chemicals are used along urban waterways for blackberry control?
Blackberry, a state-listed noxious weed, is controlled on habitat restoration sites, including along
some waterways, through a regime of repeat mowings followed by a selective spot spraying of
Garlon 3A and Milestone on the resprouting top growth. The pesticide is applied only to the
regrowth on mowed plants, new growth that is less than a year old. Blackberry fruits are born on
wood that is in its second season or older so this method limits the potential for berries to be
contaminated with the pesticide. By greatly reducing the biomass of the plants, this approach
reduces the food storage ability of the plants, which then succumb to the targeted spot-spraying,
significantly reducing the amount of herbicide required. This treatment method is the least toxic
effective method and it is approved by State and Federal resource protection agencies. The
repeat mowing and spray is recognized by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)
as the preferred method of control and it is required for blackberry removal on restoration
projects that are funded through that agency.
For more information contact:
Kevin Finney, Park Operations Manager
541-682-4809
Kevin.p.finney@ci.eugene.or.us
Brian York, Facility Management Landscape Program Coordinator
541-682-5321
brian.s.york@ci.eugene.or.us
4