HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 129-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ’ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2007 CMR:129:07
SUBJECT: STATUS OF LESS TOXIC PEST CONTROL AT CITY FACILITIES
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
DISCUSSION
This report transmits the results of the City’s efforts during the last four years to use less toxic
pesticides and pest management techniques on City property that are included in the 2005 Pest
Management and Pesticide Use Report (Attachment A).
The primary goals of the City’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy are to protect water
quality and reduce ecotoxicity threats from pesticide use. For this report, ecotoxicity is defined
as toxicity to birds, fish, bees, and aquatic indicator species, and potential secondary or
unintended wildlife poisoning from consumption of rodent baits. Pesticides refer to insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides. The IPM Policy and efforts to quantify and reduce
pesticides associated with impaired water quality and potential ecotoxicity are requirements of
the City’s regional stormwater permit.
Since the adoption of the IPM in 2001, staff has made considerable efforts to implement pest
management procedures that minimize the need for pesticide applications and using the least toxic
pesticides when chemical control of pests and disease is needed. Efforts to date have resulted in the
successful reduction of the quantity and toxicity of pesticides used for Weed and insect control, and
structural pest control contractor requirements that will further protect water quality of creeks and
the Bay. However, increased rainfall in 2004 and 2005, coupled with older greens in need of
replacement at the Palo Alto golf course, has resulted in increased use of ecotoxic fungicides at the
golf course. Annual fluctuations in rainfall and temperature may increase or decrease the need for
future use of fungicides which can pose ecotoxicity and water quality threats. The actual extent of
ecotoxicity from golf course fungicide use, if any, has not been determined. The City seeks to
prevent potential problems in lieu of expensive analytical protocols and sampling.
The best opportunity to reduce pesticide use and toxicity further is through the reduction of turf
fungi. Staff has maximized its ability to control turf fungi using non-chemical best cultural
practices. To ensure that higher fungicide use does not continue to be necessary in wetter years,
additional resources to improve golf course greens will be required. Current structural problems
with existing greens exacerbate conditions conducive to potentially devastating turf fungi. New
greens are needed and would also improve course playability, consistency, and require fewer
resources to maintain. These renovations are contained in the Golf Course Master Plan, but have
been deferred due to budget reductions. Until future funds are committed by the Community
CMR:129:07 Page 1 of 3
Service’s Division for golf course green repair, it is unlikely that turf fungicide use can be
substantially reduced in wet years. Other options for turf fungus prevention and less toxic fungicide
use will continue to be explored.
BACKGROUND
Integrated pest management (IPM), also known as less-toxic pest management, encourages long-
term pest prevention and suppression through a combination of techniques. These techniques
include: biological controls, habitat manipulation, use of resistant plant varieties, improved
landscape and building hygiene, and structural repair and pest barriers. IPM sanctions synthetic
chemical pesticides only as a last resort, and only with the least toxic chemicals available. While
the City of Palo Alto has used these principles for many years, additional storm water protection
regulatory requirements resulted in a more formal, structured IPM program and additional
reporting requirements for pesticide use.
In 2001, the City of Palo Alto adopted a reduced-risk pest management policy and drafted an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan for the use of pesticides by City staff and contractors.
The IPM Policy states that:
The City of Palo Alto ’will carry out its pest management operations using
reduced-risk IPM techniques to reduce or eliminate chemicals to the maximum
extent. Chemicals will be used only as a last resort for pest management
problems. Each division that applies pesticides will maintain an active IPM plan
to ensure the long-term prevention or suppression of pest problems with minimum
negative impact on human health, non-target organisms, and the environment.
The City will actively pilot non-toxic alternatives for structural and landscape
pest control, seeking to use the most recent technology, best management
practices and least toxic methods for all pest control measures.
The City will use appropriate venues to educate staff and the public about its IPM
commitment in an effort to role model less toxic approaches to structural and
landscaping pest control.
These policy goals are to be achieved through an annual quantification of the City’s pesticide use
and continual improvement and implementation less toxic pest control strategies.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no resource impact in the current fiscal year, or in FY 2007-08. For green renovation to
occur, the Commtmity Services Department will need to establish a long term goal and
commitment to address this issue. Environmental Compliance can assist with this effort by
supplementing technical expertise, providing issue papers and similar resources. Replacement of
the seven greens will need to be phased in over several years to minimize disruption to golf
course users. The estimated cost for each green replacement is $50,000-$75,000 and the total
project cost will be approximately $350,000-$525,000.
CMR:129:07 Page 2 of 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Furthering IPM efforts is congruent with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Policy and
Sustainability Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an
environmental review is not necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachmem A: 2005 Pest Management and Pesticide Use Report
PREPARED BY:
Envir~rnental Sl~cialist
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
GLENN ROBERTS
Public Works Director-"
Assistant City Manager
cc:Golf Advisory Committee
Parks & Recreation Commission
CMR: 129:07 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
2005 IPM Program Update
September 6, 2006
Background
In 2001, the City of Palo Alto adopted a reduced-risk pest management policy and drafted an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan for the use of pesticides by City staff and contractors.
The goals of the IPM program are to:
minimize water quality impacts from pesticide-related ecotoxicity .....
minimize total pesticide use; and
use the least toxic pesticides when pesticides are needed.
These goals are to be achieved through an annual quantification of the City’s pesticide use and
continual improvement of pest control strategies.
Integrated pest management (IPM), also known as reduced-risk pest management, encourages
long-term pest prevention and suppression through a combination of techniques. These
techniques include: biological controls, habitat manipulation, use of resistant plant varieties,
improved landscape and building hygiene, and structural repair and pest barriers. IPM sanctions
synthetic chemical pesticides only as a last resort, and only with the least toxic chemicals
available. While the City of Palo Alto has used these principles for many years, additional storm
water protection regulatory requirements have resulted in a more formal, structured IPM
program.
To evaluate the chemical toxicity of chemicals used, a tiered system is used (based on a City of
San Francisco study) which considers (1) acute human toxicity and chronic health risks; (2) the
level of training required to use the product; (3) inclusion of a chemical on the Clean Water Act
303d list for impairment of a local water body; (4) environmental toxicity; and (5) a chemical’s
persistence and mobility in soil. Tier 1 chemicals are of highest concern, Tier 2 are of moderate
concern, Tier 3 are of lowest concern, and Tier 4 are chemicals for which there is insufficient
information to analyze their toxicity. To be identified as a Tier 1 chemical, a product needs to be
identified as high risk with regard to only one of the five criteria above.
This 2005 update summarizes the year’s successes and challenges, reports on the City’s 2005
pesticide use data, discusses program accomplishments and progress on the recommendations of
the 2004 update, and makes new program improvement recommendations.
2005 Successes and Challenges
2005 brought the testing of botanical product replacements for structural pest control products at
Facilities, a new Scope of Services for the City’s IPM structural pest control contractor, and the
completion of most of the 2005 tasks listed in the 2004 report. A trend in decreased Tier 1
pesticide use for weeds and insects is emerging. High visibility public facilities such as the golf
course associated with higher pesticide use continue to pilot new rodent control and landscape
management methods with the goal of decreasing pesticide use.
Wet weather conditions causing turf fungi problems, and a concentrated effort to reduce gopher
populations as a first step in transitioning to trapping as the primary control measure, resulted in
significant increases in both total and Tier 1 pesticide use in 2005. These challenges are discussed in
following sections of this report.
2005 Pesticide Use Information
1. Total active ingredient and Tier 1 pesticide use increased significantly in 2005 due
primarily to turf fungus challenges associated with increased rainfall and older greens in
need of replacement at the Palo Alto golf course. Despite staff’s best efforts to minimize turf
fungus using best cultural practices for thatch removal, mowing, aeration, topdressing, and
fertilizing, a record rainy year caused higher than normal fungal problems resulting in a 94 pound
increase in total active ingredient use compared to 2004 (see Figure 1). Aluminum phosphide
applications used for gopher control also contributed to the increase. As shown in Figure 2, Tier 1
pesticide use increased by 145 pounds, equivalent to an increase of 78 percent from the 2004 Tier
1 use. The Tier 1 increase is greater than the total active ingredient increase because Tier 3 use
declined in 2005.
Figure 1. Total Active Ingredient by Year
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
278
389
446
355
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
350
Fiqure 2. 2001-2005Tier t-3
..300
~250
~200
_~c~150
~100
50
0
"l]er 1 "tier 2
Tier Rankings
2
Tier 3
[] 2001
[] 2002
1-12003
[] 200~
[] 200,=
Figure 3 presents the five most-
used pesticide active ingredients by
weight for 2005. These active
ingredients were used, in order of
declining weight of active
ingredient application, for
controlling fungus, weeds, and
gophers. As shown in Table 1,
three of these five active
ingredients (PCNB, Thiophanate-
Methyl, and Aluminum Phosphide)
are classified in Tier 1. Note that
the increased use of the pesticides
listed in Table 1 accounts for the
145 pound increase in Tier 1
pesticides. Note: decreases in other
Tier 1product uses account for the
difference between the 147pound
total shown in Table I and the 145
pound total of active ingredient used in 2005).
Figure 3. 2005 Top Five Pesticides
by Weight
All Others PCNB17%(fungicide)
25%
Glyphosate
(herbicide)
19%
Aluminum
Phosphide
(gopher
rodenticide)
7%
Thiophanate-
Methyl
(fungicide)
16%
Mancozeb
(fungicide)
16%
Table t. Pesticides With Significant 2005 Increases in Use
Pesticide
PCNB
Thiophanate-
Methyl
Iprodione
Aluminum
Phosphide
Description
Tier 1,
Ecotoxic
Fungicide
Tier 1,
Fungicide
Tier 1,
Fungicide
Tier 1,
Ecotoxic
Rodenticide
Location
Golf
Golf
Golf
Golf
2004 Use
(pounds)
85.5
0
3.3
0
2005 Use
(pounds)
115.0
70.0
19.6
31.6
Total:
Change
(pounds)
+29
+ 70
+16
+ 32
+ 147
Tier 1 active ingredients used by the golf course to control fungi represented 78 percent of the
City’s total Tier 1 pesticide use in 2005. Researching fungicide alternatives must be a priority in
2006 not only because of local toxicity concerns, but due to the August 2006 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency decision to cancel reregistration for the fungicide PCNB for turf use. PCNB is a
commonly used fungicide throughout the country and is the fungicide most used by the City. The
specific phase out dates will be determined by the EPA in 2007, but labeling changes determining
where a product is authorized for use are likely to occur in late 2007.
2005 pesticide use also increased because of aluminum phosphide applications used to control a
rapidly expanding and destructive gopher population. Aluminum phosphide applications were part
of a concentrated effort to drastically reduce the gopher population so that staff can move to
trapping as the primary control, method in 2006-07. Trapping is currently a supplementary method.
2. Use of Tier 1 active ingredients to control insects and weeds continued to decrease in 2005,
while total active ingredients used to control insects and weeds remained approximately constant.
Figures 4 and 5 depict the continuing decline in Tier 1 product use for control of these pests. Less
than two pounds of Tier 1 active ingredient was used for weed control in 2005. Expanded use of
goats, mulching, mowing, and mechanical removal of weeds is not yet captured numerically so
actual success in reducing use of chemical controls for weeds is greater than the data indicates.
Open Space has used natural rusts and the release of Hairy Weevils to limit seed production and
expansion of yellow star thistle, as well as mechanical removal of cattails in ponds. Operations-
Trees continues to use injectable pesticides instead of foliar applications to control pests and plants
replacement trees with pest resistant varieties. Note: capturing non-chemical pest control measures
in annual reporting is a recommendation for 2006, e.g. indicating how many acres of weeds were
removed using goats and training staff to use narrative explanations in monthly pesticide reporting
for non-quantifiable pest management control measures such as caulking cracks to reduce ants.
400
350~’300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 4. Decreased Use of Tier 1 Pesticides
to Control Weeds
Tier 3 and 4 products were not used
BWeeds (Tier 2)
[] Weeds (Tier 1)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
4
35
~> 30
0
Figure 5. Decreased Use of Tier 1 Pesticides
to Control Insects
Tier 4 products were not used
2001 2002
[] Insect (Tier 3)
[] Insect (Tier 2)
[] Insect (Tier 1)
2003 2004 2005
Year
Ecotoxic Pesticide Use in 2005
The primary driver of the City’s IPM policy and plan is the avoidance of ecotoxicity in water
bodies from pesticide use. Ecotoxicity, for this report, is defined as toxicity to birds, fish, bees, and
aquatic indicator species, and potential secondary or non-target poisoning from consumption of
rodent baits based on product MSDSs and other resources. Ecotoxic pesticides are a subset of Tier
1 pesticides that are described previously in this report. A product’s potential ecotoxicity does not
necessarily mean an immediate threat to the environment; how, where, and when the pesticide is
applied and the product’s breakdown time are all factors in its ultimate environmental impact.
Factors to consider:
Some product formulations and use procedures restrict product entry into the environment, such
as containerized ant baits and dusts (applied in wall cracks and crevices).
Conversely, even small amounts of some pesticides such as pyrethroids (e,g., bifenthrin,
cyfluthrin, delta-methrin) usually associated with sprayed ant pesticides, should be targeted
because of their persistent toxicity in urban creek and Bay sediments when rain or irrigation
washes them from surface areas into waterways.
Pesticides not identified by the EPA as known ecotoxins are not free of risk. Proprietary inert
ingredients and synergistic effects of multiple pollutants may still impact water quality and for
that reason, large amounts of use of any single product are warranted for potential reduction.
In the first three years ofPalo Alto’s IPM program, ues of ecotoxic and other Tier 1 active
ingredients decreased. This accompanied an increase of total active ingredient use City-wide due
to increased use of less toxic Tier 2 products. Factors attributed to the reported decrease of
ecotoxic and other Tier 1 products included an active effort by staff to use non-chemical and less
toxic chemical methods, a suspended use of some products while the goals of the City’s IPM
program were clarified by City staff, and the extent of information captured (County applications
of mosquito pesticides recorded in the first two years were discontinued in year three due to
insufficient County resources to provide the information, and in 2002 a better capture rate of
contractor applied pesticides data increased total active ingredient figures for that and subsequent
years). In 2004, ecotoxic pesticide use increased, returning to the level of approximately 100
pounds of ecotoxic active ingredient first quantified in 2001. The increase was attributed to
increased PCNB fungicide use in response to greater than usual rainfall during the winter season.
Ecotoxic pesticide use was further increased in 2005 due to turf fimgus and severe gopher issues
at the golf course. As shown in Figure 6, the ecotoxic pesticide use in 2005 was 156 pounds, an
increase of 56 percent from 2004. Table 1 indicates that this increase is more than accounted for
by the 2005 changes in the use of PCNB and aluminum phosphide, which increased by 29 and 32
pounds, respectively. It should be noted that the goal of the golf course staff has been to
drastically reduce the gopher population in 2005 and 2006 and then rely on trapping as the
primary means of controlling this pest. Trapping is currently a supplemental method. Pilot
programs installing raptor perches and owl boxes at the golf course to encourage the natural
predators of gophers and ground squirrels have been implemented in 2006 and will be reported
on in the 2006 report.
500.00
.-.,400.00
Figure 6. Comparison of Ecotoxic, Tier 1, and
Total Active Ingredient use By Year
,.--~ 300.00
.> 200.00
0.00
[]Total Pesticide
Applied
[]Tier 1
~---1 Pesticides
~ [] Ecotox
~:~:;~ ~_~!~:~:~ __
Pestic!des
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Table 2- Where Ecotoxic Pesticides Are
Used and the Potential for Reduction
Division
Facilhies
Percent of total
ecotoxic used City-
wide and related
target pests
Golf
Operations-
Trees
Parks
Water
Quality
Operations
1%
Ants, rodents
89%
Fungus, weeds, rodents
6%
Insects
Weeds, Fungus
2%
Mosquitoes, ants
Opportunity for Reduced Use
High: While this portion represents iust 1% of the City’s
total active ingredient use (applied mostly by
contractors), these products of concern are persistent and
pose water quality threats if they run off into local creeks.
Because altemative service and less toxic pesticide options
are available, the continued effort to switch to a contractor
using IPM methods is a high priority. In addition,
municipal demand for this service may expand the
opportunity for this service-to be provided to residents.
Residential sources are the leading cause of pesticide
toxicity in urban creeks and the. Bay.
Low-moderate: An August 2006 EPA decision to cancel
reregistration for PCNB due to its ecotoxicity will require
the City to examine other prevention and chemical options
to control turf fungi. This can be coupled with an effort to
review the EPA Alternatives Assessment and identify
those fungicide products that are most effective and least
toxic. Because of high standards for golf course greens and
conditions that are conducive to annual fungus disease, it is
unlikely that fungicides can be completely discontinued
from use unless standards for golf course greens are
changed.
New action not required: These ground-injected
pesticides pose minimal risk due to minimal transport and
exposure and therefore are not a priority for reduction.
See comments under "Golf."
New action not required: Mosquito products use a
bacillus as an active ingredient that pose minimal threat to
non-target species. Continued use of ant baits, less toxic
products and ant exclusion methods minimize potential
ecological hazards.
7
Table 3- Progress on 2005 Recommendations:
2005 Recommendation
1. Finalize contract revisions for City
structural pest control operators
(addressing ecotoxicity of
pyrethroid pesticide use and
reporting criteria).
2. Order preferred structural pesticide
products for City’s warehouse
"Stores" so that all can be obtained
in-house (addresses ecotoxicity
goal)
3. Revise language for all pest control
operators requiring timely monthly
submission of pesticide reporting
(addresses streamlined
administration and reporting).
4. Explore opportunity to use
"Approved Pesticide Lists" for
divisions that use structural
pesticides or large amounts of
active ingredient such as in Parks
and Golf (reduced toxicity,
streamlined administration)
5. Revise City IPM Policy and
procedure with new information
(e.g. reporting protocol (goal
clarification).
Status
Completed new Scope of Services for City wide IPM
Contract. RFP to go out in 2006.
Completed. Ordered several, higher volume products
for Stores and provided a list of less toxic products and
ordering information for Facilities and RWQCP staff
who service their own facilities. AttachmentA.
In process. This is happening iteratively as contracts
are renewed and vendors leave.
.Completed for Facilities and WQCP divisions who
purchase their own pest control products. Follow up
to ensure efficacy and continued use is required in
2006.
Scheduled for 2006
2005 Recommendation
Meet with IPM Committee and
RWQCP management to confirm
objectives and goals for IPM
program (goal clarification).
Status
Completed. Committee prioritized pesticide reduction
hierarchy (below) and agreed to concentrate IPM
efforts on piloting less toxic products and methods
using the hierarchy criteria. This is in lieu of a total
quantifiable reduction goal, which is subject to
weather and pest population cycles.
Pesticide Reduction Hierarchy
The IPM Committee agreed to target for reduction:
a) pesticides that are known ecotoxins that:
o Pose the greatest exposure threat to
local surface waters
o Cause secondary or non-target pest
poisoning
b)pesticides that are used in large quantities,
especially Tier 1 pesticides that may be of
concern to staff who use them because of
potential associated health risks.
Other:
*Assisted Open Space with a grant for non-native weed removal of phragrnites. The
grant was awarded to Open Space for the amount of $10,000 to fund trucks to haul
plant material for disposal. This project is to occur in fall 0£2006 when phragmites
removal poses the least threat to nesting birds. Resource management funds were
offered to Open Space for technical assistance related to least-toxic removal methods
Rusts, Hairy Weevils and mechanical removal of weeds used in Open Space.
9
Highlights of IPM Implementation Progress 2001-2005
Accurately assessing the success of the City’s efforts to reduce pesticide use and use least toxic
products is difficult when relying solely on yearly numerical fluctuations in pesticide use. Variations
in weather patterns, natural pest population cycles, and challenges associated with quantifying pest
control efforts that use biological or mechanical controls in lieu of pesticides are all important
considerations. The following are accomplishments of the City’s IPM efforts that cannot be measured
quantitatively.
2001
IPM policy is the first City Policy in the County
to be adopted. The IPM Committee drafts the
IPM Plan and Procedures.
A tiered system for analyzing City pesticide use
is adopted and the first annual report on the
City’s pesticide use is completed.
IPM Committee votes to discontinue use of
organophosphate pesticides due to water quality
concerns associated with their use.
Solarizing non-native plants at Pearson-
Arastradero Preserve (weeds are covered in
plastic tarps and destroyed by heat).
Mechanical removal of weeds in Open Space
Ponds
2002
Completed five extensive IPM plans and related
training for ants, weeds, yellowjackets
gophers and ground squirrels.
Identified all leased facilities and contractors
for inclusion in the City’ s annual pesticide
reports.
2003
City receives Department of Pesticide
Regulation IPM Innovator award
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ipminov/awards
/03awards.htm
~Piloted new methods to reduce yellow jackets
in Parks and Open Space.
Piloted gopher reduction strategies at
Foothills Park using trapping as a primary
method.
A visual barrier installed at the golf course
decreased ground squirrel damage by 100%.
GIS view of pesticide application
next to Adobe creek
10
In partnership with Santa Clara County Airport and Baylands and golf course Staff implemented
two new measures to reduce ground squirrel populations
a. The installation of a visual barrier hung along the golf course/airport fence line to
decrease the ground squirrels’ ability to see predators and thus reduce activity.
b. a trap design around Baylands buildings that can capture up to four ground squirrels ata
time.
2004
Created pesticide data entry system using a centralized
database and simplified reporting interface. This
streamlines staff reporting time and allows staffto also
print mandatory monthly DPR reports.
Transferred pesticide use information in database to
GIS format allowing for visual assessment of pesticide
applications next to creeks and the Bay.
Use of goats in Open Space areas to control weeds
proves successful (reintroduction of goats to this area is
on hold due to mountain lion concerns in that area).
2005 (see Table 3 for details)
Goats are used to reduce weeds at Enid
Pearson Arasterdero Open Space Preserve.
Scope of Services for City wide IPM contract drafted. RFP to go out in 2006.
Less toxic, botanically-based insecticides ordered for Facility staff use and related Approved
Pesticide List for Facilities and RWQCP divisions implemented
Confirmed pesticide reduction hierarchy
11
Recommendations for City of Palo Alto IPM Program
Targeting projects that maximize the IPM goals, especially given reduced funding and staff from
budget reductions, is anever-present challenge. Staff recommends that the City continue to
target the reduction of ecotoxic pesticides and those that are used in large amounts. Specific task
recommendations are:
Using the Scope of Services drafted in 2005, hire new IPM contractor for all City
facilities for insecticide and rodent control. This will minimize City generated
pyrethroid runoff into local creeks and secondary poisoning from rodent baits and, if
successful, provide model contract language for partner agencies.
Offer IPM grants to City of Palo,Alto divisions responsible for pest control, "
prioritizing those that offer potential reductions in ecotoxicity or reduction of pesticides
used in large amounts. This may encourage testing of non-chemical IPM efforts and less
toxic chemical alternatives (e.g., botanical oil products) that Water Quality Staff cannot
support with staff time or expertise. Suggested total grant funds for 2006-7:$7,500 (from
$10,000 IPM training budget in Brosseau contract). Staff recommends first exploring
other options for PCNB use due to the toxicity and amount of this product because US
EPA has recommended that it not be reregistered for golf course use.
3.Track and assist staff efforts to identify least toxic fungicide alternatives (cultural
and chemical) to target most effective, least toxic fungicides and address the U.S. EPA
cancellation of PCNB for use.
o In 2006, streamline administrative efficiency of IPM program. The administrative
duties of the City’s IPM program (e.g., obtaining and reformatting contractor reporting
information, compliance of other City Departments with IPM policy) consume time best
used for piloting new IPM projects or collaborating with regional IPM efforts.
Recommendations:
a. Consider web-based reporting for contractors to reduce staff time in obtaining and
reformatting pesticide use information for database entry and so staff can produce
the annual IPM Report and recommendations in the first quarter of each calendar
year.
b. Revise database to make annual evaluation of pesticide use information simpler,
more automated, inclusive of non-pesticide control methods, and capable of
weathering potential staff changes
c. Improve understanding of pest management response and pesticide reporting
protocol to staff City-wide
d. Update last two years of pesticide application information into GIS. Conversely,
explore the necessity of uploading information into GIS annually, and-reserve
when visual assessment of pesticide use is required.
e. Update IPM Policy and Procedures to reflect current operating procedure and
priorities
12
Participate in Regional Pesticide Reduction Efforts
Recognizing that Palo Alto’s reduction in ecotoxicity and active ingredient are a minimal
load to the total amount of Bay Area pesticide pollution, engage in the following:
a. Advertise eco-certified pest control operators when first graduate class of
EcoWise Certified program is finalized. The Structural Pest Control Board
prohibits the use ofusir~g "IPM certified" language in contractor ads, however
staff will work with the EcoWise program to find suitable language that meets
P~WQCP and Structural Pest Control Board needs.
b. Support and cooperate with EcoWise Certification program and PCO community
and/or advocate for legislation that allows for EcoWise certified (or similar IPM
identification) companies to advertise their services as being less toxic.
c. Continue to work with UP3 committee to draft model IPM Structural Pest Control
Operator contract language
d. Encourage partner cities and co-permittees to adopt IPM structural pest control
language after Palo Alto hires a new contractor
13
Addendum A
Additional Information about Fungicide Use at the Palo Alto Golf Course
Golf course staff reviewed the 2005 ~4nnual Pesticide Use and Pest A~anagement Report and
provided the following information which was included in the CMR sent to City Council in
November, 2006.
Summary:
Increased rainfall, coupled with older greens in need of replacement at the Palo Alto golf course
have resulted in increased use of ecotoxic fungicides at the golf course in 2004 and 2005.
The best opporttmity to reduce pesticide use and toxicity further is through the reduction of turf
fungi which are difficult to control and require large amounts of the active ingredient found in
fungicides which pose ecotoxicity and water quality threats. Staffhas maximized its ability to
control turf fungi using best cultural practices for turf. To achieve a reduction in City fungicide use,
additional resources to improve golf course greens will be required. Current structural problems
exacerbate conditions conducive to potentially devastating turf fungi. New greens would also
improve course playability, consistency, and require less resources to maintain. These repairs were
originally scheduled for 2001, but were delayed due to budget reductions associated with dotcom
revenue decreases.
Environmental Compliance will work with golf course staff to request CIP funds that can begin to
address this issue in 2008. Other high-priority safety and repair projects have already been slated for
2007. If funds cannot be secured for golf course green repair, it is unlikely that turf fungicide use can
be substantially reduced.
14
Additional Information Provided by Golf Course Staff
Information for IPM Report
Date: October 3, 2006
To: Julie Weiss
This information is to assist you in understanding the effort that is being made by the Golf
Division to reduce the use of pesticides, and the problems we have to contend with at the Golf
Course. Two of the areas that are a major concern are turf disease mad gopher and squirrel
infestations.
Reducing Rodent Population:
A plan was put together to reduce the rodent populations. The contract for Sportsturf
Management has been reduced from $19,000.00 to $12,000.00 due to last year’ s success with
gopher control. (Our contractor thinks the reduction of pesticides used on rodents could be as
much as 42% this coming year.) This year we will put more effort on reducing squirrel
populations while continuing to reduce gophers.
Turfgrass Disease:
The common diseases we are challenged with annually are Anthracnose, Brown Patch, Yellow
Patch, & Summer Patch during periods of high temperatures, while Fusarium Patch, and Snow
Mold, are seen during wet cool conditions. The environment for these summer diseases is high
temperature, low mowing heights, poor surface and subsurface drainage, and high soil moisture.
The old ’"’Push up Greens that were scheduled to be rebuilt as part of the Golf Master Plan has
been put on hold due to declining revenues related to the economic recession and City wide
budget constraints. The old greens continue to give us the most disease problems due to their
small size and poor surface and subsurface drainage. Rebuilding the seven Greens would be at a
cost of $50,000 to $75,000 dollars apiece.
Snow Molds: Environment which is known to activate pathogen (Microdochium Nivale) for
Fusarinm Patch, Snow Mold includes temperatures below 60 degrees with more than 10 hours
of leaf wetness per day for several days. Hosts: All cool season grasses. Bentgrasses and Annual
Bluegrasses particularly susceptible due to normal winter conditions in northern California.
Palo Alto average winter conditions:
January- average temp. 41 degrees/rain 3.50" over 13 days
February- average temp. 46 degrees / rain 4.90" over 7 days
March- average temp. 47 degrees / rain 3.85" over 10 days
April- average temp. 45 degrees / rain 1.60" over 4 days
May- average temp. 51 degrees / rain 1.1 over 3 days
November- average temp. 45 degrees / rain 2.15 over 5 days
December-average temp. 45 degrees / 8.40" over 9 days
15
Cultural Practices currently used to reduce pesticide use
¯Hand Watering Greens -- purpose is to direct water only where it is needed to reduce disease
and pesticide use. Labor that is required: 600 hours annually
¯Verticutting assists in the elimination of thatch-- thatch provides a better microenvironment and
medium for disease causing organisms. Thatch accumulation is associated with localized dry
spots, disease, insects, and reduced effectiveness of fungicides. Verticutting here is usually done
from April to October. / Labor required: 144 hours annually
¯Topdressing--is done twice a month because it is one of the most effective biological controls
of thatch. It is also done to smooth the playing surface. / Labor required: 100 hours annually
¯Cup Changing- the reason cup changing is done every day is to reduce the stress in one
particular area. This practice reduces disease which can easily infect a stressed area. Labor
required: 1750 hours annually
¯Tree trimming- is done as needed for increased air movement and sunlight near greens. Air and
wind assist in reducing disease. 8 hours annually
¯Dew removal-dew is removed when mowing is skipped to prevent disease. Atmospheric water
vapor content enhances many types of pathogens in conjunction with glutonose protein released
from the grass plant. / Labor required: 100 hours annually
¯Soil surfactants- increases water penetration, decreased dew incidence, reduced water
evaporation / Labor required: 16 hours annually
¯Solid core aeration- reduces compaction associated with disease incidence. Labor required: 16
hours annually
¯Hydroject aeration- reduces compaction / Labor required: 8 hours annually
¯Hollow core aeration- reduces compaction and increases soil pore air space, currently being
done twice a year / includes overseeding with Bentgrasses that are more tolerant to turf
pathogens) Labor required: 275 hours annually
¯Soil Amendments- are added after laboratory analysis to improve soil conditions
¯Fertilization--monitored and applied accordingly for healthy turf stand (8-9 lbs. per 1000 sq.
ft. annually)
¯Green inspection Daily--all greens walked and observed to determine watering cycles disease,
stress, severity of compaction Labor required: Labor required 250 hours annually
~,Barn Owl Boxes, Raptor Perches, 1500’ shade cloth, trapping, destroying burrows, water, are
all tools used to reduce pesticide use
Future Practices:
Include more topdressing, verticutting, and the use of ¾ inch tines for spring Green aeration to
incorporate more soil and less thatch. Estimated required Labor: 50 hours annually
I:~SourceControl\OurPrograms~Pesticides\City Policy_ProcedureskAnnual Reports and HistoryL2005kReportlnfo\v8.doc
16