Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-28 City Council (2)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JULY 28, 2003 SUBJECT:ANNUAL REDUCED-RISK PEST CONTROL ACCOMPLISHMENTS CMR:374:03 POLICY: 2002 This is an informational report and no Council action is required. This report summarizes staff’s 2002 efforts to improve less-toxic pest control methods and minimize pesticide use on City of Palo Alto property. It is the second Annual Report on pesticide use at City facilities. BACKGROUND In 2001, the City of Palo Alto adopted a policy to minimize pesticide use through reduced-risk pest management techniques. This "Integrated Pest Management Policy" provides guidelines to minimize pesticide use and utilize only the least-toxic chemicals to accomplish essential tasks. This is achieved via an annual quantification of the City’s pesticide use and continual improvement of pest control strategies. The policy also committed the City to not use "Category I" pesticides (those labeled "Danger" for acute reactions) or organophosate pesticides - a family of pesticides now found in local creeks in and San Francisco Bay which can significantly impact wildlife. The City recently completed its second annual evaluation of pesticide use, which has been distributed to stakeholders and is summarized in this report. Integrated pest management (IPM), also known as reduced-risk or 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 use only as a last resort, and only with the least toxic chemicals available. The City of Palo Alto has utilized these principals for many years and now new storm water protection regulatory requirements have resulted in a more formal, structured IPM program. For the past two years, the City has quantified and evaluated the toxicity of its pesticide use, to help prioritize future pest management strategies. To evaluate the chemica! toxicity, a tiered system was used (based on a City of San Francisco study) which CMR:374:03 Page 1 of 4 considers (1) acute human toxicity and chronic health risks; (2) the level of training required to use the product; (3) inclusion of Clean Water Act (303d) listed chemicals; (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 toxicit3~. DISCUSSION 2002 Accomplishments The results of this year’s report demonstrate staff’s commitment to the goals and objectives of the IPM policy and plan (Attachment A). While not all project goals could be accomplished due to staff and budget constraints, most 2002 tasks were completed, resulting in: ¯Four state-of-the-art pest management plans written and extensive training about gophers, ground squirrels, weeds, and yellowjackets. Plans focused on habitat control to reduce populations with pesticide use as a last option. These pests were associated with the top five pesticides of highest concern in 2002. ¯A 21% reduction in Tier 1 pesticides due to product changes and favorable weather conditions. ¯New partnerships between City divisions that share pest control efforts on adjacent sites. ¯More detailed information about product toxicity and alternatives to targeted pesticides. ¯Identified and contacted all leased facilities for inclusion in the City’s IPM efforts " and reporting. ¯Facilities reduced chemical applications for mouse and rat control by 80%, due in part to structural barriers such as doorsweeps and screens. ¯The Parks Division took steps in 2002 to nearly eliminate its 2003 use of one herbicide known to be a human carcinogen by using mechanical removal in lieu of chemical control. Actions for FY 2003-2004 The primary goals for 2003-2004 are to finalize existing IPM plans and address the few projects that were not accomplished in 2002 due to insufficient staff time or budget: Staff will revise pesticide use procedures to allow for EPA Category I restricted from use based on the City’s 2001 IPM Procedures because of their highly acute toxicity to either people or the environment), aluminum phosphide (fumitoxin) use for two years under the following conditions: ¯Use fumitoxin only as a last option for gopher control in large areas such as the Golf Course or Baylands in circumstances where trapping or baiting, burrow CMR:374:03 Page 2 of 4 destruction, and other control measures cannot control the population within a reasonable period of time. Every other effort to control gophers or ground squirrels has been employed without sufficient results. The IPM Coordinator must authorize fumitoxin applications prior to use. Fumitoxin use will be allowed under these conditions through 2004, during which time a less-toxic pilot program to control gophers will be phased in. After this time, both the gopher IPM plan and potential need for fumitoxin will be reevaluated. Revise City contract language as feasible to require standardized, timely reporting from contractors and conformance with relevant aspects of IPM Policy and Plan. Data from contractors is often late or incomplete, resulting in additional staff time to compile report information. Environmental Compliance staff will work with departments retaining pest control contractors to revise contract language. Continue implementing/evaluating 2002 pest plans and goals Implementing pest control changes requires a multiyear process to research, train staff, implement, and evaluate the success of IPM efforts. Because .of the aggressive implementation schedule for the 2002-2003 year, staff recommends continuing to implement these changes rather than initiating additional IPM plans for the coming year. a)Implement and monitor other aspects of the gopher IPM plan at Foothills Park. Agree on hierarchy of pesticides to avoid secondary poisoning (e.g., a coyote becoming poisoned after eating a poisoned gopher), and develop language regarding humane destruction of pests. b) Continue partnership between Santa Clara County Airport, Baylands, and Golf Course for ground squirrel control. While substantial progress was made identifying key locations of concern and control strategies, staff time and resources prevented implementation of new control strategies. Revisiting the goals and an implementation schedule for these strategies is recommended for the 2003-2004 year. c) Initiate Golf Course pilot for pink snow mold control. Due to competing resources, a pilot program to address pink snow mold and the associated fungicides could not be implemented in 2002. Staff hopes to accomplish a pilot program in 2003-2004. d) Monitor yellowjacket control efforts. Participate in UC Riverside study testing the efficacy of as yet unregistered less-toxic chemical controls for yellow jackets. 4. Pesticide Review a) Provide Environmental Compliance Division assistance to verify category levels and least toxic alternatives during product switches. Because most CMR:374:03 Page 3 of 4 b) c) pesticides, by their desi~, meet at least one or more Tier 1 requirements, divisions who switch product use in a good faith attempt to reduce the use of a target active ingredient may inadvertently switch to a product with other to,city concerns or ~vhich may violate the City’s policy. Divisions may verify that pesticides meet City policy requirements using their own resources or seek assistance from Environmental Compliance. Further investigate options for reducing glyphosate. Possible target sites could include infrequently used areas that are not required to have a high aesthetic standard (e.g., medians, substations, areas infrequently used by the public). This same strategy could be considered for reduction of other pesticides such as molluscicides. Develop a strategy to refine tier assessments. Sixty-five percent of the active ingredients used in 2002 meet one or more Tier 1 criteria. A refined system will help staff better identify pesticides that should be targeted for reduction. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy implications. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Detailed Status Report recommendations) on 2002 Goals (based on 2001 report PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: WEISS ~ecialist GLENN S. Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY Assistant City Manager CMR.o74.0~Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Status Report on 2002 Goals 2001 a) Ensure that Tier 1 pesticide use is minimized through the use of pest- specific IPM plans, and where necessary, site-specific IPM plans. The first chemicals to be targeted will be the top five chemicals of concern: PCNB, glyphosate, mancozeb, oxadiazon, and aluminum phosphide. To specifically address these chemicals the following will need to occur: Review existing IPM Plans for weeds and fungi controlled by PCNB, glyphosate, mancozeb, and oxadiazon use to ensure that the plans reflect most recent information and control measures. This will be done by reviewing other cities’ IPM plans, researching new industry alternatives for weed and fungi control, and consulting with specialists in landscaping IPM alternatives. b) Develop a pest-specific IPM plan for gophers to address aluminum phosphide (fumitoxin) use via the same resources described above. Determine whether aluminum phosphide use is essential or whether use should be discontinued. If the use is essential, then the City-wide IPM Plan will be altered to allow its use. Write an IPM plan for yellow jackets to address the discontinued use of diazinon. Diazinon is prohibited from use in the City’s IPM plan and is being phased out from retail sale and use by the us EPA, but effective alternatives have not yet been identified. a)Weed plan completed. A weed IPM Plan was written and training provided for City staff. Open Space staff organized a demonstration of Waipuna hot water weed control system for the City and other agencies. Fungi pilot to be reviewed for possible implementation in 2003-2004. Limited staff resources prohibited implementation of a pilot program to trial IPM alternatives for fungi (primarily pink snow mold) associated with use of PCNB, mancozeb, metalaxyl, and triadimefon. Completed. University California Riverside researcher Don Reierson conducted a well-received staff training on yellow jacket control resulting in new" strategies that City staff can use to prevent and control yellow jackets exceeding tolerance thresholds. The City is reviewing the opportunity to partner with UC Riverside in a research program testing new chemical controls for yellow jackets. b) 90% completed. Gopher and ground squirrel IPM plans were created and an immediate plaza for the next three years developed for gopher control. An analysis of aluminum phosphide use and potentially less-toxic alternatives are in the final stages of assessment. Details of this strategy are available in the appendix. Agreement about secondary poisoning concerns and humane dispatching of problem pests still needs to be resolved. Work with suppliers to determine risks of Tier 4 chemicals (the three chernicals for which information was incomplete), and in furore years, consider determining "inert" ingredient risks in all City pesticides. Identify additional City sites that should be included in the 2003 Annual Pesticide Use and Pest Management Report (such as those leased by the City to others). Verify that all City contractors who apply pesticides have been identified. Expand IPM training to include all staff involved with pesticide use (not just those who supervise pest control). Completed. The three 2001 Tier 4 chemicals were assessed and reclassified. In each case, new hlformation was available with which to draw a conclusion. ¯Advance Liquid Ant Bait--reclassified as Tier 2 ¯Drop Dead--reclassified as Tier ! ¯Niban Granular Bait--reclassified as Tier 2 Completed. Leased facilities were reviewed. The two largest facilities, Cubberley Community Center and the Palo Alto Airport, were identified as being key areas where pesticides should be monitored. Due to staffing concerns, Facilities staff will handle pest control concerns only in common areas of Cubberley. Managers of leased facilities were notified about the City’s IPM policy and prohibited chemicals. They will continue to be responsible for pest management at those locations and will not be required to report pesticide use. The county leases property at the Palo Alto Airport; staff are complying with the requirements of the County IPM Plan and reporting requirements. It was agreed that they would make pesticide use information available to the City upon request rather than submit annual reports to the City. The Airport staff is coordinating with City staff on ground squirrel control issues. Completed for 2002. An interview with other City Divisions resulted in two new contractors being identified, The contractors were contacted regarding the City’s IPM Plan and reporting requirements. This will be an ongoing effort to ensure all new contractors are notified about the City policy. IPM training for non-supervisors is still needed in three divisions.