HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-05 City Council (2)City of Polo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
AUGUST 5, 2002
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
CMR: 362:02
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF CITY’S FIRST ANNUAL PESTICIDE USE REPORT
This is an, informational report and no Council action is required.
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 City contractors. The goal is to minimize pesticide use and utilize only the least toxic
chemicals to accomplish essential tasks. This is to be achieved via 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. 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.
.In addition to quantifying City pesticide use, staff evaluated the toxicity of pesticides
used to help prioritize future actions. To evaluate the chemical toxicity, a tiered system
was 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 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 toxicity.
DISCUSSION
The results of this first annual report demonstrate that the City has made significant
accomplishments in using reduced-risk pest management alternatives and in meeting the
goals of the IPM policy and plan. For the first time, most City divisions drafted, IPM
CMR:362:02 Page 1 of 5
plans for their specific pests of concern, expanded staff training to inc’lude information
about IPM techniques, began tracking detailed pesticide use information, and began an
annual sweep of hazardous materials to remove unwanted or prohibited chemicals from
storage.
In addition to these accomplishments, the annual reports submitted by each City division
provided the following information about the City’s pesticide use:
1)279 pounds of total active ingredients were applied on City property in 2001 by
City staff and City contractors (the active ingredient is the amount of the actual
chemical, separate from the total mix in a pesticide product, which kills the
targeted pest).
2)Palo Alto’s pesticide use represents 0.04% of Santa Clara County’s total reported.
urban pesticide use.
3)Palo Alto’s largest pesticide use is for weed control (39%, based on active
ingredient), followed by rodent control (29%), fungus control (25%), and insect
control (6%).
4)Of the 39 pesticides used by the City, 25 have been identified as containing Tier 1
chemicals.
5)IPM policy and plan compliance were met with the following exceptions:
One contractor used aluminum phosphide, a chemical prohibited in the City’s
IPM plan.
IPM training did not occur for all staff applying pesticides.
One division did not submit IPM plans.
Although this first annual report will establish baseline information about the City’s pest
management and pesticide use, it should be noted that certain divisions, such as Parks and
Golf, have been implementing IPM strategies for the last ten years. In addition, many of
this first year’s City-wide IPM efforts were implemented as the plan was being formed.
Thus our baseline information already represents significant IPM achievements and
reductions in pesticide use. This should be considered as the City evaluates future pest
management improvements.
The five Tier 1 and Tier 2 chemicals of concern in 2001 are summarized in Table 1
below.
CMR:362:02 Page 2 of 5
Name Target Pest
Pounds applied
(active ingredient
only)
in 2001
Locations Used
Pema chloro
nitro benzene Fungi 77.5 Golf course
(PCNB)
Weeds
Used in conjunction
with PCNB to control
fungi on poa grass
Glyphosate
Mancozeb
67.97
51.12
Pre-emergent weed
killer
Various sites
throughout City, e.g.,
parks, open space,
medians, libraries,
community centers,
golf course
Bowling green (use
will likely be
discontinued here)
and golf course
Oxadiazon 13.44 Parks and medians
Aluminum.
phosphide Gophers 13.34 Foothills Park
Actions for FY 2002-2003
1. 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 the pests (weeds and fungi) which are
controlled using PCNB, glyphosate, mancozeb, and oxadiazon 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 use via the same resources described above. Determine whether
aluminum phosphide use is essential, or whether use should be
CMR:362:02 Page 3 of 5
discontinued. If the use is essential then the citywide plan ’will be altered to
allow its use.
Though not in the Top 5 list of targeted chemicals, it will be necessary to write an
IPM plan for yellow jackets toaddress 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 Environmental Protection Agency, but effective
alternatives have not yet been identified.
Work with suppliers to determine risks of Tier 4 chemicals (the three chemicals
for which information was incomplete). In future years, consider determining .inert
ingredient risks in all City pesticides.
identify additional City sites which should be included in the 2002 Annual
Pesticide Use and Pest Management Report (such as those leased by the City to
others).
5. Verify that all City contractors who apply pesticides have been identified.
6.Expand IPM training to include all staff involved with pesticide use (not just those
who supervise pest control).
Part of less-toxic pest control relies on setting tolerance levels for target pests. The City’s
wish to minimize its use of toxic chemicals may require public education about the City’s
efforts in. the event that less toxic pest control and piloting alternatives alters the
appearance of public facilities where pest control is required.
RESOURCE IMPACT
New reporting requirements and the review and testing of less toxic pest control
strategies will likely increase demands on staff and .contractor time. The extra time will
be more evident during this first year as staff reviews the results of the first annual report
and responds to required and suggested changes (contractors are also required to comply
with the City’s IPM policy). Because less toxic pest control can increase labor needs,
staff will monitor associated costs and, if nec6ssary, may seek additional funding to
support these efforts.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City’s reduced-risk pest management efforts are helping City operations meet the
reduced-risk Integrated Pest Management policy goals and requirements.
CMR:362:02 Page 4 of 5
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
WEISS
Specialist
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
CMR:362:02 Page 5 of 5