Loading...
7C - Update and Endorsement of Integrated Pest Management Task Force RecommendationsDO NOT REMOVE - PRAB File Matenal ,.~ CITYOFBOULDER ~.,,r PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDAITEM MEETING DATE: Apri128, 2003 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: Apri122, 2003) ~ ~ AGENDA TTTLE: Update and Endorsement of Integrated Pest Management Task Force Recommendations REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Jan Geden, CPRP, Dvector of Pazks and Recreation D~u~ Iiawthome, ~FFF, Pazks Superintendent Kathleen Alexander, Assistant City Forester Dave Brown, Flatuons Golf Course Supermtendent Matt Claussen, Pazks Environmental Resources Mary Kazlauskas, North Zone Pazks Superv~sor Ahce Guthne, City IPM Coordmator FISCAL IMPACT: More mechamcal and cultural control, using alternatrve products, and using less synthetic pesucides could be more expensive m both the short and long term PURPOSE: The purpose is to update the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on the progress of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Task Force, get mput from the PRAB on the draft recommendaaons and endorsement of the process to date. BACKGROUND: The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Task Force was establ~shed by the Crty Manager in October 2002. It was created to make a recommendation to the Crty Manager and Crty Council on the feasibility of implementmg a ban on pesucide use wrth a list of exceptions. The scope of the IPM Task Force ~s urban and natural lands, includuig pazks, athledc fields, Flatirons Golf Course, and Forestry (excludu~g street trees) The Task Force has had twelve meetmgs to date. It is compnsed of IS crt~zens, representatrves of c~ty advuory boazds, envuonmental groups and professionaLs from the pnvate sec[or and academia. Staff from several city departments are ^^ participatmg (Envuonmental Affau~s, Parks, Greenways, Open Space/Mountun Pazks and ``" Transportanon) AGENDA ITEM # VII-C : PAGE 1 ANALYSIS: As the Task Force work has progressed, we reaUzed that rt u unportant to have the dec~sion- makmg process used by crty staff be transpazent, defensible and documented. Therefore, havmg Best Management Pracrices that are cleaz and useful for assessmg whether pestic~de use ~s appropnate for a particular location aze cruc~al The Task Force has reviewed and rev~sed Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Current Management Prachces for c~ty lands. Tlus ~s a very large document and l~sts weed, msect and disease species, and types oF locations (e g perencual flower beds, weflands, etc.) for all city departments. It mcludes best practices from research studies and mdustry norms and current methods used by crty staff, wluch can vary from department and location. Staff ~s m the process of revumg the prachces as recommended by the Task Force and compiling them uito one standardized document. A copy u not mcluded wrth tlus memo, due to its length, but ~s available by contactmg Ahce Guthrie A Site Assessment for Chetmcal Appropnateness (Attachment A) has aLso been created as another check on whether or not chenucals should be used. Staff has followed the guidance of the Task Force m dev~smg ttus tool and has made numerous revvsions as rt us finaLzed The Task Force also developed a flow chart (Attachment B) that shows how the vanous elements aze connected and util~zed m the decis~on-makmg process The final IPM Task Force meetmg on Apn123 will mclude developmg the Lst of pesticides that can be used for the 2003 season, u~formation on the changes to the state weed law and final~zmg some specific recommendations. One recommendation bemg ducussed is that there be no use oF synthenc pesucides at entrances to pubhc buildmgs and m a buffer azea around playgrounds Staff will update the PRAB at the Apri128 meehng ~ ,"'~ The Task Force has approved the followuig hst of Goals. rw Short Term Goals 1 List of chemicals banned on crty property (Attachment C). These products have not been used by city staff and a ban insures that they will not be used in the future. 2. IPM dec~sion-makmg process that ~s cons~stent across departments. The elements (m a standazd~zed format) mclude the followmg: a. Revised Best Management Pracnces & Current Management Practices b Srte Assessment for Chemical Appropnateness c. Pesticide Evaluation Matrix d. F1ow Chart of entire process 3. L~st of exemptions to pesricide ban/moratonum for 2003 and ~ushfications Long Term GoaLs 1 Condnue worku~g to lessen environmental unpacts of pesticide use and to use less syntheuc pesacides Ttvs mcludes goals to reduce amounts of spec~fic pesticides used ui specific situations such as ex~stmg sites, new property purchases, new mfestations of pests and emergmg pest issues 2. Update and augment BMPs based on available reseazch and uiformation, mcludmg thresholds, non-chemical controls, and factors such as soils and ecological unbalances that contnbute to pest problems. Include utformauon on percent effechveness of methods and a way to assess the unpacts of the treatment opnons. '"'" 3. Evaluate BMPs for weaknesses and revue. "" AGENDA TI'EM # VII-C : PAGE 2 ,... 4. Develop momtormg protocols to evaluate effectrveness of new methods and products. `„ Protocols will be standazd~zed across departments, provide for prac[ical field assessment and trackuig of new methods, and involve staff across departments. 5. Annual review of pesticides and deternvnation of allowable ones. 6 Annual review of process A recurrent theme throughout Task Force meetmgs is that there will need to be annual reviews and evaluations of BMPs and pesacides used The form that ttus review will take has not been decided upon, but there is general agreement that it u warranted. The Task Force also supports providuig u~formahon on crty practices to the pubhc as an educahonal tool for pest management. The recommendations from the Task Force will be presented to City Council on May 6. Council will be asked to approve or change the recommendations and endorse the program as amended so staff can proceed with cleaz guidance for the remainder of the growmg season Questions for PRAB Your feedback on t6e followmg questions will help staff as we move forwazd with discussions with other crty boazds and City Councd. 1 Recogmzing that the recommendation of the Task Force ~s not the end pomt of ttus process, does PRAB agree with the general duection of the Task Force efforts and proposed goals? 2. What concerns does PRAB have about the potenaal unpacts of the proposed approach on ~ pazk lands and resources~ 3 Does PRAB support the recommendation regazdmg no use of synthetic pesticides at entrances to pubhc buddmgs and m a buffer area around playgrounds? 4. Are there add~aonal items that PRAB would lilce to see addressed under Long Term GoaLs? PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Tlus item is bemg heard at tlvs public meetuig as advertised ui the Da~ly Camera. The Environmental Advuory Boazd and the Open Space Boazd of Trustees recerved an update on Apn19 and endorsed the process. The Water Resources Advisory Boazd passed a monon on April 21 endorsmg the process STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not appLcable. ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Assessment for Chermcal Appropnateness (Draft) B. IPM F1ow Chart C. L~st of chemicals banned on city property ~r./ AGF.NDA ITEM # VII•C : PAGE 3 DRAFT • SITE ASSES5MENT FOR CHEMICAL APPROPRIATENESS ~ a ~ SITE ASSESSMENT FOR CHEMICAL APPROPRIATENESS NOTE: Score above 3= no chemical use. Other assumptions are described below. I Pest SpecieslSituation: A1~8ChITl~rii f~ i : - - - i ' ' , - - - -----+ Date: - --- - , POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ~ ~ _ ~ I - - - -- , . ~ - -- I I ,I - I _ _ _ ~ ! i PUBLIC USE APPLICATION TYPE PUBLIC SAfETY LEGAL REQMTS SIZE OF INFESTATION RESOURCE VALUE ENVIRONMENTAL gENEFRS ADJACENTPROPERTY CONCERNS URGENCYICONSEpUENCESOF NO TX (NATURAL DISASTER RECOVERY) HOST SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE LOCATION • Park or Property Name park UselTrails - Probability lhat Visila would NOT be In Tx area Pesticide application types retlecl potential for pubilc exposure Hazards to Visitors (e.g, Ihoms, skin irri211on) al this SJIe etlerell Slale 1 Local ! Dept Regs Parks 8 NaNral Forestry Pests - Lands - OR Feasi6ili~y of Control Feasbility of Control al th'~s Slta at this Sile ndividual Resource Overall Ouality oi Site Values (i.e. tree i values) Benefts pmvitled by Resource (i.e. air filtration, shading, elc), Reclamaiion Project . Area - RestoreUOn Potenlial otentiai (or pesl lo Polential for pesl to sDread to nei9h6ors spread from i( not Ireated neighbors , COST CONSIDERATIONS Conlyd Efforts I Cosls (does nol Ecological Implications re0ect effectiveness / Expansion Potential of pesticide) (Limited use of this wtegory expected) Restoration PotentiallRecovery when presence of pest Is due ~n nalu2l disaster Farestry Pests -~ Number or percenl of planls thal are suscepti6le !o pest ~. ~ W ' 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ ~> C ~j ~ W LL ~ > ~~ Q # PARKS Park Type: (circle one) Level A Level B Level C - - - - - -- _ _ General turf area -- --- - i - - - _ - - - Athletic Fields - non-pro remmed -- - Playgraund ~ _ - - _ ShrublFlower beds ._. __- Raised planter beds Tree grotes Parking lot Rock areas Natural areas - - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- - - Other - - _. . .------ ~ ~ ~ _ - --- - GOLFCOURSE Greens -- - - - Fairways - - - 7ees -- - - - . --- --- - - Roughs - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- ~ - PROGRAMMED ATHLETIC FIELDS PleasanNiew - --- Mapleton - -- - - -- - - --- -- _ _ - - - - _ _ ----- Stazio - - I - ---- ~ _ - -- - - - ---- - - _ _._ - UPLAND GRASSUWDS LUWLAN~ ! RIPARIAN 1 TERRACED FLOODP LAMI AREAS SurFace water not normal ex cted in Irea6n ent area - RAVE Reviexr R uieed WE7UWD, AQUATIC & ACTNE STRE,AM CH ANNEL Some suAace water n omial ex cl ed in Ireatment area - RAVE Review Re uired ~-~,_~ ~ l~"l: "' .,~; ~_ ,~,~ 1- 1 1 ~~- t 1 ~ ~ f ~ t 1 ~~9 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 ow =1 Chemical use appropriate fltle or lav public use Pubhc would Itkely ' r rat he in a ea of pesticide use; bmadwsl applications, wick antl sDot spray resance of pest is very physicaly dangerous Eradicalion mandated; Pest tracked by USFSICSFS! APHIS ew or scaltered (~5 Several w OR or <5 aues) widespread dE s esenf hi h pp p , g native plant biodiversity I revanue ganerating I rec valuelhlgh pmfile igh resourceltree value x would greatly preserve, enhaoce tlesired benefils ~ igh po~ential to spread Forestry ~ High t nlial to r ad po e sp e onto city property. Natuml Lands - bw Inpu1= higher TX success Tz per year provides desired level of control lasting mulfiple years ~ o Tz = Increase in control effods 1 wsts Sn the first year Hi h i nti I No Tz g po e a for rapid expansion of this species Gom Nis site z would greally enhance recovery e~0~ igh number of plants on sAe susceptible to Pest I oderate = 3 Some maderale or knowo ose; designated or undesignaled Public might be i~ areas of pesticide use; wick and spot sprey, IfMted bmadcast Preser~ce of pest is moderalsiy physically tlangerous Containmenl mandated Ihmugh ordinance or olhe means Intercnediate or Intarrtiediate or palchy, (E10 or S50 OR patchy acres or patches) Moderale native plant 6iodiversity 1 moderate pro(ile 1 rec veloe oderate resourcellree value Tx would rtaderately preseNe, enhance desired benetits oderale poteniial lo spread Moderate polential to spread onto cdy propedy 1 Ta per year provides tlesiratl level of control for Ihat year No Tx = Increase in control effon 1 cost in 2-5years No Tx = Moderale potential for rapid expansion of Ihis species from this site Tx would moderalely enhance recovery eHods otlerate number of pWnts suscepti6le igh = 5 No chemical is appropriate eavily osed areas & designated Irails Public woultl be in areas where pesticide applied (wilhin 150 fl); ,~ck or spot applications Presence of pesl is NOT physically dangerous Suppression or Containment mandated; Not covered through ordinance everal or widespread (>10 or OR Few or scaltered ~50 acres) ighly disturbed areas ow resoufcellree value x would minimally preserve, enhance desired benefls ~ i Low potential to I spread Forestry - Low potential ro spread onto cily propedy. Natural Lands - high input = lower Tx success 1 Tx per year required for desired control o Tx = Increase in control effoA 1 cost in ,5 ars re No Tx = Low polenlial for rapid ezpansion ol this species tran this site x wauM rtnnimally enhance recovery e~~s ow numher of plants susceptible ~~~. II ~ ~ wa=o ~ ASSUMPTIONS: ~ Public health antl environmental hazards (negative environmental impacts) will be further assessed when evaluating specifc chemicals. Examples i~clude site-specific public use consideraiions such as areas near picnic tables or playgrounds, groundwater depth, threatened and endangered species considerations, etc. - - - - 2 _ _. _. - - ALL other treatment opli~ns have alreadx been examinetl and chemical use has bee~ determined to be an appropriate opGon. _ - ---- _ _._..._ ~__-- - 3 Chemical treatments will be used In conjunction with other techniques ior ihe besl ppssible result, 4 ~ Urgency - Control Eiforis 1 Costs -- Assumes that in these cases, not using herbicides wi~l result in increased ef(oRs with other cootrol methods. Costs lassociated include staft time as well as other associated expenses (other equipment required, fuei, etc.) 5 I Tx Treatment means chemicai a lication. T8E means Threatened and Endan ered. H9PR,48t2003 FIIes~2003 Web fllasl03Apr28~Site assess lool 4_11_D3 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM # I I^~ , PAGE~ RQ"'S~4'~'2°°3 ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ d blem* Review f ERADICATE Goat Evaluator** i, 5ur~rrcts~. Alfernatives for 85- 900% effective non-chemical/ CONTAI N ~ non - toxic ~ ~ methods ~ Review Alt~rnatives BMP List Review ~ for (50-85% effective) I ' non-chemical / non- ~ _~~ toxic methods ' ........~ .................................... ~ .................. .. . "~ BMP List Review ~ ,.; Review of Economic I ~ Viability ' I F~UND -- IMPLEMENT ................1.................................................. I ~ Review of Economic ' N Viability O ~ N Revert -~I FOUND -- IMPLEMENT E to Goal ~ O ' of N - Contain F E I O ~ ~ F I N ~ O D U Revert to ~ N Goal of I p Suppression Review Minimally Toxic 85-100% effective I Chemical Alternatives Review Minimally ~ ~ Toxic 50-85% ' 1} Site Assessment for ' effective Chemica! Chemical Appropriateness Alternatives ~ NONE APPROPRIATE I ......... ......1.. . ~ ~ 2) Pesticide Evaluator ~ 1) Site Assessment for ~ ~ Chemical I NONE FOUND Appropriateness • I FOUND -- IMPLEMENT 2) Pesticide Evaluator I FOUND Review Alternatives for (30-50% effectiveJ non-chemical / non-toxic method BMP List Review Review of Economic Viability FOUND -- ACTION Feedback on ~ effectiveness to refine BMP - List for eoulder (selebelow) * Input Pest Problem -The decision process will cover the potential actions to be taken to address a particular pest species on a qarticular site (management unit) for a particular time period not to exceed one year. ** Goal Evaluator - Goals for treatment of the pest on the particular site will be set given circumstances and practical realities apparent to the land management staff. Alternatives include 1) Eradication (may be legally mandated or may be desirable for a new species or new site), 2) Containment (confine an infestation to keep it from spreading) , or 3) Suppression (inflict some damage on the pest with the goal of lessening the rate of spread until better techniques are available or environmental circumstances (eg. climate) render it more susceptible to containment or eradication strategies). 04/16/03 Draft B ~. Upon the implementation of any control technique, some formal or informal documentation (monrtoring) of ifs effectiveness will be made fo provide active feedback to the BMP lists. For some sifuations, establishment of Biological Goals wrll be made prior to implementation. These wi!! require more formal monitoring evaluation. ~ ~''~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ~ 4 • Attachment C Pesticides included in International Conventions and the PAN Dirty Dozen PAN Dirty Active Ingredient PIC POPs LRTAP Dozen 2,4,5-T x x x Aldicarb X Aldnn x x x x Binapacryl X Captafol X Chlordane x x x x Chlordecone X Chlordimeform x x Chlorobenzilate x DBCP X DDT x x x x Dieldnn x x x x Dinoseb and Dinoseb salts x 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB or Ethylene dibromide) x x Endnn x x x Ethylene dichlonde x Ethylene oxide x Fluoroacetamide x ~ HCH, mixed isomers x x x ~ Heptachlor x x x Hexachlorobenzene x x ~ndane x x x Mercury compounds - Mercunc oxide, Mercurous chlonde, Calomei, other inorgarnc Mercury compounds, Alkyl mercury coumpounds, Alkmcyalkyl / Aryl mercury compounds x Methyl bromide Mvex x x Paraquat X Pentachlorophenol x x x Toxaphene (camphechlor) x x x x Methyl parathion - emulsifiable concentrates unth 19 5%, 50%, 50%, 60% act~ve mgr and dusts containing 1.5%, 2% and 3% acUve ingr x x Parathion - all formulations, aerosols, dustable powder, emuisifiable concentrate, granules, & wettable powders except capsule suspensions x x PIC = Pnor Infortned Consent est by the UN Food and Agnculture Organization and UN Ernironment Programme (the Rotterdarn Cornention) POPs = Persistent Orgarnc Pollutants (the Stockholm Corrvent~on) LRTAP = The Cornention on Long-range Transboundary ,, Air Pollution of the UN Economic ~,, , Commission for Europe °"'' PAN Dirty Dozen = Pesticide Action Network Initiative AGENDA ITEM # V I f~, PAGE ~