1. CORPORATE
PESTICIDE USE POLICY FOR CITY OF OTTAWA PROPERTY - 2004 POLITIQUE
CONCERNANT L'UTILISATION DE PESTICIDES SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS DE LA VILLE
D'OTTAWA - 2004 |
Committee recommendations as amended
That Council approve the Corporate
Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 as presented in Document
1, to replace the 2001 Interim Pesticide Use Policy, as amended by the
following:
1. That the following be
inserted as 1.0 Policy Statement and that the remaining section be re-numbered
1.1:
1.0 Policy Statement
The purpose of this policy is to
promote the optimal health of all people of Ottawa.
To this end, all operating practices
established under it shall be approved by the Medical Officer of Health as well
as by relevant operating personnel.
2. That the phrase “in
consultation with the Medical Officer of Health” in section 8.2 and 9.0 be
replaced with “with the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health”, and that
the phrase “with the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health” be added to
section 8.3.
3. That the threshold for
pesticide applications for sportsfields be set at no less than 10% weeds per
square meter (sections 8.4.1.1; 8.4.3.1).
4. That the procedure used for
chemical pesticide applications involve “hooded” (i.e., full-gear)
applications, for better protection.
RECOMMANDATIONS
MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ
Que
le Conseil municipal approuve la Politique de 2004 concernant l’utilisation de
pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville d’Ottawa, présentée au document 1,
pour remplacer la politique provisoire de 2001 sur l’usage des pesticides,
moyennant les modifications suivantes telle que modifiée par ce
qui suit :
1. Que soit
inséré, au no 1.0, l’énoncé
de principe suivant, et que le reste de la section fasse l’objet du paragraphe
1.1 :
1.0 Enoncé de principe
La présente politique vise à faire
en sorte que la population d’Ottawa jouisse d’une santé optimale.
À cette fin, toutes les méthodes de
fonctionnement établies en vertu de cette politique doivent être approuvées par
le médecin chef en santé publique et le personnel des services compétents.
2. Que l’expression « “en
consultation avec le médecin chef en santé publique” » soit remplacée par
l’expression « avec l’accord du médecin chef en santé publique », aux
sections 8.2 et 9.0; et que l’expression « avec l’accord du médecin chef
en santé publique » soit ajoutée à la section 8.3.
3. Que le seuil à partir duquel
l’application de pesticides est requise sur les terrains de sport soit fixé à
10% de mauvaises herbes par mètre carré (section 8.4.1.1 et 8.4.3.1).
4. Que la procédure
d’application des pesticides chimiques prévoie notamment l’utilisation d’un
équipement de protection complet.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Deputy City Managers, Planning and Growth Management and Community and Protective Services joint report dated 5 July 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-POL-0030).
2.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 15 July 2004.
3. The following submissions were received and are held on file:
a. J. Cottam submission dated 15 July 2004
b. E. Thomas submission dated 13 July 2004
c. M. Christie submission dated 12 July 2004
d. D. Sine submissions dated 8 and 14 July 2004
Report to/Rapport au :
Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services
sociaux
and Council / et au Conseil
5 July 2004 / le 5 juillet 2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal
adjoint
Planning and Growth Management /
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
and / et
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager /
Directeur municipal adjoint
Community and Protective Services /
Services communautaires et de protection
Contact Person/Personne
ressource : Carol Christensen, Manager / Gestionnaire, Environmental Management
/ Gestion de l’environnement
(613) 580-2424 x21610,
carol.christensen@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
CORPORATE PESTICIDE USE POLICY
FOR CITY OF OTTAWA PROPERTY - 2004 |
|
|
OBJET : |
POLITIQUE
CONCERNANT L'UTILISATION DE PESTICIDES SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS DE LA VILLE
D'OTTAWA - 2004 |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Health Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that
City Council approve the Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa
Property 2004 as presented in Document 1, to replace the 2001 Interim Pesticide
Use Policy.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande
au Conseil municipal d'approuver la Politique de 2004 concernant l'utilisation
de pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville d'Ottawa, présentée au document 1,
pour remplacer la politique provisoire de 2001 sur l'usage des pesticides.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
This report responds to the City Council direction to staff in May 2001 to prepare a corporate pesticide use policy for city property:
"That the General Manager, Development Services Department [now Planning and Growth Management Department], undertake the development of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management/Pesticide Use Policy for the City of Ottawa in partnership with other affected Departments."
The attached report presents a summary of the background work to develop the Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 with the policy itself attached as document 1 for approval. The policy applies to outdoor city-owned and operated lands and facilities as well as to private property leased by the City for its services, activities or programs.
Since the May 2001 directive, pesticide use has become more topical within Canadian communities. This increased awareness results from recent studies that further document the potential health and environmental effects associated with pesticide use.
For preparation of this policy, staff have considered a broad range of input, including:
a review of literature documenting potential health and environmental effects from pesticide use;
a review of the practices of other municipalities for managing their properties;
community feedback during consultation on both this policy and on the approach for reducing pesticide use on private property
feedback and experiences encountered during implementation of the community-focused pesticide reduction strategy over the past 1.5 years; and
advice from horticulturalists and City staff experts, responsible for turf area construction/reconstruction and maintenance, regarding best management practices for managing large turf areas and sportsfields.
An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, noted in the original Council direction, recommends the use of pesticides as a last resort in controlling pests in the management of turf, trees and ornamentals. Given the growing body of evidence regarding potential harmful effects from pesticide use, an increasing value from the community that pesticide use for cosmetic purposes be eliminated, trends in other municipalities and the availability of more cultural methods for turf management, the proposed policy is stricter than would be normal under general IPM practices.
The new corporate policy prohibits the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes on city-owned and operated property. This policy only permits the use of the least risk pesticide in a situation where human or environmental health is threatened or there is a risk to corporate assets, and all other pest management methods have either failed or are neither practical nor feasible. To address the challenges that arise in the establishment and maintenance of a uniform playing surface for sportsfield turf, the policy permits the use of pesticides on sportsfields, under limited conditions. The more "passive" use areas of City properties such as parks, boulevards, rights of way, and decorative turf areas surrounding civic facilities, will be managed using alternative cultural and biological methods.
Sportsfield turf is active area turf, requiring intensive maintenance. Section 8 in the policy will govern pest management on sportsfields, according to three phases: Phase I - construction; Phase II - general maintenance (when the field is in use); and Phase III - reconstruction, as part of field lifecycle management. During Phases I and III, the sportsfields are essentially construction zones, inaccessible to the public while Phase II represents the time of community use of the fields. Herbicides can only be used in Phases I and III. Insecticides that may be necessary as a last resort to control major pest infestations that affect sportsfields can be used in all three phases to preserve the asset. Pesticide use in these situations is determined through monitoring to identify sufficient pest activity and achievement of generally accepted thresholds that warrant control through chemical pesticide means.
The policy also requires various forms of public notification about the city's pest management activities (Section 7). The objective is to inform the community about both pesticide and non-pesticide alternative methods used by staff to control pests. At the same time, the community will be advised of the need to stay off the areas being treated for pests, to both protect public health and to assist the turf in regeneration. The policy also directs that the City will document all pest control activity, summarized in an annual report to Council, to further notify the community of overall pesticide and alternative pest control methods employed.
The Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 was prepared in consultation with City departments responsible for turf construction and management, park and sportsfield lifecycle management, provision of parks and sportsfield facilities, public health and environmental health.
Financial Implications:
Overall, the approach taken in both development
and implementation of this Corporate Pesticide Use Policy results in no
financial implications. The change in
practices and additional activities will be conducted from within existing
resource levels. Monitoring of the
policy implementation will identify if future financial implications will be
incurred as a result of this policy.
Public Consultation/Input:
Public consultation consisted of retaining expert and interested stakeholder advice for determining both the policy content and approach to implementation. Interested public groups included the Environmental and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committees, the Health Dangers of Urban Use of Pesticides Working Group and consideration of overall public feedback received over the past two years in the preparation and delivery of the pesticide reduction strategy, sportsfield management strategy and parks and sportsfields service level standards.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le présent rapport découle de l'obligation que le Conseil municipal a faite au personnel, en mai 2001, de rédiger une politique concernant l'utilisation de pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville :
" Que le directeur général des Services d'aménagement (devenu le Service de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement) entreprenne l'élaboration d'une politique exhaustive de lutte antiparasitaire intégrée/d'utilisation des pesticides pour la Ville d'Ottawa en collaboration avec d'autres services touchés. "
Le rapport ci-annexé résume le contexte dans lequel s'est effectuée l'élaboration de la Politique de 2004 concernant l'utilisation de pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville d'Ottawa et présente, au document 1, le texte de la politique proprement dite, pour approbation. La politique s'applique aux terrains et aux installations que la Ville possède et exploite ainsi qu'aux propriétés privées que la Ville loue pour l'exécution de ses services, activités ou programmes.
Depuis l'adoption de la directive de mai 2001, la question des pesticides est devenue un sujet d'actualité dans les collectivités canadiennes. Cette sensibilisation accrue de la population découle de récentes études venant renforcer les hypothèses concernant les effets potentiels de l'utilisation des pesticides sur la santé et l'environnement.
Au moment de rédiger la politique, le personnel a tenu compte d'un large éventail de documents et de points de vue :
la documentation établissant les effets potentiels de l'usage des pesticides sur la santé et l'environnement;
les méthodes de gestion des terrains municipaux en vigueur dans les autres villes;
les réactions exprimées par la population à l'occasion des consultations ayant porté sur la présente politique de même que sur les moyens de réduire l'usage des pesticides sur les propriétés privées;
les réactions obtenues et les expériences vécues pendant la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de réduction des pesticides axée sur la collectivité depuis un an et demi;
les conseils d'horticulteurs et des spécialistes de la Ville chargés de l'aménagement, de la réfection et de l'entretien de pelouses, pour ce qui concerne les pratiques exemplaires de gestion des pelouses de grandes dimensions et des terrains de sport.
Dans une démarche de lutte antiparasitaire intégrée, comme celle évoquée dans la directive initiale du Conseil, l'utilisation de pesticides est recommandée comme mesure de derniers recours pour protéger les pelouses, les arbres et les plantes ornementales contre les parasites. Compte tenu de l'accumulation d'éléments tendant à prouver que l'usage des pesticides peut avoir des effets nuisibles, de l'importance de plus en plus grande que la population attache à l'élimination de l'usage des pesticides à des fins esthétiques, des tendances observées dans d'autres municipalités et de l'existence d'un plus grand nombre de méthodes culturales de lutte contre les parasites, la politique proposée est plus rigoureuse que ne l'exigeraient normalement les méthodes de lutte antiparasitaire intégrée.
La nouvelle politique interdit l'usage de pesticides chimiques à des fins esthétiques sur les terrains que la Ville possède et exploite. Elle n'autorise que l'usage des pesticides les moins risqués dans les cas où la santé humaine ou l'environnement sont menacés ou lorsqu'il y a un risque pour des biens appartenant à la Ville et que toutes les autres méthodes de lutte antiparasitaire ont échoué ou ne sont ni pratiques ni réalisables. Pour qu'il soit possible de relever les défis que posent l'établissement et l'entretien d'une surface de jeu gazonnée uniforme sur les terrains de sport, la politique y permet l'usage de pesticides, dans un nombre restreint de situations. Les propriétés de la Ville dont l'utilisation est plus " passive ", comme les parcs, les boulevards, les emprises et les pelouses à caractère décoratif qui entourent différentes installations municipales, seront entretenues à l'aide de méthodes culturales et biologiques de remplacement.
Les pelouses des terrains de sport nécessitent un entretien intensif. La section 8 de la politique régit la lutte antiparasitaire sur les terrains de sport. Celle-ci s'effectuera en trois phases : phase 1 - aménagement; phase II - entretien courant (lorsque le terrain est en usage); et phase III - réfection, dans le cadre de la gestion du cycle de vie des terrains. Pendant les phases I et III, les terrains de sport sont essentiellement des zones de travaux, inaccessibles au public, tandis que la phase II couvre la période au cours de laquelle la population utilise ces terrains. L'usage d'herbicides n'est permis que durant les phases I et III. Les pesticides qui pourraient s'avérer nécessaires en dernier recours pour lutter contre des infestations parasitaires importantes dans les terrains de sport peuvent être utilisés au cours des trois phases à des fins de préservation du bien public. Pour déterminer s'il y a lieu d'utiliser des pesticides, on surveille l'activité des parasites afin de savoir si elle atteint les seuils qui, selon les critères généralement reconnus, justifient une intervention au moyen de pesticides chimiques.
La politique prévoit également divers types d'avis à la population concernant les activités de lutte antiparasitaire menées par la Ville (section 7). L'objectif est d'informer la population des méthodes de lutte qu'utilise le personnel de la Ville, qu'il s'agisse de pesticides ou de solutions de rechange. Parallèlement, on avisera la population de la nécessité de ne pas circuler sur les zones traitées, à la fois pour protéger la santé humaine et pour favoriser le rétablissement de la pelouse. La politique exige de plus que la Ville tienne un relevé des activités de lutte antiparasitaire, qui doivent être résumées dans un rapport annuel à l'intention du Conseil, afin d'informer encore davantage la population de l'usage global des pesticides et du recours aux méthodes naturelles de lutte antiparasitaire.
La Politique de 2004 concernant l'utilisation de pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville d'Ottawa a été rédigée de concert avec les services de la Ville chargés de l'aménagement et de l'entretien des pelouses, de la gestion du cycle de vie des parcs et des terrains de sport, des parcs et des installations sportives ainsi que de la santé publique et de l'environnement.
Répercussions financières :
Globalement, la méthode d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre de la Politique concernant l'utilisation de pesticides n'a aucune répercussion financière. Le changement de méthodes et les activités complémentaires seront assurés au moyen des ressources existantes. Le suivi de la mise en œuvre de la politique permettra de déterminer si celle-ci aura des répercussions financières dans l'avenir.
Consultation publique / commentaires :
La consultation publique a consisté à recueillir l'opinion de spécialistes et d'intervenants concernés dans le but de déterminer le contenu de la politique et la façon d'en assurer la mise en œuvre. Au nombre des groupements publics intéressés, il convient de mentionner les comités consultatifs sur l'Environnement et sur les Parcs et les Loisirs ainsi que le Groupe de travail sur les dangers pour la santé liés à l'usage de pesticides en milieu urbain. Il a également été tenu compte des commentaires formulés par la population depuis deux ans, soit depuis l'époque de la rédaction et de l'exécution de la stratégie de réduction des pesticides et de la stratégie de gestion des terrains de sport, et de l'établissement des normes de service pour les parcs et les terrains de sport.
BACKGROUND
In recognition of the need to reduce and potentially eliminate the amount of pesticides used on the city's properties and facilities, and the inconsistencies between the various pesticide use policies and practices brought to the new city by the previous municipalities, Council adopted an interim pesticide use policy in May 2001, based upon the policy in use by the former Region. At this time, Council also directed staff to develop a longer term policy applicable to all city-owned and operated land and facilities in the new city:
"That the General Manager, Development Services Department (now Planning and Growth Management Department), undertake the development of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management/Pesticide Use Policy for the City of Ottawa in partnership with other affected Departments."
At the same time, Council directed staff to develop an 'alternatives to pesticides education program' to assist the community in reducing their use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on private property.
Both initiatives contribute to overall reduction of cosmetic pesticide use within the City. This report summarizes the work conducted to develop a pesticide use policy for City-owned and operated lands and presents a corporate policy for approval.
This corporate policy serves two purposes. First, it continues the objective of the existing policy, adopted in 2001, whereby use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on city-owned and operated outdoor land and facilities is eliminated. Pesticide use will only be permitted if the health and safety of individuals or assets are threatened. The proposed policy confirms the City's commitment to pesticide use reduction as undertaken since 2001. In addition, this policy 'sets our house in order' both as an example to the rest of the community of what can be done to manage community assets, and as a leader in our community, setting the bar as a challenge to other organizations and individuals. In taking these actions Ottawa is joining the growing list of Canadian and international communities that are actively initiating programs to reduce and eliminate the use of pesticides in their communities.
The development of the policy also considered the need for taking a sustainable approach to pest management. The policy strives to protect both human and environmental health. While the policy pertains only to city owned and operated (exterior) lands, it considers the needs, concerns, and values of the City (as a responsible owner/manager) and the community (users) being served.
Since 2001, pesticide use has gathered increasingly more attention within Canadian communities. This interest is connected to the recent release of studies that document accumulating evidence on the potential human health effects associated with pesticide use.
In response, staff have looked at the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach directed by Council, considered the growing body of evidence regarding potential harmful effects from pesticide use, and are proposing a policy that is stricter than would be normal under general IPM practices.
Whereas IPM recommends the use of pesticides as a last resort in turf, tree and ornamental pest management, the new corporate policy prohibits the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes on city-owned and operated property. This policy only permits the use of the least risk pesticide in a situation where human or environmental health is threatened or there is a risk to corporate assets, and all other pest management methods have either failed or are neither practical nor feasible. The policy permits the use of pesticides on sportsfields under specific and limited conditions.
DISCUSSION
This policy restricts the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes on all outdoor city-owned and operated properties, including most turf, trees and ornamentals. The policy permits the use of a most appropriate and least risk chemical pesticide only as a last resort, when all other alternative measures have failed or are not feasible, and where there is a risk to human or environmental health or a risk to the city's corporate assets if the situation is not addressed. It also will permit the use of pesticides as part of a program approved by the Medical Officer of Health, such as the West Nile Virus - Preparedness and Prevention Plan 2004 (O.Reg. 199/03 Control of West Nile Virus.)
The policy provides definitions for all relative terminology used in the policy to ensure that staff and the community have a clear and consistent understanding of both the definition and the use. For instance, the term "pesticide" will include all "…cides" i.e. insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, etc. This was done to limit misunderstandings and to bring clarity to a complex issue.
One aspect of the policy that differs significantly from the Interim Policy is the aspect of 'city-owned and operated' land. This phrase also captures the properties that the city leases from other property owners and managers. The request to have the leased or rented property maintained free from pesticides used for cosmetic purposes, will be written into the contracts and will be negotiated with the property owner/manager, on a voluntary basis, until April 1, 2006. On that date the policy will also apply to leased and rented land. This policy will also apply to property leased from the city by other agencies.
This approach will both conform to the Policy in spirit, as well as provide an opportunity to educate the owner/manager regarding the alternative methods of pest management, and will support the new policy on reduction of pesticides on private property, approved by Ottawa City Council in December 2002.
It should be noted that such lease agreements have the potential to increase costs to the city through the continued leasing the property. The owner/manager will likely request compensation for the potential increased costs of maintaining the property standards if no pesticides are used as a preventative measure, or as part of an ongoing maintenance program. The anticipated higher costs are expected to be limited to the transitional phase during which the turf adjusts to cessation of pesticide use and as property managers become more proficient in managing without pesticides and in using cultural turf management and alternative pest control methods. At present, there are no cost figures available since the city has not yet negotiated any leases under the new policy. In addition, the actual change in turf management costs will depend upon current application of cultural methods such as topdressing, aeration, overseeding and fertilization. Any requests for additional compensation within lease agreements are proposed to be offset by the offer of turf management advice from the City's contracted horticultural expertise, a service anticipated to be continued as part of the private property pesticide reduction strategy. The policy will not interfere with any regulatory requirements for the management and control of pests, either interior or exterior, by the owner/manager.
SPORTSFIELDS
In preparation of this policy, one of the most significant areas requiring refinement from the existing policy was the need to address the management of sportsfields. The interim pesticide use policy adopted in 2001 was based upon the former Region of Ottawa Carleton's pesticide use policy. That policy was written to control the cosmetic use of pesticides on passive areas such as regional parks, boulevards and rights of way, and ornamental lawns and gardens surrounding city facilities. It did not apply to active areas such as sportsfields, because the former Region did not have any. Thus, while that policy was appropriate for the existing passive regional assets, it did not envision a responsibility for active, high demand turf such as sportsfields, and the unique set of management and maintenance requirements of such turf, that amalgamation would bring. Section 8 of the new policy is specifically dedicated to Sportsfields to address this issue.
The full implications of a "no pesticides" policy to sportsfields, has yet to be determined in Ottawa, but some mixed results are beginning to appear. Over the past year, we have lost the use of several baseball fields, and one complex of soccer fields is in crisis condition, with several others showing similar damage. On the other hand, several sportsfields have shown encouraging steps toward improvement with the application of consistent cultural methods. A range of quality amongst City sportsfields is expected to continue over the next few years until the city-wide sportsfields management strategy can be implemented along with application of harmonized standards and specifications for the development, building, re-building and ongoing maintenance of our fields.
Our sportsfields are a major corporate asset in high demand by community sport leagues, groups and associations. Community demand for facility access and requirements for a certain level of turf condition and safety for the participants significantly influence the construction specifications and maintenance levels for playing fields. Construction and maintenance of sportsfields also represent a significant economic investment by the City on behalf of taxpayers. It is in everyone's interest to do the best possible, to retain those assets in good order. Just as trees are considered both an economic, environmental and community asset to our city, so are sportsfields an economic and social asset.
Turf management, especially for sportsfields and other high-load/high-demand areas, needs to address quality, durability and safety, none of which "just happen." The dilemma we face is how to maintain, at an acceptable level of service, a healthy, hardy and safe turf, in a very demanding environment. Inherent are the various expectations of the user groups, the community at large, staff and elected representatives.
As part of the development process for the sportsfields component of the pesticide use policy, environmental management staff worked extensively with other corporate staff and community representatives. This included establishing an interdepartmental advisory and review team to ensure open communications between departments and to access the expert staff resources responsible for turf and sportsfield management; researching the practices of other municipalities, universities and organizations to keep pace with evolving best practices both in non-pesticide based maintenance practices for sportsfields, and the construction of sportsfields; and consulting targeted groups, as part of the development of both the corporate pesticide use policy, and in conjunction with Surface Operations staff in the development of their maintenance standards and Parks & Recreation staff in development of the sportsfield strategy.
The Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 recognizes that there are three phases to sportsfield turf management: Phase I - construction; Phase II - on-going maintenance; and Phase III - reconstruction. Pesticide use as part of sportsfield management will be regulated by the corporate pesticide use policy and be permitted during the construction and reconstruction phases, prior to the new turf being placed (back) on active status. The operational aspects - Phase II ongoing maintenance - will be part of the pending "Maintenance Standards for Parks, Sportsfields and Trees Policy", to be brought forward to council in 2004 by TUPW. In addition, there are regulations established in the policy for the potential use of least risk pesticides to deal with infestations on sportsfields, based on established thresholds, historical monitoring, previous recorded experience, visible damage to the turf, and the amount of adult pest activity recorded through trapping and visual monitoring. These are short-term actions, on a 'spot' basis to deal with emerging insect infestations.
In keeping with the City's commitment to reducing potential health impacts of pesticides use, there are no provisions for using herbicides to deal with weed infestations on sportsfields during Phase II General Maintenance, when the fields are in use. Weeds will be dealt with using cultural practices as part of the on-going maintenance practices.
GOLF COURSES
Golf courses, bowling greens, and private sportsfields in Ottawa, fall under the new December 2002 policy governing the reduction of cosmetic pesticide use on private property, in the 65% reduction category. The city has a long-term lease for the property on which the Pineview Golf Club is located. As such, the existing lease provisions prevail until the lease is up for renewal, at which time the provisions of this policy will be negotiated into the lease.
The City also has user agreements/arrangements with several lawn-bowling facilities. Some of these agreements are in writing, others are based upon a verbal, mutual understanding of use and maintenance agreement. It will be up to Community and Protective Services Department as the operator and liaison of programs at those facilities, to bring the various facilities "into the fold" of the policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
This policy is directly related to concerns about the impacts from pesticides on human health and the environment. The required reduction in the cosmetic use of pesticides resulting from this policy will remove harmful chemicals from ground water, run-off to sewers, ponds, streams and rivers, and from the air in the form of air-borne particles, improving both habitats and the general environment. It will also make the air cleaner for those individuals suffering from environmental allergies and related conditions, and reduces the potential for direct contact with pesticide residue and particulates by children and pets.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
This policy applies to all city-owned/operated land. However, agricultural land is exempted from the policy, so there are no direct rural implications. Run-off buffer zones to and from sports fields adjacent to agricultural fields will be dealt with in the "Maintenance Standards for Parks, Sportsfields and Trees Policy."
CONSULTATION
Staff worked through an interdepartmental working committee to prepare this policy. Other staff, as needed, were consulted to refine identified policy issues and to help determine the implications and feasibility for its implementation.
From a public perspective, staff consulted relevant advisory committees of Council, considering and incorporating, as appropriate, oral and written comments from the Environmental and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committees. The policy also reflects feedback from members of the departmental consultative group, Health Dangers of the Urban Use of Pesticides Working Group.
In addition to seeking expert advice from City program staff, preparation of this policy included considerable advice from the horticultural and entomology experts retained by the City for the overall pest reduction strategy. Other sources of information a review of turf and sportsfield management practices within other municipalities and a review of available best practices documentation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Since 2001, City staff responsible for turf management - including the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of turf and sportsfield areas - have implemented the interim pesticide use policy. Pesticides have not been used for any turf management. Due to the challenges of maintaining healthy turf on sportsfields as a result of their heavy usage and requirement for a relatively consistent playing surface, this replacement policy allows limited use of pesticides for sportsfield management. Under specified conditions, herbicide and insecticide use is permitted for sportsfield construction and reconstruction and insecticide use is permitted during field maintenance. For sportsfields, it is anticipated that these allowable pesticide use levels combined with the current sportsfield maintenance standards will address the majority of pest issues that will arise. Management of all other City turf areas, including parks, will be conducted without the use of pesticides because the use is considered cosmetic under the policy. In the following situations, the potential exists for increased turf management costs when applying this policy:
Although a mix of vegetation covers is considered, the construction of park areas generally entails establishment of turf cover. The challenges to establishing this turf are similar to those for sportsfield turf - any number of climatic or physical material conditions can affect the success and quality of the grass cover. Depending upon the success of turf establishment, application of this policy may result in lower quality turf areas being handed over for maintenance. Existing resource levels restrict maintenance activities in parks and other turf areas to grass cutting whereas maintenance on sportsfields will employ cultural methods (topdressing, overseeding, aeration and fertilization to preserve a healthy turf (within the 2004 budget for Surface Operations). Given this approach for construction and maintenance of non-sportsfield turf, the concern is that reconstruction may be required at a more frequent interval and result in increased lifecycle management costs. This is likely to be kept to a minimal or status quo level, however, given that the City does not currently reconstruct these turf areas beyond occasional seeding of bare patches.
Herbicides will not be used to control weeds on sportsfields during the maintenance phase. The ability to use herbicides in the construction phase to assist in the establishment of a healthy and consistent turf has been adopted to provide a high quality product for maintenance and use. During maintenance the cultural methods are expected to maintain the turf's health with minimal invasion by weeds and insects. Climatic, physical and biological conditions still represent uncontrollable factors that may affect the turf. There is a concern that the lifecycle of some sportsfields may subsequently be reduced with a requirement for more frequent replacement. The potential for such increased costs will be considered as part of the annual monitoring of sportsfield health through information gathered from users and maintenance staff. Should the lifecycle intervals be reduced, the City may lose user fees along with an impact to the community as a result of unavailable resources.
Although sportsfield construction allows the use of pesticides under specified conditions, the application of the policy will still follow the principles of not using a pesticide unless deemed necessary. There is a potential that contractors retained by the City to build sportsfields will require additional compensation to follow this policy. As noted above, the allowances are expected to adequately meet the needs of building a healthy turf while respecting both a cost-effective and an environmentally healthy approach. It is therefore recommended that contract negotiations focus on the combination of management tools available during construction and resist an increase in contract costs.
Some costs are expected to train relevant field staff on the alternative methods to pesticide use as part of the pest management program. Staff training is proposed to be conducted as part of on-the-job training along with targeted sessions to be provided by the contracted horticultural advisors providing advice under the overall pesticides reduction strategy.
In addition to the above, a few other minor expenditures will be associated with application of this policy. Spring and ongoing public notifications (Section 7.0) will require limited advertising of pest management activities planned and underway. These activities can initially be absorbed by the pesticide reduction strategy budget or coordinated with other City advertising. Similarly, costs associated with preparing and delivering information to community groups and turf users to inform them about the new Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 can be conducted from the overall pesticide reduction strategy budget.
The final financial implication area is the potential for the City to incur increased costs to lease facilities. These owners/managers may request additional lease compensation in order to comply with the policy estimated to be approximately $1,000/acre per season. It should be noted that the anticipated higher costs are expected to be limited to the transitional phase during which the turf adjusts to cessation of pesticide use and as property managers become more proficient in managing without pesticides and in using cultural turf management and alternative pest control methods. The actual change in turf management costs will depend upon current application of cultural methods such as topdressing, aeration, overseeding and fertilization. Any requests for additional compensation within lease agreements are proposed to be offset by the offer of turf management advice from the City's contracted horticultural expertise, a service anticipated to be continued as part of the private property pesticide reduction strategy.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1. Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004.
Document 2. City of Ottawa Pest Monitoring Report.
Document 3. City of Ottawa Sportsfields Pesticide Use Background Paper 2004.
DISPOSITION
Implementation of the operational aspects of the Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 is the responsibility of the Public Works and Services, Community and Protective Services, and Corporate Services Departments. The Planning and Growth Management Department is responsible for keeping the policy current, for co-ordinating the monitoring and reporting aspects of this policy in conjunction with the other departments and for communicating and maintaining continuity of this policy with other City pesticide reduction initiatives.
DOCUMENT 1
It is the policy of the City of Ottawa that in order to reduce and minimize the risk to human and environmental health as a result of its pest control activities, chemical pesticides will not be applied to its properties for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes. The City will investigate and use alternative methods to chemical pesticides in its pest control activities on an ongoing basis. Chemical pesticides will only be used in circumstances where a pest must be controlled and other pest control techniques cannot be applied or have previously failed, or as part of a program approved by the Medical Officer of Health, such as the West Nile Virus – Preparedness and Prevention Plan 2004 (O.Reg. 199/03 Control of West Nile Virus.)
2.0 Scope of the Policy
This policy shall apply to city-owned outdoor property. This policy will apply to outdoor property owned by other parties upon which the city operates programs, activities or provides services through use and lease agreements, on a voluntary basis until 2006, after which it will become compulsory. This policy will be incorporated into relevant agreements with outside contractors. Buildings, infrastructure, and electronic parking meters are not included in this policy. This policy will be updated from time to time as appropriate.
3.0 Principles of the Policy
This policy is based upon certain fundamental principles aimed at protecting residents and the environment, while at the same time protecting community and city-wide assets.
3.1 Eliminate the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic/aesthetic purposes.
3.2 Minimize the risk to human health and the environment from pest management/control practices.
3.3 Conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting activities as a preventative process to maintain an effective overview of the turf status and condition on the parks and sportsfields of the city.
3.4 Use an ecological approach to pest management/control that strives to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of chemical pesticides.
3.5 Integrate preventative measures and alternative control technologies.
3.6 When chemical pesticides must be used consider only those that are:
3.6.1 least hazardous to human health;
3.6.2 least risk to non-target organisms;
3.6.3 least disruptive to natural controls;
3.6.4 least damaging to the environment;
3.6.5 most likely to produce a long-term solution;
3.6.6 most likely to be used correctly; and
3.6.7 most cost effective in the long run.
3.7 When chemical pesticides must be used they will be applied according to all governing regulations and by properly certified/licensed staff and/or contractors.
3.8 When chemical pesticides must be used they will only be applied to the areas directly involved and on a “spot” basis wherever possible.
3.9 In the interest of public accountability and transparency, an annual report will be presented to city council identifying all applications of pesticides in the previous year.
3.10 This policy will be reviewed and revised from time to time to maintain current best practices.
4.0 Definitions
The following definitions are applicable to
this policy.
Word/phrase |
Definition |
Aesthetic |
Relating to
beauty; artistic. |
Alternative pest
management practices |
Pest management
practices based on using biological, cultural, mechanical, site selection
methods, or low toxicity products. (Ref. Section
3) |
Asset |
Corporate
property. In this policy it generally
refers to turf areas, ornamentals, city trees and forests. |
Chemical pesticide |
Chemically
produced pesticide made by joining various elements or simple compounds. In this policy it
refers to a substance used as a pest control agent that has a designated PCP
number assigned to it by the PMRA. |
City |
City of Ottawa |
Control - Biological |
Any biological
agent that adversely affects pest species.
Using natural enemies of the pest as a method of controlling the pest. |
Control - Cultural |
Practices that
alter the environment to make it less favourable to the biological success of
the pest organism. Soil cultivation,
proper sanitation, and diversity in planting materials are some examples. |
Control - Mechanical and physical |
Practices directed
at removing pests from the environment using means such as traps, weeding,
pruning, mulching, and barriers. |
Control - Site appropriate selection |
Practice of
reducing pest infestations and damage through careful selection of planting
sites which help keep the material in good health and under less stress. Some site selection factors include soil
drainage, wind direction and exposure, sun exposure, neighbouring plants,
closeness to hard surfaces (pavement, concrete, buildings). |
Control - Species
selection |
Practice of using
plant species that have a proven hardiness or resistance to natural pests. |
Control -
Chemicals |
Pest control
practice using artificial products or products produced by chemical or
biochemical compounds. |
Cosmetic purposes |
For the sake of
appearance (of the property, tree, building,
etc.); decorative; ornamental. |
Damage |
Extent of harm
caused by the pest to the environment, and the threat it represents to human
health. |
Ecological
(approach to pest management) |
Using natural
relationships in preventing or managing pests and pest infestations. Derived from the Greek oikos, house
or place to live. A branch of biology
concerned with organisms and their relationship to the environment. |
Hazardous to human
health |
Having a potential
for impacting the health of humans in a negative manner. |
Infest(ation) |
To spread or swarm
in or over in a troublesome manner. |
Non-target
species/organisms |
Species (i.e.
humans, pets, wildlife, plants, insects, micro-organisms) not targeted for
management, but who may be affected by management practices of neighbouring
species. |
Noxious Weed * |
A plant that is deemed to be a noxious weed under subsection 10(2) of the Ontario Weed Control Act or designated as a noxious weed under clause 24(a) of this Act. |
Pest |
Any injurious,
noxious or troublesome insect, fungus, bacterial organism, virus, weed,
rodent or other plan or animal pest, and includes any injurious, noxious or
troublesome organic function of a plant or animal. (Pest Control Products
Act.) |
Pesticide |
Any organism,
substance or thing that is manufactured, represented, sold or used as a means
of directly or indirectly controlling, preventing, destroying, mitigating,
attracting or repelling any pest and includes any organism, substance or
thing registered under the Pest Control Products Act – Canada. (Ref.
Pesticides Act RSO 1990) |
Practice |
Procedure used to
manage a pest. |
Preventative
measure |
A Practice
designed to prevent pest infestations or damage. |
Threshold |
Level of
infestation at which pest(s) should be controlled. |
Toxic |
Poisonous to all
living organisms |
Recent regulatory revisions mean that the
Province will only respond to noxious weed issues related to agriculture-based
complaints. At present the city will
only respond to noxious weeds on a complaint basis, in areas where there is
public access and the weed poses a risk to the general public. The following plants are on the provincial
noxious weeds list:
Barberry, common Ragweed
spp.
Buckthorne, European Rocket,
yellow
Carrot, wild Sow
thistle, annual, perennial
Colt’s-foot Spurge,
Cyprus
Dodder spp. Spurge,
leafy
Goat’s-beard spp. Thistle,
bull
Hemlock, poison Thistle
Canada
Johnson grass Thistle,
nodding spp.
Knapweed spp. Thistle,
Russian
Milkweed spp. Thistle,
Scotch
Poison Ivy Vetchling,
tuberous
Proso millet, black-seeded
5.0 General Provisions
The process for determining which management practice to use in controlling a pest is outlined in the chart below.
Staff will complete the combined template: City of Ottawa Pest Monitoring Report (document 2) for sections 5.0 General Provisions and 6.0 Documenting and Reporting.
No. |
Action |
Responsibility |
5.1 |
Monitoring a)
ongoing
monitoring and reporting by City staff as part of maintenance
practices b)
information
received from public will be acknowledged within a reasonable time |
Field
staff/Supervisor |
5.2 |
Identify and
document the pest problem (Section 6 – Documenting and Reporting) |
Field
staff/Supervisor |
5.3 |
Consult and/or
notify facility operator of pending pest control initiative |
Supervisor |
5.4 |
Establish the
action level required based upon a) the accepted general standards as
established by existing federal, provincial, and local governments and agencies
b) the current level of the pest infestation c) the extent of the damage caused by the
pest d) the rate the infestation is spreading e) the damage tolerance level of the
threatened species f) the most
effective timing for management
practices g) community
tolerance of pest |
Field
staff/Supervisor/Program manager; Medical Officer of Health for chemical
pesticides in phase II – Sportfields (Section 8) |
5.5 |
Review and
identify alternative practices to control the pest |
Field staff/Supervisor/Program
manager |
5.6 |
Pilot test the
chosen practice(s) for efficacy if necessary/appropriate/timely |
Supervisor/Program
manager Project manager
for Phases I or III – Sportsfields (Section 8) |
5.7 |
Select and
implement most appropriate management practice(s) |
Staff/Supervisor Project manager
for Phases I or III – Sportsfields (Section 8) |
5.8 |
Post appropriate
notices of pending Practice, if required. (Section 7 – Public
Notification) |
Staff/Supervisor |
5.9 |
Monitor, analyze
and report on the efficacy of the practice (Section 6 – Documenting and
Reporting) |
Staff/Supervisor |
Documenting and reporting will be managed by the implementing departments - Department of Public Works and Services, Community and Protective Services Department, and Corporate Services Department. Each new implementation of a pest management decision – both the use of an alternative method and the use of a pesticide will be documented, using the procedure below.
Staff will complete the combined template: “City of Ottawa Pest Monitoring Report” for sections 5.0 General Provisions and 6.0 Documenting and Reporting.
No. |
Action |
Responsibility |
6.1 |
Initial complaint/notice/identification of pest problem – what, where, extent and history, potential impacts |
Client service center, Staff/Supervisor |
6.2 |
Evaluation criteria and results, including alternative practices, considered |
Staff/Supervisor Medical Officer of Health if required |
6.3 |
Decision and rationale for pest management practice chosen |
Staff/Supervisor Medical Officer of
Health if required |
6.4 |
Who implemented - i.e. staff, contractor |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.5 |
What was done - i.e. work carried out |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.6 |
Public
notification (Section 7 – Public
Notification) |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.7 |
Monitoring process used |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.8 |
Evaluation of monitoring data |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.9 |
Results |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.10 |
Analysis of results |
Staff/Supervisor |
6.11 |
Recommendations for future action(s) |
Staff/Supervisor/Program Manager |
6.12 |
File report for year-end compilation |
Supervisor |
All information will be filed/retained and
included in the annual report for that year.
This report will be compiled by Planning and Growth Management
Department.
7.0 Public Notification
Public notification serves to both notify
the public of city pest management activities and to educate residents about
alternative pest management practices.
Signage will be used to serve three purposes. First, to demonstrate in a public manner the commitment the City
has to not using chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes. Second, to educate the public to alternative
protocols when a pesticide is not used to treat a pest. And third, to alert the public to the use of
a pesticide, when such use becomes necessary.
7.1
The City
will place notices on its website each Spring that inform residents of the
planned sportsfields management activities for the year (pending budget
approval) i.e. construction, reconstruction, and general maintenance, and
provides a brief overview of the work involved in each activity.
7.2
Subsequent
notices regarding additional work or changes to the scheduled work throughout
the year, will be posted on the website as situations arise.
7.3
Signs must
be posted in accordance with all federal and provincial regulations, where
required and appropriate, to both inform the public of a pesticide treatment
and to remind them to keep away from the treated area for the requisite time.
7.4
Signs should
be posted when/where the City is implementing an alternative pest management
practice to make the community aware of the fact that there is a pest present
and that the City is dealing with it using alternative (to pesticides)
practices.
7.5
(A) large
sign(s) should be posted to inform the public of field management activities
and remind them to keep away from the area under treatment (construction,
reconstruction or maintenance activities), to enable the affected area to
recover as quickly as possible.
8.0 Sportsfields
This section applies only to sportsfields and does not apply to trees and ornamentals, or other turf in parks, or that may be found on rights-of-way or boulevards.
City of Ottawa sportsfields will be maintained to provide the community with healthy, sturdy and safe playing surfaces. The City recognizes that optimum turf conditions and management depend upon healthy turf to minimize susceptibility to infestations, proper soil structure to allow for adequate root development and to retain moisture, and proper management of the planted fields.
This policy recognizes that there are three basic sportsfields management phases: Phase I - construction; Phase II - ongoing maintenance; and Phase III - reconstruction. All possible care will be taken to ensure the growth of a healthy turf using non-pesticide practices as part of an Integrated Turf Management approach. The City recognizes that many factors can influence the success of grass seed germination or turf establishment when constructing or reconstructing sportsfields. These include weather conditions such as excessive rain, lack of rain or irrigation, temperature extremes or combinations; topsoil containing fungal spores, weed seeds or insect pests, or the use of pesticide-raised turf or seed. Although current specifications for construction and reconstruction of sportsfields take all possible care to establish a healthy turf without the use of pesticides, the inability to control these factors may occasionally result in the need to use a pesticide. Whenever this state occurs, ‘spot applications’ of the appropriate lowest possible risk pesticides that can effectively control the identified pest will be pursued. The need to use a pesticide intercession will be documented using the Pest Monitoring Report form (document 2).
8.1 Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this policy shall be adhered to whenever pesticide is applied to sportsfields under this policy.
8.2 The decision to use a pesticide during the general maintenance phase of a sportsfield will rest with the responsible City of Ottawa operational director in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health.
8.3 The decision to use a pesticide during the construction and reconstruction phases will rest with the City of Ottawa project manager.
8.4 The most common pests in Ottawa are weeds during Phases I and III, and the European Chafer, Japanese Beetle, Chinch Bugs, and June Beetles during all three Phases. The June beetles and Chinch bugs are native species, and have natural predators that keep them relatively in check. While the June Beetle is not a major problem in Ottawa, the Chinch Bug population does explode from time to time, and may require a pesticide as a last measure control. However, the European Chafer and Japanese Beetle are non-native species and do not have local natural predators. As such, the insecticide Imidacloprid (granular form) is an effective systemic control on these two pests. It is absorbed by the plants, upon which the larvae feed.
To determine the need for an insecticide intervention, staff will have to use a combination of techniques: historical monitoring; previous record or experiences, such as observation of grub populations at a threshold of >10 grubs per 0.1 m2 (1 ft2); visible damage to the turf; the amount of adult pest activity through trapping and other visual observation; and the threshold monitoring tests. Significant control can be achieved when applications are made preceding or during the egg laying period (May/June), followed by watering (or rain) of 5-10 mm to move the ingredients through the thatch. Overwatering (20-25 mm) will negate the effect of the pesticide. It should be noted that any Imidacloprid application is aimed at the soil dwelling stage(s) of the pest since it will have little effect on the adult forms. Thus it will reduce the pest damage in the following year and have no effect on the current year’s damage.
Thresholds for action on sportsfields against these pests are:
8.4.1 Phase I – Construction: to build a sportsfield and ensure the establishment of a healthy turf, prior to the field’s use. On occasion there will be a need to eradicate the existing weeds, weed seeds and chopped rhizomes. In that case an herbicide appropriate to the specific problem will be permitted during the construction of a sportsfield to ensure new turf growth. The thresholds for action during the turf growth period of Phase I will be:
8.4.1.1 5-10% weeds per square meter.
8.4.1.2 European Chafer, Japanese Beetle 10/0.1 meters2 (square foot)
8.4.1.2.1 A combination of monitoring tests to determine the extent of the infestation, the amount of turf damage, and the pervasiveness of the adult beetles’ presence.
8.4.2 Phase II – General Maintenance: to ensure a continued presence of a healthy turf, during a field’s use. Cultural methods will be implemented to maintain the turf to the required maintenance standards. Herbicides are not permitted during this phase. As a last resort, the insecticide Imidacloprid, (such as Merit 0.5G) may be used to limit an infestation and to preserve the turf when the following thresholds are reached:
8.4.2.1 European Chafer, Japanese Beetle 10/0.1 meters2 (square foot)
8.4.2.1.1 A combination of monitoring tests to determine the extent of the infestation, the amount of turf damage, and the pervasiveness of the adult beetles’ presence.
8.4.3 Phase III - Reconstruction: to ensure the re-establishment of a healthy turf, prior to the field’s return to use. On occasion there will be a need to eradicate the existing weeds, weed seeds and chopped rhizomes. In that case an herbicide appropriate to the specific problem will be permitted during the reconstruction of a sportsfield to ensure new turf growth. The thresholds for action during the turf growth period of Phase III will be:
8.4.3.1 5-10% weeds per square meter.
8.4.3.2 European Chafer, Japanese Beetle 10/0.1 meters2 (square foot)
8.4.3.2.1 A combination of monitoring tests to determine the extent of the infestation, the amount of turf damage, and the pervasiveness of the adult beetles’ presence.
8.5 While section 8.4 identifies the most common current pests affecting our sportsfields, from time to time there may be others. These will be treated in accordance with Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11.
9.0 Delegation of Authority for
Emergencies
In the event that a natural disaster such as,
but not limited to, an infestation occurs which falls outside the scope of this
policy and where timely intervention is of the essence, the Medical Officer of
Health when there is a risk to human health, or the appropriate General Manager(s) responsible for lifecycle
management, community services provisions, environmental health, or asset
management and/or their respective delegated subordinates, in consultation with
the Medical Officer of Health and other appropriate staff and agencies, shall
have the authority to order at his/her discretion the application of the
appropriate pesticides to effectively counter the disaster. (Ref. Also: 5.7,
6.6 and 7.0)
10.0 Exemptions to this policy
In all cases where there are exemptions to
this policy, the principles expressed in section 3.0 Principles of the
Policy will remain in effect.
These following exemptions are
considered non-cosmetic.
10.1
Forestry is
exempted from this policy for the purpose of non-cosmetic pest control i.e.
when the health or existence of the tree is threatened.
10.2
Agriculture
is exempted from this policy.
10.3
Tree, turf and
plant nurseries are exempted from this policy.
10.4
Public
swimming, wading and splash-pad pools are exempted from this policy.
10.5
Purifying of
water for human and animal consumption is exempted from this policy.
10.6
Buildings,
parking meters and infrastructure are exempted from this policy.
10.7
The
city-operated golf course operates on land leased from the NCC. The golf course will need to follow the
restrictions and targets outlined in the city’s pesticide reduction policy for
private lands approved by City Council in December 2002.
10.8
Pest
reduction/elimination programs approved by the Medical Officer of Health are
exempted from this policy.
10.9
Pest
reduction/elimination programs directed by a more senior level of government
are exempted from this policy.
This list of exemptions may be revised from time to time as needed and
appropriate.
11.0 Recommended alternatives substances
From time to time it will be
necessary to deal with a pest for health, safety and/or asset management
reasons.
11.1
Adherence to
sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of this policy is required
whenever an alternative on this list is implemented under this policy.
11.2
In addition to
mechanical and cultural practices, the following alternative substances are
permitted for use under this policy. This list may be amended from time to time
as other appropriate substances become available.
1.
Animal repellents
2.
Borax
3.
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)
4.
Corn gluten meal
5.
Diatomaceous earth
6.
Dormant oils
7.
Ferric phosphate
8.
Herbicidal soaps without pyrethrum
9.
Horticultural oils
10.
Injected tree treatments
11.
Insecticidal soaps
12.
Lime sulfur
13.
Nematodes
14.
Biological control organisms
15.
Pheromone traps
16.
Solution of horticultural strength vinegar, SunlightÔ liquid soap, salt
17.
Sticky media
12.0
Related
Legislation, Regulations and Policies
·
Ontario Weed
Control Act
·
Pesticide
Control Products Act
·
Health
Protection and Promotion Act
·
Workplace
Health and Safety Act
13.0 Responsibilities
Public Works and Services Department,
Corporate Services Department, and Community and Protective Services Department
are responsible for implementing this policy.
Planning and Growth Management Department is
responsible for co-ordinating the monitoring and reporting aspects of this
policy in conjunction with the other departments.
All departments are responsible for keeping
the policy current, and Planning and Growth Management Department will
co-ordinate this responsibility.
DOCUMENT 2
1. Location/name
of turf field
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Notification
information – report initiated by:
2.1 Staff Yes
No |
2.2 Name |
2.3 Phone contact |
2.4 Initial report date |
2.5 Community complaint? Yes
No |
2.6 Complainant’s name |
2.7 Complainant’s phone |
2.8 Date of complaint |
3. Pest
information
3.1 Was observation part of on-going maintenance
program? Yes
No |
3.2 Name of pest |
3.3 Extent of infestation or pest presence |
3.4 Policy threshold for this pest |
4. Staff
consulted (name, position and contact information)
4.1 On-site supervisor |
4.2 Horticultural |
4.3 Forester |
4.4 Health |
4.5 Policy |
4.6 Other |
5. Actions taken
– please explain what and why
5.1 No action taken |
5.2 Alternative to pesticide used |
5.3 Pilot test conducted |
5.4 Pesticide used |
|
5.5 Reasons for action taken or not taken |
|
|
|
|
6. Signs posted
6.1 Regulatory signs |
6.2 City of Ottawa informative signs |
6.3 Other signs |
7. Follow-up
Monitoring
7.1 Date monitored |
7.2 How monitored |
7.3 Condition of turf |
7.4 Status of pest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Additional
controls (if required as part of follow-up monitoring data)
8.1 Additional controls |
8.2 Reason for additional control measures |
8.3 How much/often |
8.4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Recommendations for the future
10. Turf
returned to active status:
___________________
Date
11.
_____________________________________________ ________________________
_____________________ Supervisor Phone Date
This background paper provides an overview of the issues relating to turf and sportsfield management with restricted or no use of pesticides. It places the issue in the context of the City of Ottawa’s overall objective to reduce, and wherever possible, eliminate the use of pesticides on public lands and turf – i.e. parks and sportsfields. While this paper emphasizes the need to carry out sportsfield maintenance without using pesticides, it does make a case for the use of pesticides on sportsfields in certain situations and under specific conditions. The paper offers data from other Canadian municipalities who have developed sportsfields turf management practices and at times compares Ottawa’s proposed pesticide use policy with initiatives in the other municipalities. Finally, the paper also offers the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Guideline for Sportsfield Management as a comparative to Ottawa’s guidelines.
It should be noted that this paper applies mainly to sportsfield management, addresses turf management in parks to a limited degree but does not address pest management applicable to trees, ornamentals or other “turf “such as rights-of-way and boulevards, and lawn-type areas surrounding civic facilities.
In recognition of the need to reduce and potentially eliminate the amount of pesticides used on City of Ottawa-owned properties and facilities, and the inconsistencies between the various pesticide use policies and practices brought to the new city by the previous municipalities, Council adopted an interim pesticide use policy in May, 2001, based upon one in use by the former Region. Council also directed staff to develop a longer term policy applicable to all city-owned and operated land and facilities in the new city.
The City of Ottawa has made a strong commitment to reduce the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in Ottawa. The Pesticide Reduction Strategy for Private Property (2002) established clear reduction targets for the private sector, to be achieved by 2005. These are: 100% reduction for institutions with sensitive populations, such as hospitals, schools, daycares and seniors care facilities; 70% reduction for residential properties; and 65% reduction for all remaining non-residential properties i.e. commercial/industrial.
Through application of the interim pesticide use policy, one of the biggest concerns is the maintenance of sportsfields. The interim pesticide use policy adopted by the City in 2001 was based upon the former Region of Ottawa Carleton’s pesticide use policy. That policy was written to address management of regional parks, boulevards and rights of way, and ornamental lawns and gardens surrounding Regional facilities. It did not apply to sportsfields because the former Region did not have any. Thus, while that policy was appropriate for the existing Regional assets, it did not envision a responsibility for high demand turf such as sportsfields and the unique set of management and maintenance requirements of such turf within the new city.
However, our sportsfields are a major corporate asset in high demand by community sport leagues, groups and associations. Their demands for access to the facilities and requirements for a certain level of turf condition and safety for the participants is a major influence in the construction and maintenance levels of the fields. Sportsfields represent a significant economic investment to the taxpayer, both to build and maintain. It is in everyone’s interest to do the best possible, to retain those assets in good order. Just as trees are considered both an economic and environmental asset to our city, so are sportsfields an economic and social asset.
Given the City’s commitment to providing a healthy environment for its citizens, and its initiatives towards eliminating the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, we have an inherent interest in developing sportsfields management strategies incorporating a strong ‘alternatives to pesticides’ maintenance protocol.
The use of whether or how much pesticides to use on City of Ottawa sportsfields needs to be addressed. Based upon comments received from meetings and surveys with both residents and user groups as part of the City’s overall pesticide reduction strategy, the responses are divided into two general groupings. Many residents wish to see a ban on general pesticide use on all parks, sportsfields, boulevards and rights-of-ways. However, many sportsfields users feel that pesticides are a necessary part of sportsfields maintenance.
As owner/operator/maintainer of the city’s sportsfields, the City has an obligation to provide safe and usable sportsfields to the community. As part of the first steps of developing a sportsfield-specific management/maintenance strategy, the City emphasized non-pesticide maintenance practices as the standard. There are, however, several uncontrollable influencing factors, especially at the sportsfield construction and reconstruction phase, such as weather, temperature extremes, the presence of fungal spores and insects in topsoils, infestations and use of new turf grown with pesticides. The influence of these factors on turf quality suggests the need to explore occasional use of pesticide treatments to bring the turf back to acceptable standards.
Turf
management, especially for sportsfields and other high load/high demand areas,
addresses quality, safety and durability, none of which “just happen.” The dilemma we face is how to maintain, at
an acceptable level of service, a safe, healthy and hardy turf, in a very
demanding environment. Inherent are the
various expectations of the user groups, the community at large, staff and
elected representatives. All this,
before we even begin to discus the various design, construction and maintenance
policies and standards, and the tools and procedures we will use to achieve the
eventual outcome.
In
Ottawa, there is also the expectation that turf maintenance be carried out
without the use of pesticides. In
general, barring infestations, this is achievable for on-going maintenance and
minor repairs. However, anything of a
major proportion such as construction or reconstruction of a playing surface,
especially under the high demand for playing surfaces in our city, presents a
unique set of conditions, where the use or non-use of pesticides is only one
part of the equation.
Sportsfields are among the most complex landscapes for a municipality to manage. Because these areas are subject to high-use wear and tear from a number of different sports activities and user groups, sportsfield turf requires considerable maintenance in order to continue to provide an adequate playing surface. Sportsfields most often tend to suffer from bare patches, weed growth, compacted soils and uneven playing surfaces, all of which tend to be the main concerns to the user groups. The management of sportsfields can also have an impact on sensitive resources such as surface water and groundwater and can have an effect on users of the field who are exposed to applied chemicals.
The current challenge faced by the City of Ottawa, along with many other Canadian municipalities, is to create a turf management program that takes into account a rate of heavy-use, while at the same time maintaining a surface that is healthy, functional, and safe; all while working within budgetary limits.
Any
pesticide use policy and sportsfields maintenance management policy needs to
delineate between on-going maintenance practices and minor repairs, major
repairs, and complete reconstruction as well as new construction.
A
solution might be to adopt an approach identifying three phases of turf
management:
1.
The CONSTRUCTION phase
would include the time from ground breaking to when the turf has established
itself and can be used, and is placed on a regular maintenance program. It would permit the use of pesticides as
appropriate to the field’s condition, to prepare it for seeding, and to prevent
the growth of pests while the turf establishes itself.
2.
The GENERAL/ON-GOING
MAINTENANCE phase would carry on indefinitely, where pesticides would not be
used, unless there was an infestation, threatening the existence of the
field. Even then, there would be
discussion concerning the need to use pesticides versus the cost of not using
pesticides.
3.
The RECONSTRUCTION
phase would be similar to the construction phase, and would apply to a field
devastated to the point where even extra-ordinary maintenance efforts will not
save the field.
In
general, on-going maintenance and minor repairs can be accomplished without the
use of pesticides. The exception may be
with the occurrence of major insect infestations.
NEW TURF
However,
in cases where new turf is used to (re)sod a field, that turf has in all
likelihood been grown using a pesticide.
This presents a problem. If the
turf is laid down and not treated with a pesticide for the next several years,
experience has shown that the imbalance created with a relatively sterile sod
soil root zone increases the turf’s susceptibility to damage from local pests
and pests contained in the subsurface soil brought in as a base for the turf.
Turf
specialists suggest a weaning period for sod, during which diminishing doses of
pesticides are administered to enable the turf to establish a natural turf
ecology. Most literature supports a two
to three year time frame for the weaning period, depending on geography,
geology, and weather conditions.
A
somewhat similar situation takes place when a field is seeded. The soils used for both subsurface and
surface preparations, invariably contain weed seeds, fungal spores, and
insects. While good horticultural
practices will eliminate the resulting weed plants and fungi over the period of
several years, some turf managers suggest that it can be necessary to assist
the growing turf with an herbicide along with the usual fertilizers and other
cultural practices to maintain a weed-free turf surface. The pesticide should be reduced annually to
enable the natural ecology of the turf field to gain dominance over the weeds
and fungi. Once the turf has been
established, regular maintenance practices can be implemented for long-term
care.
It
should be noted, that Ottawa favours the use of seeding over buying turf, to
establish its sportsfields. Cost is one
consideration with seeding a field being much less expensive than sod (4-10
times). In addition, seeded turf
establishes itself as a native species on the field and the seed mixture used
can be chosen to optimally fit the use, soil and climatic conditions. Bought turf is foreign to the location and
although it can be put into play more quickly, an ecologically balanced healthy
turf takes longer to establish.
In consideration of the above, the City needs to develop a responsible and defensible approach to the proposed pesticide use policy and the specific application to sportsfields, on the grounds of environmental, horticultural, economic and socially responsible reasons.
General
Sportsfield Management
Sportsfield maintenance programs should be designed to produce and maintain healthy, sturdy and safe playing surfaces. A well-maintained and healthy turf is more resistant to disease and pests and generally provides a safer playing surface that has fewer weeds and bare patches.
In order to develop maintenance schedules, most municipalities classify their turf areas according to use, with sportsfields being further labelled in terms of the type / level of use.
Sportsfields are typically classified into 2 or 3 general categories, which tend to determine maintenance levels. For example, Hamilton, ON and Guelph, ON classifies its sportsfields as being Class A, Class B/C, and Class D. Oakville labels its fields as Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3. Winnipeg classifies its turf areas as High Profile, Regular, and Natural. Victoria, B.C. classifies its sportsfields as High Profile, Moderate Profile and Low Profile turf areas. In contrast, Toronto, ON uses 2 sportsfields classifications: High profile and Low Profile.
Ottawa proposes to classify its
sportsfields into three primary classes based upon competition levels, and
further subdivides those into two secondary classes based upon use and
available amenities. (Draft Maintenance Quality Standards Ref. 201.01 Sports
Field Maintenance Classification – August 2003 – approval pending)
Classifying sportsfields is helpful in developing a maintenance policy because knowing the demands and needs associated with a particular type of field will help determine appropriate strategies with respect to both maintenance and construction specifications.
In addition, a classification system also serves to set user fees and to educate members of the community about the nature of a particular field and the type of maintenance likely to be associated with such a field. Higher profile fields can be advertised as such to the community, and a larger maintenance budget can then be allocated. Lower profile fields can be provided at lesser user fees, which would justify a more minimal maintenance budget. In fact, a message has been inserted on the City of Guelph website that states “with the limited use of pesticides, park patrons should be prepared to notice changes in the appearance and conditions of park areas.”
Regardless of the sportsfield or turf classification, proper cultural practices are the foundation of any sustainable turf maintenance program. Generally, cultural practices consist of the following:
Cultural practices vary from municipality to municipality, however, even when cultural practices are diligently followed, diseases and pests can sometimes invade turf, causing problems for both the sportsfield users and the maintenance staff.
Since City Council’s
approval in 2002 of the turf management strategy for sportsfields, Ottawa has
followed the management practices according to a sportsfield’s classification:
These maintenance
practices will be harmonized and confirmed through a future report addressing
service standards for parks and trees.
Pests and weeds can be controlled in 2 ways:
1. Non-chemical controls include Mechanical, Cultural and Biological methods that emphasize a non-chemical approach to correct a pest or disease problem. Mechanical controls include pulling weeds by hand, using steam to kill weeds, and using insect traps.
Cultural controls include extensive use of proper mowing techniques (height, frequency), aeration, fertilization, overseeding, top-dressing with compost, and making use of proper watering. Biological controls are a non-chemical approach that involves the use of beneficial insects or organisms that prey on the identified pest. Examples of beneficial insects include ladybugs, wasps, nematodes and Bt.
2. Chemical controls involve the use of a chemical agent to repel, mitigate or kill a pest or a weed, and are toxic by design. Generally chemical controls in sportsfield management are considered to include use of an herbicide or pesticide. However, the application of pesticides and herbicides to athletic fields is often a source of public concern, particularly as it relates to potential impacts on children and chemically sensitive individuals. As the science of alternative methods to pesticide use advances, other less toxic chemical controls such as are becoming available. Current examples include corn gluten meal, insecticidal soaps (could also be considered mechanical).
Many municipalities that have taken steps to control or limit the use of chemical pesticides have also created lists of “lower toxicity” pesticides that are exempt from policies and bylaws and have been deemed to be safe to use. Ottawa recognizes this option as a management tool and has included a list of acceptable low toxicity pesticides in its policy, but with a strong emphasis on the need for “spot applications” of these materials. (Ref. Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 Section 11.2).
Municipalities typically derive their sportsfield maintenance strategies based on several related components:
1. Pest / Weed identification
The proper identity of a weed / pest is the first step in the reduction decision-making process. For example, cities such as Winnipeg, Vancouver and Waterloo have hired full time IPM Coordinators, who in turn arrange to have staff formally trained to recognize various weeds and pests.
2. Monitoring and recording
By monitoring and recording turf
problems, municipal staff are able to develop appropriate maintenance
schedules. Using information gathered, maintenance departments are then better
able to predict the needs and plan the appropriate steps to be taken in a turf
maintenance schedule. Document 2 is a
sample of the monitoring process and record keeping proposed for Ottawa as part
of its pesticide use policy. (Reference also Corporate Pesticide Use Policy
for City of Ottawa Property 2004 – Sections 5.0 and 6.0)
3. Threshold setting
The level at which pests should be controlled is referred to as a threshold. In many Canadian municipalities, determining thresholds is often subject to the type of turf in question, and only when the threshold is crossed are pesticides used. These thresholds for unwanted species are used as part of the ongoing maintenance practices.
For example, in the following Canadian municipalities, pesticides may be applied under an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program by licensed and trained staff / contractors after pest/weed thresholds have been exceeded.
Class A Sportsfields 10% of playing surface
Class B/C Sportsfields 30% of playing surface
Grubs 5 per 0.1m2 of non-irrigated turf /
15 per 0.1m2 of irrigated turf
Chinch Bugs >20 per 20 cm. Diameter sample
Toronto, ON
High Profile Fields Weed counts exceeding 10% per square metre of turf
Medium Profile Fields Weed counts exceeding 30% per square metre of turf
Victoria, B.C.
High Profile Turf 10-20% weed coverage as determined from transect samples
Moderate Profile turf 15-30% weed coverage as determined from transect samples
Low Profile areas 50% weed cover as determined by visual inspections
High Profile Turf 5 weeds/square metre over 50% of the turf area
Regular Turf 10 weeds/square metre over 50% of the turf area
Natural Areas 20 weeds/square metre over 50% of the turf area
All Sportsfields Weed counts exceeding 15% per square metre of turf
Parkland Weed counts exceeding 30% per square metre of turf
Streetscapes Weed counts exceeding 20% per square metre of turf
Sportsfields Weed counts exceeding 15% per square metre of turf
Cemeteries Weed counts exceeding 20% per square metre of turf
General Parkland Weed counts exceeding 50% per square metre of turf
Grubs (European, June) 10 grubs per square metre
Chinch Bugs 25 chinch bugs per coffee can
4. Alternative products for pest control
Often when municipalities have enacted policies or by-laws that severely restrict the use of pesticides and herbicides, there are typically products or situations where an approved list of products is permitted for use, either with, or without a permit. These controls often include the following:
1. Animal
repellents
2. Borax
3. Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis)
4. Corn gluten meal
5. Diatomaceous
earth
6. Dormant oils
7. Ferric phosphate
8. Herbicidal soaps
9. Horticultural
oils
10. Injected tree
treatments
11. Insecticidal
soaps
12. Lime sulphur
13. Nematodes
14. Other biological
control organisms
15. Pheromone traps
16. Pruning paint
17. Solution of
horticultural strength vinegar, Sunlight liquid soap, and salt
18. Sticky media
The final list that appears in the City’s policy (Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 Section 11.2 – Exceptions, Alternative substances list) consists of compounds considered to be least toxic and to offer the potential for effective pest control.
5 - Mechanical / Cultural
controls
In addition to manually pulling weeds, proper cultural practices involve extensive use of aeration, top-dressing, overseeding, adhering to proper mowing heights, etc. For example, in Toronto, High Profile fields are cut at minimum once every 7 days to a height of 2.5 inches, whereas Medium profile fields are cut every 10 days to a height of 2.5 inches. In Guelph, the “Premium” fields are cut twice a week, whereas the B and C grade fields are cut once every 10 days. In Waterloo, sportsfields are cut once a week to a height of 3 inches, and extensive aeration is used to combat any grub problems that arise.
Maintaining high
quality turf using only cultural methods is possible, however using
cultural-only methods to treat any diseases or infestations that may arise will
likely require more resources in the short term. Possibly the most successful examples of a municipality where
cultural practices are practiced almost exclusively on sportsfields are
Waterloo, ON and Halifax, N.S. Following
a program titled “Plant Health Care” the city of Waterloo plans all of its turf
maintenance around cultural practices.
While Plant Health Care allows for the use of pesticides in the case of
eradicating noxious weeds and protecting municipal assets, the use of
pesticides in sportsfield on-going maintenance is non-existent.
Due the extensive use of aeration in Waterloo’s maintenance program, Waterloo staff acknowledges that their cultural methods appeared to initially cost more due to the purchase of several aeration machines.
In addition, due to the more labour-intensive nature of cultural and mechanical practices, manpower costs could be expected to increase initially under a non-chemical maintenance plan.
In Halifax, an IPM policy has been endorsed for municipal turf management, however sportsfields are maintained by cultural practices alone. In Halifax, aeration, top-dressing with special compost and overseeding are the normal practices, with fields being closed for a period of between 3 weeks and 12 months for cultural treatment and renovations.
6 - Pesticide applications
Under IPM
programs, there is a strong emphasis placed on using a minimal amount of
pesticides, and of only “spot-treating” areas where pesticides/herbicides have
been deemed necessary. Typically, there
is a process, or checklist to be followed prior to the use of pesticides in an
IPM program. In descending order of
importance, these are:
1) Legislative responsibilities to eradicate noxious weeds.
2) Public Safety / Protection of human health.
3) Service Delivery Interruption / Protecting municipal/economic assets.
4) Type of field / Expected use
5) Application of pesticides
While IPM programs
allow for the use of a minimum amount of pesticide use, research indicates that
most municipal turf management policies do not allow for any type of blanket
spraying to occur. Furthermore, most
municipal IPM programs place restrictions on pesticide use with respect to
proximity to waterways, school sites, day care centres and other sensitive
geographic locations. For example,
Hamilton has established 15 metre buffer zones around creeks and playgrounds,
and the district of West Vancouver does not permit pesticides to be used within
50 metres of property registered as being occupied by a person at risk, or any
licensed day care, park, playground, senior citizen’s residence, university,
church or hospital.
An essential component of IPM programs in Ontario is the use of qualified and MOE licensed personnel for any chemical pesticide applications. In addition, some municipalities have made it a practice to post appropriate notices and signage to indicate the use of pesticides on municipal property. For example, in addition to mandated provincial on-site signage, the City of Hamilton and the Town of Halton Hills are required to place newspaper notices to inform residents of chemical applications on municipal property.
By combining these methods IPM seeks to keep weed/ pest problems below levels that can cause unacceptable turf quality, user safety issues and economic-related pressures. In addition, an IPM program focuses on the use of pesticides only when there is an absolute necessity and that turf quality, user safety and economic interests need to be protected. Examples of Canadian municipalities that follow an IPM strategy for sports field maintenance include Hamilton, Brampton, Halton Hills, Toronto, Oakville, Mississauga, Guelph, Waterloo (Plant Health Care), Calgary, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Victoria.
The Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 Section 7.0 – Public Notification, requires use of signs to both meet regulatory requirements, and as part of the public awareness campaign, to inform the public of pesticide use AND of alternatives to pesticides practices used on that location to control pests.
It is important to remember that many “pesticide-free” municipalities have, in some cases, taken ten or more years plus significant resource commitments to reach that point. Ottawa, by comparison, is just beginning the process.
7. Evaluation
The final step of any pest management decision
is evaluation. Without an evaluation after a maintenance treatment it is
impossible to tell if the treatment was successful. Evaluation of a maintenance
method should include analysis of treatment results, fine tuning of monitoring
techniques and comparison of number of treatments from year to year. A turf
management program should evolve and improve over time and evaluation of
current practices is essential for this evolution.
In an effort to
further experiment with non-chemical maintenance of sports fields, several
municipalities, including Toronto, Guelph, Winnipeg and Ottawa are
experimenting with sports field demonstration sites that are maintained using
an aggressive combination of cultural practices such as aeration and
top-dressing with compost.
The development of a strategy for sports-field management is influenced by many environmental and economic factors. Therefore, it is impossible to develop a single set of recommendations that will result in acceptable playing surfaces on all sports-fields.
The following OMAF guidelines are based on
what we believe to be sound techniques for turf grass management. Although
specific modifications of these guidelines may be adopted, the key to successful
sports-field management is to apply cultural practices on a consistent and
regular basis.
CULTURAL PRACTICES:
The following
approach for management of turf on large properties was developed by the
horticultural specialists retained by the City to provide advice on the overall
pesticide reduction strategy.
Core aeration is the process of taking plugs
out of the soil. It must be done after
the soil warms up in the spring otherwise the machinery will cause soil
compaction. Care must be taken, in the
Ottawa area, when core aerating the soil during the hot dry periods to reduce
exposing the grass roots to dry air and high temperatures.
·
Optimally
the soil would be core aerated once a month starting in mid-May after the soil
has warmed up and the excess water from the snow has drained away.
·
Do
annual core aeration in early fall; late August to mid-September when the soil
is dry, the temperature is moderate and the grass is growing vigorously.
·
For a
semi annual core aeration program do one in mid-May to mid –June and the other
in late-August to mid-September
Minimally overseed the fields at least once a
year after topdressing in the spring.
Preferably overseed twice a year, after
topdressing in the spring and fall.
·
In the
spring apply a mixture of 80% Perennial Rye Grass and 20% Kentucky Blue Grass
seed with a Slit seeder, this insures that the seeds are in direct
contact with the soil.
·
Apply
7 pounds/1000 ft2 in the spring
·
In the
fall apply a grass seed mixture that is low in Perennial rye because it is not
particularly winter hardy in Ottawa.
The seed mixture can range from 80% fescue with 20% Kentucky Blue Grass
seed to 40% Fescue with 40% Kentucky Blue with 20% Perennial Rye depending on
the soil conditions and use for the area.
.
·
Apply
4-8 pounds/1000 ft2 in the fall. Optimally 4 pounds/ 1000 ft2 applied in two directions for best coverage, with a slit
seeder.
·
Sports
fields require the higher application rate
Kentucky Blue Grass seed takes up to three
weeks to germinate, and if exposed would suffer drying out, soil erosion and
being eaten by birds. Perennial Rye Grass seed germinates quickly acting as a
nurse grass, protecting the slow germinating Kentucky Blue Grass. Unfortunately in the Ottawa area Perennial
Rye Grass is not reliably winter hardy so it is used as a summer grass plant.
Kentucky Blue Grass is the preferred turf
species because it is drought tolerant, sun loving and durable as a sports
field grass. Fescues are also drought
and winter hardy plants that grow well and look good mixed with Kentucky Blue
Grass.
In low traffic areas overseed just the areas
where the turf is weak. In heavy
traffic areas such as sports fields overseed the whole field in the spring and
fall.
Synthetic fertilizers have a greater impact on
the vigor of the turf than the organic products
Slow release fertilizers such as SCU, IBDU,
Nutralene, Nitroform or similar slow release synthetic fertilizers supply
Nitrogen, to the turf for one growing season.
These should be used in conjunction with natural or synthetic complete
fertilizers, to insure that Phosphate and Potassium are available. It can be applied in late fall or in early
spring.
Apply at a rate of 0.5-1pd of N/1000 ft2
Organic fertilizers such as bone meal, blood
meal, alfalfa or kelp based products can be applied after the spring
topdressing. These are slow release
fertilizers that are sensitive to soil temperature. The nutrients are released to the turf after the organisms have
died and decomposed.
Apply at a
rate of ½-1 pd/1000ft2
Due to the greater stress on a sports field it
will require 4 fertilization treatments per year.
A sample program:
·
End of
October apply the spring fertilizer using a 25-5-10 formulation 50% SCU or
similar
·
May
1-15 apply the early summer fertilizer using a 25-5-10 formulation 50% SCU or
similar
·
June
1-15 apply the late summer fertilizer using a 25-5-10 formulation 50% SCU or
similar
·
Sept
1-15 apply the fall fertilization using a 12-3-8 or similar winterizing
formulation
Mow on a
bi-weekly schedule (minimum) to approximately 8-10 cm (3”) height
Topdress after aerating with a material that is
Organic Matter, compost (mushroom, City or commercially available from Compost
Quebec), or screened topdressing soil (which has Organic Matter and sharp sand
in it). Topdressing should be applied
within a week of aeration to reduce stress on the grass plants.
Topdressing with O.M. or compost products improves soil structure, water infiltration, porosity, and water retention. It reduces soil compaction because a bulky but lightweight material is being incorporated into the soil. This will also improve the bio diversity of the soil micro and macro-- organism populations.
· 30-40 yds3/acre is the recommended rate for the topdressing material. Apply it to the fields using a Bannerman or similar Turf Topdressing Machine
Only major weeds can be controlled on most
fields being managed organically. As a
general rule allow 1hour/1000 ft2 for hand pulling weeds in the
turf. Expectations for perfect turf on
parkland are not realistic.
Weeds such as common clover or White Dutch
clover, and trefoil are commonly left to grow in the turf, as they are
perennial, low growing, very heat and drought tolerant, and fix atmospheric
Nitrogen making it available to the turf.
These weeds help protect the Kentucky Blue Grass in the summer when it
often goes dormant (depending on the temperature and rainfall), because they
are broadleaf ground covering plants shielding the soil from the heat generated
by the intense summer sunshine.
Black medic is clover like but an annual so it does not aid the turf, it sets seed in July then dies. Plantain is a broadleaf annual that grows well in compacted soil where the turf can’t grow well.
Dandelions live more than 3 years, and produce
huge numbers of seeds that blow through the air in late May germinating shortly
after in early June. They must be hand
pulled once they are established.
Corn gluten is applied to turf areas as a
fertilizer and as a pre-emergent herbicide.
Corn gluten is applied in the spring, supplying 10% Nitrogen to the turf
and reducing weed seed germination. It
is most commonly used to prevent crab grass germination. Care must be taken to not overseed
immediately after applying the corn gluten as it reduces the germination of
desirable grass seed also.
Broadleaf weeds cannot survive the pounding
taken on sports fields. However they
will survive on the fields surrounding a sports field. For this reason broadleaf weeds such as
plantain and dandelion are not a problem for organically maintained sports
fields.
The Nitrogen fixing non-turf species in a
sports field such as clover, trefoil and black medic die out in well-fertilized
fields. Regular applications of
Nitrogen fertilizers make the sports field an inhospitable environment.
·
Overseeding
- twice a year, spring and fall optimally, but once a year in the spring as a
minimum
·
Fertilizing - four times a year
·
Core
aeration - monthly optimally, once a
year in the fall as a minimum
·
Mowing - weekly
·
Topdressing - once or twice a year
CORPORATE PESTICIDE USE POLICY FOR CITY OF
OTTAWA PROPERTY – 2004 / POLITIQUE CONCERNANT L’UTILISATION DE PESTICIDES SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS
DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA - 2004
The committee received written submissions from the following individuals, copies of which are held on file:
a. J. Cottam submission dated 15 July 2004
b. E. Thomas submission dated 13 July 2004
c. M. Christie submission dated 12 July 2004
d. D. Sine submissions dated 8 and 14 July 2004
Dennis Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy provided a detailed presentation of the item, highlighting in particular, the changes between the proposed policy and that which currently exists. The committee was advised of three amendments that should be made to Sections 8.4.1.2, 8.4.2.1 and 8.4.3.2, which were inadvertently omitted from the report, but are included in the policy, namely: “European Chafer, Japanese Beetle 10/0.1 meters2 (square foot)”[1]. The committee accepted these technical amendments. A copy of the presentation is held on file.
In response to a question posed by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Jacobs advised that there is no qualitative difference between the interim policy adopted on 23 May 2001 and the policy before committee today. In fact, the proposed policy would properly balance what is needed to protect the City’s assets and does not move the City into a more liberal use of pesticides.
With respect to the exemptions to the policy listed at Section 10.0, Councillor Cullen requested clarification to 10.1, which proposed that forestry be exempted, because he did not believe the purpose was to allow for cosmetic pesticide use. Dale Philpotts, Director of Surface Operations explained that the exemption is related to what the City is doing with Dutch Elm disease. The councillor asked staff to provide a technical amendment to clarify this particular exemption, by the time the report rises to Council.
Councillor Cullen made note of the fact that schools, childcare facilities, seniors’ residences and hospitals do not apply pesticides to their property and yet the policy suggests that the City could apply pesticides to a sportsfield adjacent to one of those facilities. Mr. Jacobs explained that 50% of the City’s sportsfields are adjacent to such facilities, and when application is necessary, consultation would be undertaken with the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) and would only be done where infestation has occurred. However, the councillor stated that in the trade off of corporate assets, the health and safety of children comes first and the use of alternatives should come into play as a measure of public safety and proposed that those facilities not be treated with pesticides. In response to concerns voiced by Councillor Brooks about the impact this would have on the fields in his ward, staff concurred that the proposal would severely limit the ability to use the policy in the way it was intended.
When asked whether staff would be accepting of an amendment to Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 9.0 to change the words “in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health” to “with the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health”, staff agreed they would be. Dr. Cushman, MOH added that it would introduce another level of due diligence and rigorous assessment before the application is made. Councillor Brooks felt the policy was clear enough for staff to follow, without having the MOH having to make the decision whether or not to apply pesticides.
With regards to thresholds when pesticides are applied, Councillor Cullen suggested the proposed threshold of 5-10% was too low to trigger the application of pesticides and suggested a more appropriate level would be 10%, keeping in mind that several other cities in Ontario are between 10 and 15%. Staff agreed this was acceptable.
Councillor Chiarelli questioned what the medical and health implications would be of decommissioning sportsfields and was advised by Dr. Cushman it would result in the lack of athletic facilities for children and youth and using inferior fields could result in more injuries. The councillor noted that resodding is an alternative that could be used on some fields, but was concerned if that sod would have been treated with pesticides. Staff advised that most of the sod presumably would have been treated with pesticides, but it was explained that the reconstruction of field would generally involve re-seeding rather than new sod being applied.
Councillor Cullen asked that the Medical Officer of Health prepare for Council in the future, an update of the recent information on the health effects of pesticides.
Following on these comments, Councillor Jellett asked how long it would take before a newly constructed field is usable. The Director of Parks and Recreation, Dr. Aaron Burry advised that typically a new field is unusable for one to two seasons and up to one year using current methods. However, it could be upwards of five years before the field could be ready for full use.
Councillor Feltmate asked whether there was an estimate of how many acres are involved in the City’s leased property and what kind of budget pressure that would be. Dr. Burry agreed to report back to the councillor. In response to an additional question posed by the councillor, Mr. Jacobs indicated that approval of this policy would ensure that staff works with the landowners they lease from, to bring both those properties into compliance with the policy.
The following public delegations were received:
Debra Conlon, Urban Pest Management Council indicated that the Council manufactures and distributes pest control products. She commented that as part of the registration process with Health Canada, it takes an average of $300M and ten years to get a pesticide on the market and she confirmed that no products are registered in Canada if they pose any unacceptable health or environmental risks. With regards to public opinion, she referred to a plebiscite held in Oakville in 2003 and the majority of the public did not want to ban pesticides. She provided a handout entitled “Pesticides and Health” prepared by their Council. A copy is held on file.
John
Sankey, Chair, Health
Dangers of the Urban Use of Pesticides (HDDUP) indicated that while they were consulted on
the report, their one main recommendation - to label this policy as pro-health
rather than anti-pesticide – was not accepted and he proposed that the
following be added to the report: “The
purpose of the policy is to promote the optimal health of all the people of
Ottawa and that all operating practices established under it shall be approved
by the MOH as well as by relevant operating personnel.”
With regards to the evaluation of pesticides, Mr. Sankey noted that no physicians are involved at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). He further explained that there are three methods used to judge the health effects of an environmental toxin: toxicology, epidemiology and clinical medicine. The PMRA uses only toxicology in its evaluation, which, he posited, is not enough to fully evaluate the variety of drugs involved that can relate to each other and the variety of human health problems involved. In this regard, Mr. Sankey recognized that Dr. Cushman is an experienced physician and a qualified epidemiologist and was therefore qualified to add his expertise to that of Health Canada. A copy of his written submission is held on file.
Richard Fleming, Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee indicated that for the most part, the report does reflect what they wanted to see, i.e., that there is a uniqueness of sportsfields relative to the overall pesticide issue. He recognized that many fields have been lost and more will be lost and budget constraints have impacted on the number of new fields being developed. Therefore, the City must do what it can with what it has and that includes the use of pesticides. If there is a guarantee and the assurance that the use of pesticides is controlled and done properly by experts, then he recommended that the report be adopted. A copy of a memo dated 31 May 2004 from the Advisory Committee Coordinator, transmitting the position of the PRAC is held on file.
Gillian Victor was pleased to see the controlled use of pesticides but was concerned about the use of herbicides and insecticides and the exposure to children, including her daughter who plays soccer. She was especially concerned because her home is located beside a park and her daughter’s school is adjacent to a sportsfield. She referred to a letter from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board dated 27 May 2004 expressing the concern that the proposed policy has the potential to impact on all OCDSB schools that share green space or sportsfields with the City. She urged committee and Council to keep chemicals and pesticides off sportsfields and to modify the policy accordingly. A copy of the letter referred to and a drawing from her daughter, Victoria asking the City not to spray on sportsfields and playgrounds, is held on file.
With regards to the application of pesticides on sportsfields adjacent to school yards, Dr. Burry advised that one of the key factors is the current condition of most of the school board fields, noting that the majority which are closed or for which complaints are received are higher in number than others. He confirmed that the policy is trying to address the overall state of sportsfields, but confirmed that fields would be taken out of service for the entire season when pesticides are applied.
Dr. Meg Sears, Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa submitted the following comments:
- the herbicides the City intends to use were detected in the Rideau River and its tributaries last summer;
- the pesticide imidacloprid can break down and has the potential to act on the nervous system and therefore poses a risk to children; it also lasts a long time in the environment and food cannot be planted in soil that has been treated with this chemical, for an entire year;
- common lawn care herbicides and insecticides are linked to the most common malignancies of childhood.
Dr. Sears believed the proposed policy represents a big shift in focus, from human health to the protection of assets; however, Council should be focusing on its primary asset - children. She proposed some amendments that would improve the policy, the most important being to change the whole focus from integrated pest management to plant health care. Copies of the Coalition’s press release and facts sheets on healthy sportsfields, the chemical imidacloprid and a fact sheet on fedoxyherbicides were distributed and are held on file.
In response to this presentation, Councillor Cullen inquired how many applications the threshold in the policy would trigger and was advised that it would be approximately 20 applications per year (spot treatment) on 650 sportsfields. The councillor stated that in shifting the threshold he would prefer that staff use alternatives and he inquired what it would it take to shift upwards that threshold so what is being considered is true infestation and all reasonable alternatives being exhausted. Dr. Burry indicated that it would require doubling the current budget, but there would be some loss in asset. He added that it would be a substantial investment to increase the investment to maintain the sportsfields.
Councillor Brooks suggested that pursuing alternatives to pesticide use, while more expensive, could be cost-shared with users and he felt this was an option that could be investigated.
Sean McKenny, Ottawa and District Labour Council felt the policy was a step backwards with respect to how far the City has come to ensuring a completely pesticide-free Ottawa. He made note of the fact that some continue to argue that money and beautification programs outweigh the health and safety of residents, including children and the Labour Council wants to ensure the health and safety of those who live and work here and he suggested that the MOH has a significant role to play in respect to the policy. He stated that there is no factually or undisputable proof that pesticide use is 100% safe and he urged committee to maintain a pesticide-free Ottawa. A copy of his written submission is held on file.
Janice Ashworth was concerned about the use of pesticides on sportsfields when they are in use because of the impact it may have on children using the fields. She noted that the insecticide suggested for use on soccer fields becomes more toxic as it breaks down and is not even allowable for people to use on their own lawns. She could not understand, therefore, why this pesticide would be used on areas where children are encouraged to play. She noted that the herbicides to be applied to sportsfields have not passed the Canadian Risk Assessment Policy and inquired why they are being used. She was also concerned about the runoff of pesticides into neighbouring environments adjacent to sportsfields. She suggested plants such as clover last longer on soccer fields.
In response to some of her comments, Dr. Burry explained that sportsfields that receive applications of pesticides and insecticides are taken out of commission until the chemical is fully absorbed. With regards to her concerns about herbicides not passing the Canadian Risk Assessment Policy, Dr. Cushman indicated that the applicators would have had to have met standards and would only be applied in specific areas. It was further confirmed that imidacloprid, the pesticide she refers to, has met certain standards and is registered with the PMRA. Dr. Cushman understood that imidacloprid has met the requirements for its prescribed use. Ms. Ashworth interjected that the information she had read said that the Canadian Risk Assessment Policy was planning to phase out this product by 2009. Dr. Cushman was asked to clarify this information prior to this item rising to Council.
Manuel Costa urged committee to reduce the
use of chemicals in Ottawa because pesticides are dangerous and are designed to
kill discriminately. It is a health
issue and the decision to use pesticides should be made by the MOH and only as
a last resort. He recognized that
awareness of short and long term effects on health and pesticide use is growing
and that more and more Canadian cities have passed by-laws restricting the use
of such chemicals. Mr. Costa emphasized
that alternatives work and need to be deployed, improved, advertised and
promoted. He called for a vision and
forward thinking, not short-term measures.
Councillor Deans thought the proposed policy actually strengthens the City’s commitment to move away from pesticide use and Dr. Burry explained that the intent of this policy was to strengthen the existing one and he confirmed there would be no cosmetic use or wide-spread use on sportsfields; it is a very strict, limited application in order to maintain what the City has and to allow it to develop.
Dr. Dick Heintzelman, Bayer CropScience spoke specifically on the use of Merit, a low-use rate insecticide that provides superior control of European Chafer and Japanese Beetle grubs in turf. The active ingredient in Merit is imidacloprid, which is approved for protection of crops in over 120 countries, including Canada. He advised that it is unlikely to leach from sportsfields. Merit applications to turf provide substantial margins of safety for wildlife and fish and should result in no harmful exposure to beneficial insects. And, the low potential exposure combined with its favourable level of toxicity, results in substantial margins of safety for humans and the environment. A copy of their PowerPoint presentation was circulated to committee members and is held on file.
When asked what Merit is toxic to, Dr. Heintzelman advised that it is toxic to bees, but exposure to these insects is low. It is also toxic to earthworms, but would not harm the overall population.
When asked to comment on the use of Merit and its impact on humans, Dr. Cushman advised that it is a relatively safe product and is an improvement over others. However, he did have some concern in terms of long-standing environmental health issues and the impact on the ecology, stating there is not enough long-term data available to indicate what the interactions are with other products. When asked what the product ultimately degrades to, Dr. Heintzelman advised that it leads to carbon dioxide.
Ashley McKee, Sierra Club of Canada, Ottawa Group was concerned about the proposed increased use of pesticides on sportsfields and suggested the public, including parents of children who play sports on fields and pet owners, should be consulted on how they feel their turf should be maintained. She strongly believed that the City had a moral and legal obligation to protect the health of children and yet there is contradictory information on the City’s website with regards to pesticides: it encourages no pesticide use on private property but proposes the use of pesticides on public property. Ms. McKee stated that there is an over-abundance of scientific data showing the negative health effects of pesticide use and argued that because there are other economic and viable alternatives for lawn care, there is no rational reason not to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides. She supported a moratorium on cosmetic pesticide use and urged committee members to reject the report and to conduct further consultation with the public and with health professionals.
Iain Page stated that the use of pesticides and herbicides is a cycle: organisms are killed, soil becomes sterile and pesticide resistant insects breed to produce species able to withstand the toxins and continue eating the grass. He stated that while optimistic discussions began with the City, they became more concerned with the issue of adding more chemicals to the fields and there is the issue of how critical it is and how much it is devastating the playing surfaces. He noted that the associated fees to play hockey includes the maintenance of the ice and suggested the same could be done for sports teams that use outdoor fields.
Barbara Barr recommended that no pesticides be used on City property. She did not think signs would be enough to keep people off the fields that have been treated and she supported the involvement of the MOH in determining when pesticides should be applied. As stated by other delegations, she too was concerned about the conflicting message being sent to the public about the City’s stand on pesticide use on public and private property.
Katie Albright, Sierra Club of Canada, National Office believed what is being proposed is a step backwards in allowing sportsfields to be sprayed when children use them. The statements made about how important it was to maintain the City’s assets, despite the risks posed to children, troubled her. She would have preferred that the report focus more on the province of Quebec which does not apply pesticides on sportsfields that are used by children under the age of 14 (Section 31.5 of the Pesticides Management Code) and felt the City should be moving in that direction. She hoped the report would be sent back to staff for further research to study what Halifax is doing for example and the success of this project and the long term benefits and gains. A copy of her a submission and an excerpt of the Quebec Pesticide Management Code are held on file.
Christopher Schmidt advised that pesticides, such as Merit, have been shown to cause cancer, infertility, mutations and nervous system disorders. Also, pesticides can cause death in local populations of predatory insects and some animals and birds. He noted that Health Canada does not have the resources to test pesticides and when they do, they do not test the interaction with other chemicals. Mr. Schmidt believed that the City and its residents have the responsibility not to add to the global burden of pesticides and the burden of future generations.
Sophie Sommerer felt the City should be showing the public that maintenance is possible without pesticides. While the policy states that pesticides would only be used when necessary, if it becomes necessary to reduce the costs to sportsfield maintenance she was concerned that the City would apply the risk to corporate assets criterion to justify the use of a pesticide, instead of investing in more sustainable and possibly more expensive pest management practices. She noted that under the policy, insecticides could still be applied when the field is in use and while it may be taken out of commission for a brief time, those pesticides simply do not vanish that quickly. She was also of the opinion that setting up sportsfields for a cycle of pesticide/no pesticide use seems doomed to failure given that the maintenance phase will always begin with a chemically dependent surface, with no natural ability to prevent the recurrence of pests. She asked that Council send a clear message that the health and safety of children are important and that pesticides are not necessary.
Angela Rickman asked why staff did not look at the historical applications in Ottawa and how many sportsfields were taken out of commission and what the public outcry was then, because they had became accustomed to the quality of sportsfields that were being maintained, with no pesticide use. She was concerned that the focus has shifted from the protection of public health to protection of property and argued that the use of pesticides does not necessarily protect property and certainly does not protect the environment or human health. She believed the regulatory process for approving pesticides is not inadequate and has been reported on repeatedly by the Environmental Auditor General. She noted that the PMRA has committed to re-evaluating the most commonly used lawn chemicals and through that process one of the main ingredients in pesticides such as Killex, Weedex is MCPA, which is being withdrawn because of health concerns. She noted that many of the chemicals being used on lawns today were registered long before the scientific knowledge that is known today.
Mr. Philpotts confirmed that the former City of Ottawa had a pesticide ban for a number of years, which was supported with cultural methods. However, the resources to maintain those methods became eroded over the years as a result of budget pressures and he commented that in some cases, those fields might have to be rebuilt.
Leonida Hudson, Chair, Council of Women for Safety supported the use of safe pesticides. She suggested alternative planting to reduce/eliminate weeds and challenged Council and the public to look at a five year plan to build new sportsfields away from populated areas where people could be shuttled to and not be exposed to pesticides.
Janet Parry, Environment Chair, Council of Women stated that children are the most important asset and she was concerned about the affect chemicals would have on them, noting exposure to harmful pesticides is not restricted to only those playing on the field, but to bystanders and others watching the game.
Following the public delegations, the following Motions were considered:
Moved by A. Cullen
That the following be inserted as
1.0 Policy Statement and that the remaining section be re-numbered 1.1:
1.0 Policy Statement
The purpose of this policy is to
promote the optimal health of all people of Ottawa.
To this end, all operating practices
established under it shall be approved by the Medical Officer of Health as well
as by relevant operating personnel.
CARRIED
Moved by P. Feltmate
That the phrase “in consultation
with the Medical Officer of Health” in Sections 8.2 and 9.0 be replaced with
“with the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health”;
And that the phrase “with the
concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health” be added to Section 8.3.
CARRIED
Moved by P. Feltmate
That the threshold for pesticide
applications for sportsfields be set at no less than 10% weeds per square meter
(Sections 8.4.1.1; 8.4.3.1).
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen questioned whether clover, dandelions and plantain are included as part of the 10% threshold that triggers the application of pesticides, because he believed they were not a problem on fields where sports are played. Staff indicated that unless directed differently, they would be including all weeds. The councillor was prepared to put forward a Motion that these plants not be included, and staff agreed to accept as direction that they would not include those plants in the 10% threshold trigger. Councillor Brooks cautioned committee that plantain and dandelions would both kill out any grass around.
Moved by A. Cullen
That the procedure used for chemical
pesticide applications involve “hooded” (i.e., full-gear) applications, for
better protection.
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen proposed that a new Section 8.6 be added to read as follows: “No chemical pesticides will be applied under this policy to any sportsfield that is bordering a school, child care centre, seniors’ residence or a hospital.” He reminded committee that there is already a Corporate goal to achieve 100% pesticide reduction for such facilities by 2005. And, in light of the fact that pesticides are not applied on these facilities, he questioned why the City would even contemplate putting it on its own property adjacent to those.
Councillor Chiarelli was concerned that the impact of the Motion would affect over half the City’s fields and this could result in a loss of playing fields. When weighing the relative risks, he indicated there is a substantive impact on a child’s health if sportsfields are not available to be played on and over the past 15-20 years the usage of sportsfields has declined, as has the number of sports teams. He indicated that this is because a high-calibre competitive sport cannot be staged on the fields adjacent to the facilities previously mentioned, the same way that can be done on the better fields in the City. He went on to state that school sportsfields are nowhere near the standard they used to be and they are not in the same league as many of the City’s fields. Without increased dollars necessary to improve maintenance, he would not support the Motion. Dr. Burry confirmed that half of the City’s playing fields are located adjacent to or on those facilities and he agreed they are in the worst shape and any rehabilitation would be that much more difficult and would require a significant capital investment.
Councillor Brooks was concerned that the impact of this Motion would mean that some of the rural areas in his ward would end up with only one sportsfield. He was of the opinion that since the MOH would be working with staff on this, perhaps it is he who should be the one to determine whether or not what areas adjacent to schools, et cetera should be treated with pesticides.
In response to concerns expressed by Councillor Doucet about this Motion and the costs vs health, Dr. Burry confirmed there are costs involved, but there is currently a shortage of sportsfields and the City is trying to develop new fields. When the City does that, there is some assistance to ensure that turf gets established and is why there is a need to control the weeds, otherwise there are costs and delays in terms of being able to bring on the field. The other issue is with respect to cultural practices and the results are now being seen of the investment in that; there are many human resources required to maintain those fields. With regards to the health elements of this, and in consultation with the MOH, he advised that staff have tried to balance the risks and minimize them as much as possible. The policy therefore speaks about a substantial reduction in the use of chemical pesticides, and only when absolutely necessary, in order to be able to continue to balance the other aspect of the healthy equation that people stay active.
Chair Holmes supported the Motion because public health comes first before the health of sportsfields. She would also support more money being invested in the operating budget for this.
Moved by A. Cullen
That a new Section 8.6 be added:
“No chemical pesticides will be
applied under this policy to any sportsfield that is bordering a school, child
care centre, seniors’ residence or a hospital.”
LOST
YEAS (3) A. Cullen, C. Doucet, D.
Holmes
NAYS (3) G. Brooks, R. Chiarelli,
P. Feltmate
Councillor Cullen suggested adding an (h) to 5.4 of Section 5.0 General Provisions as follows: “h) community tolerance of control measures”. He explained that if a community wants to protect the fields in their area, this amendment would allow for some recommendations. The Deputy City Manager expressed concerns about a split in the community and where that would put staff in assessing community tolerance and having to make a decision. He maintained that the policy is very clear and the language has been further strengthened by the amendments made today. He reiterated the fact that the policy, as amended by the foregoing Motions, would clearly indicate whether pesticides must be applied, noting that such decisions would now be with the concurrence of the MOH.
Other committee members felt this Motion would result in logistical problems, such as having to hold public meetings, et cetera, and also, a community could very well argue against the opinion of the MOH.
Moved by A. Cullen
Add to 5.4 of Section 5.0 General
Provisions: “h). community tolerance of
control measures”.
LOST
YEAS (3) A. Cullen, C. Doucet, D.
Holmes
NAYS (3) G. Brooks, R. Chiarelli,
P. Feltmate
Councillor Cullen distributed copies of “The Birdie Express”, a paper distributed by the Pine View Municipal Golf Course, and noted that the information contained in that literature is contrary to the goal of the City. Mr. Kanellakos advised that approval of this policy would mean staff could direct the Authority to adhere to the policy (Section 10.7 refers).
That the Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee recommend that City Council approve the Corporate
Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property 2004 as presented in Document
1, to replace the 2001 Interim Pesticide Use Policy.
CARRIED as amended