AGENDA # 6a
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Town Pest Control Practices Update
DATE: April 24, 2000
This report provides an update on our pest control practices since the establishment of the Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy in the spring of 1999. It includes a point by point status report on the nine specific pest management goals the staff set for 1999 – 2000, an inventory of recent pesticide use on Town properties, and a summary of a meeting the Town staff held with Council Member Joyce Brown, Mr. Allen Spalt and Mrs. Martha Drake. This report also recommends several additional specific pest management goals for 2000 – 2001.
One of the goals set by the Council at its January 16, 1999 Council Retreat was to expand the Town’s Integrated Pest Management program. In response to this, the Town staff developed the Town’s “Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy” and included it in the Town’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual in the spring of 1999.
On May 24, 1999, Mrs. Martha Drake petitioned the Council and requested information about the use of pesticides on Town-owned properties. On July 7, 1999, the staff provided the Council a report entitled “Town Pest Control Practices”. A copy of this report is attached (attachment #1). In addition to including a copy of the Town’s “Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy”, this report included background information about Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles, an overview of the Town’s in-house and contracted pest control practices and a list of specific pest management goals for 1999 – 2000. At the July 7, 1999 meeting, Council Member Joyce Brown requested that the staff meet with Mr. Allen Spalt of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association and other interested parties to review the Town’s administrative policy. On January 5, 2000, the staff met with Council Member Brown, Mr. Spalt and Mrs. Drake.
The goal of the Town’s pest management practices as stated in its Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy is to “minimize the use of conventional chemical pesticides on Town owned properties by providing methods for documenting pest control practices and setting specific goals for reductions in conventional chemical pesticide applications”. In its first year of implementation, nine specific pest management goals were set. These goals dealt primarily with establishing a system of responsibility for, and documentation of pesticide use on Town properties. Each of the goals, along with an update on our progress in addressing each goal, is provided in the following list.
Update on Specific Pest Management Goals for 1999 – 2000:
Status: The Town’s Landscape
Supervisor II has been designated as
the Town’s IPM Coordinator.
Status: The Building Maintenance Supervisor
has been designated as an IPM Supervisor to oversee the Town’s building pest
control contracts, the Housing Officer I has been designated an IPM Supervisor
to oversee the public housing pest control contract, and a Groundskeeper IV has
been designated an IPM Supervisor to oversee the Stroud Rose Garden maintenance
contract.
Status: A centralized exterior cabinet has been designated for pesticide storage. This cabinet is kept locked and is under the direct control of the IPM Coordinator. It is the storage facility for all known pesticides on Town property (note: it is possible that individual containers of wasp spray or other small aerosol containers of common insecticides may still be used by Town employees who are not yet aware of the Town’s policy).
Status: All pesticide applications by Town employees are documented on log sheets that include the type and amount of pesticide used, and the date and location of its application. All Town employees that apply pesticides as a part of their work have a North Carolina Pesticide Applicators License and are fully aware of their responsibility to keep accurate records. The IPM Coordinator maintains these records and is responsible for purchasing all new pesticides.
Status: Initial comparisons of the time required to hand remove weeds versus spray weeds, done last summer in areas where weeds were well established, indicated that hand removal was from 16 to 60 times more time consuming than spraying in the six small test sites evaluated. Hand weeding is likely to be more efficient in areas where weeds are more sparse and is still utilized in these locations and in playgrounds and at other sites where the use of Roundup is unacceptable. We believe that from a labor resources perspective, the most efficient physical weed control measure is to suppress weed populations through the use of mulch. As of this writing, we note that an illustrative comparison can be made between the performance of well mulched and weeded trees in the median of Fordham Boulevard in Chapel Hill and inadequately mulched and weeded median trees, planted at the same time, outside of Chapel Hill.
Status: Concern is being reapplied this spring at several test sites and its effectiveness will be evaluated this summer. After last years first application some modest reduction in weed populations was observed. We anticipate improved weed control after this second application. If it is determined to be a promising weed control practice we will evaluate its cost relative to other methods of weed control. Initial indications are that the current cost of this product may limit its widespread use.
Status: The Town recently purchased two propane weed flamers. These are long handled tools attached to a small propane tank that emit a flame that is used to burn weeds. We will test these flamers during the current growing season in a variety of situations, notably in paved areas and along fences, where spot applications of Roundup have traditionally been used.
Status: Members of the Town’s Landscape Division have attended demonstrations of the system and intend to learn more about its possible usefulness to the Town during the current growing season.
Status: A
system is now in place where Witherspoon Roses, the contractor who sprays the
roses, contacts the Town’s IPM Supervisor responsible for the Stroud Rose
Garden the day before any pesticides are applied. The IPM Supervisor then puts ups signs alerting the public that
pesticides will be applied.
Pesticide Use Inventory:
The May 24, 1999 petition to the Council from Mrs. Martha Drake (attachment #2) requested that the Town staff provide an inventory of pesticide use on Town properties. As discussed in the July 7, 1999 memorandum to the Council, pesticide applications on Town properties can be made by Town staff or by private pest control companies. The Town’s Landscape Division, under the direct supervision of the Town’s IPM Coordinator, is responsible for all conventional pesticide applications by Town staff. Private contractors are responsible for pesticide applications at Town buildings, public housing neighborhoods and at the Stroud Rose Garden under the direction of three IPM supervisors (see response to goal #2 above). Each of these different pest control situations is discussed separately in the following inventory.
In the past year the Town’s Landscape Division has applied no fungicides and insecticide use has been limited to the infrequent application of aerosol wasp sprays to control wasp and yellow jacket nests where there was a likelihood of someone being stung. During this same period the Town has applied Roundup 59 different times, for a total of 139 gallons of diluted spray. Three and one-half gallons of diluted Vantage and 5.5 gallons of diluted Finale, two other common low toxicity insecticides, have also been applied. Fifty pounds of Concern, an “organic” pre-emergent herbicide made from corn products, has also been applied at several test sites to assess it effectiveness in reducing weed populations.
Each summer the Town hires a part-time Mosquito Control Officer in the Town’s Drainage Division. This employee maps mosquito infestations, works with citizens to correct drainage problems that provide mosquito breeding opportunities, and applies Bactimos briquettes to areas of standing water that cannot be drained. Bactimos is an “organic” bacteria-based insecticide that functions by infecting and killing mosquito larvae. Because this program is primarily related to drainage issues and does not utilize conventional chemical pesticides, it has not been put under the direct supervision of the IPM Coordinator.
Pesticide use by contractors at Town buildings – Pest control in Town buildings is done by two separate contractors; Orkin and Bugman. Each contractor applies small quantities of low toxicity liquid insecticides along exterior doorway thresholds and along baseboards in areas, such as entryways and kitchens, where insect infestations are most likely. The pesticide application program includes monthly applications aimed at preventing the establishment of large resident insect populations. A comprehensive inventory of the buildings treated and the amount and type of insecticide applied is attached (attachment #3).
Pesticide use by contractors at public housing neighborhoods – Pest control in public housing neighborhoods is done by Cleggs. In this pest control program, pest monitors (sticky traps) are inspected monthly and pesticide applications are limited to those situations where infestations are found. Discussions with the Cleggs inspector indicate that some units require frequent treatments whereas some others have never been treated in the four years the program has been in place. If infestations are found, minute spot applications of a gel bait containing the low toxicity insecticide Fibronil, are placed under appliances and in other inconspicuous locations. Utilizing this program, pesticide spraying is limited to the infrequent use of conventional aerosol insecticides to control wasps and other flying insects. By monitoring pest populations prior to treatment and utilizing the smallest effective dose of low toxicity pesticide this approach, although not entirely chemical-free, would generally be considered to be consistent with the goals of an Integrated Pest Management program.
Pesticide use by contractors at the Stroud Rose Garden – Pest control at the Stroud Rose Garden is done by Witherspoon Roses. As part of an agreement with the Chapel Hill Rose Society, the Town staff prunes and fertilizes the roses and provides for general garden sanitation and weeding needs, and the Chapel Hill Rose Society, through contract with Witherspoon Roses, provides the pest management services. This maintenance program includes scheduled applications of pesticides and is similar to maintenance programs at other rose gardens, public and private, in our area. The program includes twelve pesticide applications, at approximately two-week intervals, from April into September. The pesticides used include a standard mix of Orthene (insecticide), Captan (fungicide) and Clearys (fungicide), augmented in June with Sevin (insecticide) to improve control of Japanese Beetles. The pesticide Avid, is also added to control mites if an infestation is noted. The pesticide combination is applied by spraying a dilute mix to saturate the foliage. The quantity of spray applied on the 470 roses at each application varies from 30 gallons when the foliage is emerging in April to 100 gallons when the plants are fully leafed out in summer.
Summary of Meeting with Council Member Joyce Brown, Mr.
Allen Spalt and Mrs. Martha Drake:
On
January 5, 2000, Town staff met with Council Member Joyce Brown, Mr. Allen
Spalt and Mrs. Martha Drake to discuss the recently developed Least Toxic
Integrated Pest Management Policy. The
following is a review of the primary topics discussed along with the staff’s
response to the various proposals made at the meeting.
Pesticide
inventory – The
Town staff presented the inventory prepared as of January 5, 2000. Mr. Spalt indicated that additional
information about Witherspoon’s pesticide applications, which is presented in
the current report, would be useful and suggested that the preventative
pesticide application approach used at Town buildings was less desirable than
the monitoring and selective application approach used in public housing
neighborhoods and elsewhere.
Staff
response: The staff now has a completed
inventory of pesticide use. A specific
goal for 2000 – 2001 is to computerize this inventory to improve our ability to
track all pesticide applications.
Another specific goal for 2000 – 2001 is to initiate a trial insect
monitoring and spot treatment based pest control system at several Town
buildings to compare it’s effectiveness with the preventative pesticide
application approach currently used at these buildings.
Specific
goals for 1999 – 2000 – The group agreed that the proposed goals were good. Mr. Spalt suggested that an additional goal
could be to educate the Town staff about pest prevention methods in an effort
to reduce the need for pest control measures.
He also indicated that he believed that setting a long-range goal to
eliminate the use of all conventional pesticides, for example 3 – 5 years as
proposed in Carrboro, is a valuable component of Carrboro’s policy.
Staff
response: A specific goal for 2000 –
2001 is to develop an educational handout about the Least Toxic Integrated Pest
Management Policy. This handout will
stress the benefits of good sanitation practices in preventing pest infestations. The staff acknowledges the value in setting
long-range goals, but believes that additional information is needed before we
can realistically estimate when, or if, the use of all conventional pesticides will
be eliminated on Town properties. Some
of the information needed, including studies on the cost and effectiveness of
alternative weed control measures, and research on how other rose gardens are
maintained in the Southeast, are addressed in the specific goals for 2000 –
2001.
Administrative
policy compared to a Town ordinance – Council Member Brown indicated her interest in
establishing the Town’s Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy as a Town
ordinance rather than as an administrative policy. Mr. Spalt indicated that he felt that adoption of an ordinance
made the goal of reducing pesticides a more public process and that it set an
example for others. Council Member
Brown indicated support for annual reports to the Council that may be an outcome
of adopting an ordinance.
Staff
response: The staff believes that that
the current policy is working well and notes the considerable progress it has
made in addressing the specific goals for 1999 – 2000. The list of specific goals for 2000 – 2001
includes improving our system of documenting pesticide use and researching
alternative pest control practices that will further enable the staff to
minimize its use of conventional pesticides.
An advantage to an administrative policy is that it can be readily
revised or amended as additional information becomes available. In addition, the Council may request reports
at any frequency that it wishes.
Revisions
to the policy – Mr. Spalt suggested that the policy could be expanded to emphasize the
role of sanitation practices and other means of pest prevention as part of the
overall Integrated Pest Management Policy.
He also suggested that the wording of the last section of the policy
entitled “Policy Revisions and Addenda” be revised to promote the use of
alternative pest control practices that show promise but have yet to have
conclusive proof of their effectiveness.
Staff
response: The Town staff indicated that
these revisions would be made.