CITY OF BURLINGTON

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION

For information not available through this medium, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (905) 335-7698.

Chairman and Members of the
Community Services Committee

Re: 2000 Turf Management Program
File: 795-11 and 435-03

THAT the Roads and Parks Maintenance Department’s 2000 Turf Management Program as proposed in Report RPM 5/00 be approved;

and that staff continue to pursue turf management practices with the objective of eliminating pesticide use over time;

and that the Roads and Parks Maintenance Department continue to work with the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and network with other municipalities and professionals on issues related to pesticide use;

and that the City of Burlington’s Turf Management Program be included as part of the Roads and Parks Maintenance Department’s public information program to inform the community on current turf management practices and issues associated with pesticide use;

and that staff be directed as part of a community outreach program within the context of the City’s environmental management plan, to develop a public communications program to encourage reduction of pesticide use on private property.

The need for an enhanced Turf Management Program arose during the Community Services Committee meeting in July of 1998. City Councillors directed staff to report back on the condition of the City’s turf in parks and boulevards and provide information relating to possible methods and related costs to eliminate weeds and improve appearance and condition of the City’s turf. This information was required for an upcoming meeting in October with Roads and Parks Maintenance staff to review the revised Maintenance Service Level Manual.

Information was provided at the October 1998 meeting and a report (AF-13-99) followed and was subsequently approved by Council on February 8, 1999. The report recommended an increased level of service for turf maintenance, which included the use of herbicides, to begin eradicating weed infestation and to propagate healthy turf.

An information report (CS-89-99) followed in the spring of 1999 providing Council with a status update of the enhanced program.

In the fall of 1999 the City was granted permission by the Ministry of Environment to use local media advertisements in lieu of posting Pesticide Warning Signs throughout the City. The local ads received a great deal of attention from residents and the media. Feedback on the issue of pesticide usage was both positive and negative. At that time a letter was submitted to the Community Services Committee (Item CS-156-99-3) from the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee (BSDC) requesting the spraying program be put on hold until the BSDC had an opportunity to address this issue at their upcoming meeting. As such, Council at its regular meeting held on September 13, 1999 approved the following recommendation of the Community Services Committee;

THAT Staff be directed to work together with the Sustainable Development Committee and with other citizens who express an interest, to review the City’s pesticide Spraying program for the next year; and

THAT staff report back with recommendations on pesticide use for the year 2000.

The following report presents the proposed maintenance program for 2000 and identifies the steps taken to address the aforementioned Council directive.

The dilemma the City is faced with is how to maintain, to an acceptable level of service, a healthy, safe, and aesthetically appealing turf in a harsh environment. This problem comes with many inherent issues as different people have different views on what the acceptable level of service should be and what tools should be used to obtain the desired outcome. As such, staff began a process to develop a balanced program that would satisfy the concerns of the Community as a whole and return the boulevard and park turf areas of Burlington to a healthy, safe and visually acceptable green space.

Inherent in all program development is the concept that at no time is a program ever completed. Evolution of related technologies and advances in research must be constantly monitored and evaluated if they are to be utilised, dismissed, or experimented with. As well, the time honoured processes that are currently employed should be constantly scrutinised to determine their effectiveness.

Initial development and implementation of an effective long term Turf Management Program requires extensive research. One of the first steps in the process was to meet with scholastic and turf management authorities to view present practices and theories. Some of those consulted included the Royal Botanical Gardens, the University of Guelph Turf Grass Institute, and various turf management professionals on both chemical and non-chemical (organic) methods of turf management techniques.

Information sharing was undertaken with municipalities and personnel, some of which include the City of Waterloo, City of Guelph, City of Toronto, and the Town of Oakville. Of particular interest are the City of Waterloo and most recently the City of Toronto, which have extensive programs in place. Interviews with City staff responsible for day-to-day maintenance of City turf were conducted to gather procedures on what is being done in the field and opinions of what should be done. City staff attended seminars and workshops on turf management, with and without chemical control. Also, articles on turf management practices and issues surrounding pesticide usage are readily available and plentiful (particularly from the internet).

Upon compiling an overwhelming wealth of information, staff developed a responsible Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program to balance the needs of the community which considers public safety as paramount. The program was designed to rectify the deteriorated turf conditions which exist by promoting strong healthy turf to resist weed infestation, disease, and pests on its own merit. The theory of the Program is such that pesticide usage (although applied initially) would be at a minimum, with further reductions in use over time.

A key factor that staff had to consider in the development of the Program is the definition of what the "acceptable" level of service is in terms of turf appearance and tolerance of weeds. The program design is such that it recognizes that some weeds should be accepted as viable ground cover and addressed the following concepts:

• some turf areas such as boulevards are not used like parks but at the same time are high visibility areas from both motorist and pedestrian sources, over abundance of weeds and dandelions are a concern as is turf quality, however, they are not expected to be of golf course or even active park quality;

• some broad leaf and grass weeds should be considered acceptable, as they make excellent ground cover.

It is believed that through proper maintenance techniques and a good monitoring program that pesticide usage would eventually be used at specific locations for treatment of specific problems. The long term goal is to run a program that can meet the needs of the community from both a health and economic perspective with little or no pesticides. The Program consists of numerous components and is described in detail in the following report.

The initial focus of Program implementation in 1999 was in establishing a comprehensive inventory to identify and prioritise needs. Recognizing the ongoing concern with pesticide use, it was determined from the onset that not all City owned property would receive a chemical application. The locations selected for pesticide use were as follows:

• Boulevards along main roads, at bikeway crossing locations, and selected areas identified through public concerns (approximately 50ha of 100ha maintained or 50% of the area);

• Irrigated active (sport) fields were all selected as they have been exempt from the early 1990’s ban (approx. 23ha of the 23 ha maintained or 100% of the area).

• Non-Irrigated active (sport) fields of regular usage, those required due to turf condition, public concerns, etc. (approx. 13ha of the 56ha maintained or 23% of the area);

• Passive parks with sport fields or facilities, waterfront locations, those with deteriorated turf, public concerns, etc. (approx. 61ha of the 238ha maintained or 26% of the area).

It should be noted that pesticides were not to be applied along bikepaths (exception a portion of Centennial Pathway), woodlots, school properties (exception of 3 football fields), or playground areas. Listing of all locations treated in 1999 with pesticides is shown in detail in Appendix "D". In 1999 the hard surface locations listed in "Appendix E" received an application of pesticide, however, all these locations will be treated with hot water in 2000 (100% reduction).

Standardized mowing heights were established at 3" and all equipment was set at this level with the exception of irrigated active fields which remained at 2.5".

A granular application of pesticide/fertilizer (weed & feed) along with selected pesticide spray sites for comparison purposes was completed on the majority of boulevards and selected active and passive parks.

Granular "Weed and Feed" Application to Selected Boulevards

Approximately 44 hectares of boulevard were treated using 16-4-4, 2-4D, mecoprop and dicamba with 50 % S.C.U. at an application rate of 300 kg/ha, in an effort to eliminate weeds and improve the turf quality. The boulevards chosen were along all the main arterial roads, selected bike path roadway crossings, and other areas that were considered to be sensitive areas that the public demanded to be maintained.

Approximately 27 hectares of playing fields were done with 16-4-4, 2-4D, mecoprop and dicamba with 50 % S.C.U. at an application rate of 300 kg/ha. The irrigated playing fields had been the only areas exempt from the pesticide ban of the early 1990’s. The rationale behind this program is to maintain healthy and good quality grass, which promotes safe playing conditions and protects the City’s investment in the playing fields.

Approximately 15 hectares of park and frontages to active parks were treated with the same material as the boulevards and active parks. The inclusion of these locations was based on the same criteria of profile and sensitivity as the boulevards that were selected.

The following sites were chosen to receive tri-kill herbicide spray containing 2-4D, mecoprop and dicamba at an application rate of 5.5 L /ha /300L of water; Sioux Lookout, Port Nelson Park, Brant St. (W. Side from Hwy 403 to Hwy 5), and Upper Middle Road (N. Side from Walkers Line to Havendale Blvd.). These sites, which amounted to approximately 6ha of boulevard and passive park area, were monitored to compare effectiveness between granular and spray applications.

Eradication of noxious weeds with both herbicide and aquacide was done at a variety of sites identified by City personnel and the public.

Aquacide is the use of hot water to eradicate unwelcome vegetation providing an alternative to herbicides. It is non-selective and kills all vegetation that it comes in contact with. It was extensively used at the CNR underpasses at Appleby Line, Walkers Line, Guelph Line, and Brant Street as well as in Spencer Smith Park.

Applied to the majority of hard surfaces and noxious weed sites. A listing of all locations receiving this application in 1999 are shown in "Appendix E". These locations will be treated with Aquacide (hot water) in 2000 constituting 100% reduction in pesticide use.

Based on the spring comparisons, the decision was made to use a liquid spray application of pesticide in lieu of granular. Some of the factors affecting this decision were that the liquid application was far more effective than the granular, it was not weather dependent (with the exception of wind), it did not require water to make it work, and it was significantly less expensive (approximately 27% of the cost of granular). As such, an application of pesticide spray and granular fertilizer was completed on the majority of boulevards and selected active and passive parks.

Approximately 50 hectares of boulevard (same areas as in the spring) were treated with a tri-kill containing 2-4D, mecoprop and dicamba at an application rate of 5.5 L/ ha/ 300 L of water.

Pesticide Spray Application to Active Parks, Passive Parks, and Frontages

Approximately 100 hectares of playing fields, passive parks and frontages to active parks were treated with a tri-kill containing 2-4D, mecoprop and dicamba at an application rate of 5.5 L /ha /300 L of water. In the fall, all park areas were completed in one round of applications hence the combining of active and passive hectares. The same reasoning and criteria were used in the selection of these sites as in the spring of 1999.

Approximately 150 hectares of boulevard and park sites (the same as those sprayed in August and September) were treated with 28–4–8, 60% Nitrogen SCU at an application rate of 200g /ha.

As the proposed Turf Management Program continued to evolve in 2000, it became apparent there were shortcomings that required immediate attention. Initial indications came from discussions with the Burlington Sustainable Development, most recently the Open House discussions with residents (a more detailed account is provided in Sections 5 and 6 of this report) confirmed these concerns. Although the Turf Management Program had been striving to reduce chemical use, staff had not communicated this fact well. Also, the Program did not address the issue of the widespread pesticide use of private land owners. Thus, recent modifications to the Program to respond to these concerns have been incorporated in this report.

It should be noted that the Program that is proposed is still flexible enough to consider new initiatives (e.g. some of the suggestions provided by the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee at the Open House have been initiated). Staff continue to work on enhancing the Program and are actively pursuing alternative methods in maintenance as well as materials (such as wildflowers, organic methods, composting, information sharing, etc.) which promote pesticide reduction.

The Program consists of numerous components and is designed to promote healthy turf, however, it is recognized that the focus of the public is primarily centred on the use of pesticides. The locations proposed to be treated with pesticides in 2000 are similar to those of the fall of 1999 (see Appendix "D"). It is anticipated there will be some changes to the locations for various reasons. Some active sport fields will become irrigated, improved turf areas may no longer require pesticides, locations presently being treated may have alternative forms of weed control applied, new areas will need to added to the list arising from growth, etc. Herbicide was applied to approximately 29% of City maintained (by Roads and Parks Maintenance Department) land. These areas are maintained on a regular basis (frequently mowed and do not include all City property such as woodlots, etc.). This percentage amount indicates that only what is required is being treated. The Program does not call for all out herbicide use on all City owned properties, it is somewhat at a site specific basis as it exists today.

Appendix "C" contains the proposed Turf Management Program by turf type. These tables identify the major components of the Program and serve as a basis for implementation. The Program is flexible to allow for weather changes and alternative initiatives.

Reintroduced in 1999 and to be continued in 2000 and beyond on all boulevards and passive parks. Grass to be cut when it reaches 4 - 4.5 inches in length (not more than 1/3 of the grass leaf should be cut). Active parks require a more frequent cutting schedule, which should meet the specific needs of the playing surface and require a lower grass height.

The proper mowing height is key to everything. This practice promotes healthy root systems, and the turf is less susceptible to weed seed and insect infestation.

Active Irrigated Fields 44 cuts/year (2.5" height)

Active Fields and Active Parks 22 cuts/year (3" height)

Passive Parks and Boulevards 14 cuts/year (3" height)

This practice to be introduced in 2000 and continued beyond, every area should be done where possible including boulevard, passive and active parks.

This process reduces soil compaction, keeps thatch in check (insects like to lay eggs in thatch), reduces disease incidence, and provides for better penetration of water and fertilizer, as well as improved seed germination. The plugs or soil cores that are left on top of the turf return top dressing and nutrients to the soil.

4.3 Over-seed and De-Thatching

Over-seed and de-thatching of selected boulevards and parks can begin on the heels of aeration in conditions much like those for aeration (in 2000 slit seeding may be experimented with in lieu of aeration and over-seeding). It is not essential everywhere. If a sufficient number of areas can be identified, it may be feasible to undertake this part of the program in 2000 (e.g. Spencer Smith Park is scheduled for 2000); however, it is more likely to proceed on a larger scale in 2001.

4.4 Pesticide Application on parks and boulevards

"Pesticides are designed to stop or limit pest occurrence. Insecticides kill insects, while herbicides kill weeds and fungicides suppress or kill fungi. All of these products are pesticides"(Joern, Lohman, and Whitford, Pesticides and the Environment, Purdue University)

This is proposed to continue in 2000 at site specific locations (see Appendix "D"). Pesticides can either be a granular or sprayed product and are designed to control weeds, insects, and fungi. The proposed schedule (following the two applications in 1999) is for 2 applications in 2000, reducing to one application in 2001, and reducing further in each of the following years. Of note is that irrigated sport fields are proposed to continue to receive pesticide applications as in the past.

The locations are indicated in the attached Appendix "D" and are subject to change slightly throughout the year. As there is significant concern surrounding the use of pesticides, staff will strive to reduce the areas (particularly in passive parks) commencing this spring. Also, given the concerns with liquid spray, Staff will consider reverting to granular materials in lieu of spray in some areas. Granular applications of herbicide (pesticide) "Weed and Feed" contain fertilizer. In some areas where granular material is used in lieu of liquid, a separate application of fertilzer would not be used at that time. As pesticide use is cut back, applications of fertilizer may be used in their place. The tables in Appendix "C" will be regularly changed to reflect the applications used.

This process will continue in 2000 on specific parks and boulevards sites (see Appendix "D") identified to be in need of fertilizer, additional fertility applications may be done in lieu of herbicide use. Fertilizers can either be a granular or sprayed product and are designed to return nutrients to the soil, the three main nutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.

The City experimented with this in 1999 and it is to be introduced on a large scale in 2000 and beyond with the purchase of equipment. This process will be used on noxious weed sites, hard surfaces, and field line marking. Aquacide is the use of hot water to eradicate unwelcome vegetation providing an alternative to herbicides and it is non-selective. It must be stressed that this environmentally friendly method of weed control is expected to eliminate pesticides on hard surface areas (traffic islands, shrub beds, baseball warning tracks, etc.). The list of hard surface locations receiving herbicides in 1999 are shown in "Appendix E". These locations will be treated with Aquacide (hot water) in 2000 constituting 100% reduction in pesticide use.

One of the biggest problems in maintaining the City turf is the lack of watering. To address this concern in the park areas City staff have been identifying park locations (particularly sport fields) in the Capital Budget and Forecast for future installation of irrigation systems. Also, staff have been active in pursuing developers of recently built and proposed new parks to install proper irrigation systems. These initiatives assist maintenance staff in establishing and maintaining healthy turf in some park areas; however, boulevard and other passive park locations will remain unable to receive adequate watering.

4.8 Alternate Turf Initiatives

Resources, manpower, and financial considerations may deem this initiative unfeasible in 2000; however, Burlington has numerous areas that this type of program could be successful and acceptable. Staff continue to monitor the industry and explore new initiatives as they arise. Some of the suggested initiatives todate that staff have been investigating are:

• The use of Wildflowers or 100 % fined leafed fescue in lieu of sod;

• English Ivy, day lily, hosta ajuga (will also aid in alleviating potential drainage problems);

• Hydro Right-of-Ways and berms - let turf grow basically untended;

• Naturalization of passive parks areas where possible;

• Flagstone paths on areas that are constantly walked over;

• Corners where vehicular traffic cut paths (asphalt strip same reason for flagstone);

• Organic control;

• Composting of boulevards to promote healthier turf.

It is necessary to undertake the following measures to ensure the program is being managed in an effective and responsible manner:

• assessing and categorizing the parks and boulevards as either high, medium, or low profile;

• define the extent of maintenance that will be administered (unless there are unusual circumstances to be dealt with such as a low profile park that has major turf problems);

• on completion of the rating system, it is necessary to establish the needs of each site and marry them to the profile of the site.

• establish an acceptable threshold of weed cover, to be determined by safety to users, public tolerance, and injury level to existing ground cover;

• continue to monitor the areas, report on the state of the turf, initiate remedies, and investigate and implement new methods and alternate turf solutions.

A similar process should be undertaken as Waterloo and Toronto. This is a key component of the program, the public must be aware. A communications plan has been initiated and information will be made available regarding the Program and related issues this summer. This item was very important to the residents who attended the Open House and it is key to the success of the Program.

4.11 Environmental Concerns and Public Safety

It should be remembered that the original intent of the pesticide ban was because of environmental concerns. Technology and economic constraints has not eliminated this concern in pesticides, thus an awareness and recognition of the potential for contamination should always be recognized.

At the same time as concern is exercised for the environment, there must also be recognition that potential hazards can exist to the public if turf is not properly managed. Playing fields in poor condition increase risk of injury to users. Noxious weeds present a health hazard to numerous individuals either through airborne pollens or contact with plants (such as poison ivy and poison oak), and aesthetics are a concern to some who attribute good health and well being to the visually appealing environment that they live in.

When looking at the community as a whole, the amount of pesticide applied by the City is considered minimal (although in some opinions any amount is too much) in comparison to that applied on residential and commercial properties. As the City of Burlington implements the Turf Management Program and continues to develop it, there is hope that the community would follow this lead and consider reduction chemical usage on private lands. City staff through public information will strive to achieve this goal.

5.0 Burlington Sustainable Development Committee (BSDC)

Since their presentation at the Community Services Committee in the fall of 1999, City staff have been in regular contact with members of the Pesticide Sub-Committee of the BSDC. Information has been exchanged on an ongoing basis and a meeting was held to discuss the proposed Program on February 14, 2000 at the Operations Centre. The meeting provided a positive outcome. The BSDC had the opportunity prior to the meeting to review the details of the Program and were able to provide positive feedback and suggestions for enhancing the program. Although the BSDC would prefer that the City not use pesticides, they were supportive of the City’s commitment to minimizing pesticide use (eventual reduction and possible elimination) through the Integrated Pest Management Program proposed. This is a similar position to that of the Halton Regional Health Department, which "recommends the concept of reduced domestic herbicide use and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on municipal property".

At the February 14, 2000 meeting with the Pesticide Sub-Committee members, it was determined that an appropriate format for fulfilling the Council direction would be to hold a Public Open House, as such, a meeting was scheduled for March 28, 2000. City staff felt that an appropriate format for the Open House would be similar to those held for the "Community Consultation About Traffic Issues", as such, staff obtained the services of Nicole Swerhun from LURA Consulting Group (the same facilitator).

The Open House was advertised in the local newspapers for two weeks prior to the event. Also, residents who had called during the 1999 season were circulated with an invitation and an overview document. It was difficult to find some of the people who called in 1999, as some had moved, some did not provide an address or phone number, etc., however, staff were very successful in notifying the majority of these people, thirty-one (31) packages were delivered.

Prior to the Open House, staff received four (4) calls from residents who were circulated papers (part of the 31). The residents were against pesticide use (as recorded in 1999) and called to inform staff that they would not be able to attend the Open House. They did offer their comments verbally and are as follow; although not in favour of pesticide use, 3 of the 4 were in favour of the direction staff were taking and supported the program, one did not support pesticide use and did not comment on the proposed program. One resident provided written comments regarding the proposed Program and it is included as Appendix "B". This resident was not able to appear at the Open House.

The Open House itself was structured to; (i) present and review the proposed Program, and (ii) obtain feedback and advice from the community. In attendance were Nicole Swerhun from LURA Consulting Group (facilitator), City staff, and 23 residents (22 registered), of which some were members of the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and some had dual interests as both residents of Burlington and professionals (Halton Region Health Department, Ministry of Environment, etc.).

Following the presentation from staff, a presentation was made by members of the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee. The presentation identifies 10 positive suggestions (part of Appendix "A") which support the commitment to reducing pesticides. Many of these suggestions have been initiated and staff will continue to work with the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee in the future to achieve these goals.

An open discussion with all participants was held in which staff heard the concerns of residents. A list of items was recorded at the Open House and following the discussion, comment sheets were submitted. Although positive feedback regarding the proposed program was received, it was clear that minimal use, if not total elimination, of pesticides was desirable. The following are the key themes identified in the LURA report (Appendix "A");

"The majority of discussion focused on concerns regarding the City’s use of pesticides in the boulevard and parks maintenance program – participants would like to see the City minimize their use of pesticides, and eventually eliminate the use of pesticides. Two people called for an immediate pesticide ban (with no spraying in 2000), while others recognized the City’s efforts to take a responsible approach to pesticide management. For example, members of the Sustainable Development Committee indicated that they are dedicated to working with the City to continue reducing pesticide applications, and shared 10 suggestions on how to further reduce pesticide use.

The key concern related to pesticide use is health – and particularly the impacts on child health. Participants felt strongly that the City’s pesticide program must be accompanied by full and balanced communications that reflect a range of perspectives and research on the issue.

A number of questions were raised about the decision-making process that led to reversal of the pesticide ban, with concerns regarding "who’s voice is more important?" – community members with health concerns, aesthetic concerns, environmental concerns, or those with concerns about sports injuries from poor turf conditions.

A number of participants felt strongly that the City needs to operate with a larger sense of environmental responsibility, and recognize that pesticide application is a short term solution for short term gain – they would like to see the City make long term environmental impact the priority. It is also important that the City use their responsible approach to pesticide application to set an example for private landowners."

Appendix "A" contains a report from LURA Consulting Group and includes the following:

• Introduction and summary of Key Themes;

• Detailed Meeting Record;

• Written Comments from Comment Sheets;

• List of Participants;

• Letter from the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee.

It is staff’s intent to address all concerns raised at the Open House in the near future. A letter will be sent to all participants with specific responses to their questions and concerns.

Staff developed a responsible Integrated Pest Management Program which promotes the development of healthy turf with minimal pesticide use. The goal of the Program is such that pesticide use will be reduced to minimum over time. The maintenance program for 2000 is proposed to have the same level of pesticide use as in the fall of 1999. Essentially the same areas (as in 1999), approximately 29% of the City’s maintained turf, would receive an application of pesticide in the spring and fall of 2000. These areas would be reduced to one application in 2001, and subsequently reduced in each year thereafter. The locations are indicated in the attached Appendices and are subject to change slightly throughout the year. As there is significant concern surrounding the use of pesticides, staff will strive to reduce the areas (particularly in passive parks) commencing this spring. Also, given the concerns with liquid spray, staff will consider reverting to granular materials in lieu of spray in some areas.

The meetings with the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and residents through the Public Open House have been positive. There was obvious concern regarding the use of pesticides from all involved. However, there was also support of the proposed Turf Management Program which, although utilizes pesticide as a tool in achieving healthier turf, will ultimately reduce the need for pesticides and keep usage to a minimum. Staff will continue to work with the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and work with other municipalities and professionals committed to the reduction of pesticide use. Through this networking and other available means, staff will continue to look at alternatives to pesticides and will continually educate themselves on alternative measures.

Staff are presently working on an information package that would promote the Turf Management Program and its commitment to pesticide reduction. The information package would also address the concerns of residents in terms of both positive and negative aspects of pesticide use.

In the immediate future, staff will be focussing on a communications strategy for this Program to provide leadership in the community by encouraging the reduction of pesticide use on private property. Staff will continue to work with the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and the Environmental Management Team. It is hopeful that through this forum that a corporate policy will be established that will provide clear direction and leadership to the rest of the Community.

Respectfully submitted:

G. Kotsifas, P. Eng.
Manager of Program Development.
Budgets & Contracts