SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 49
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Report 2007-02

                                July 9, 2007




 GREENBELT RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY
    COMMITTEE (REAC) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL


  SUBJECT: PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
 HEALTH ISSUES REGARDING PESTICIDE USE
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADOPTION OF
  ORGANIC LAND CARE AND ORGANIC PEST
    MANAGEMENT (OPM) PRACTICES FOR
              GREENBELT
Table of Contents                                                               Page
1. BACKGROUND                                                                   3
1.1 Use of the Precautionary Principle and Tools                                3
1.2 Precautionary Principle Tools for Decision Making and Action                3

2. FINDINGS                                                                     4
2.1 Step One: Identify the Possible Threat and Characterize the Problem         4
2.2 Step Two: What is Known and Not Known About the Threat?                     5
        2.2.1 Pesticides and Health Generally                                   5
        2.2.2 Pesticide Use By the City Staff                                   7
        2.2.3 Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses of Greenbelt            10
2.3 Step Three: Reframe the Problem to Help Decide What REAC Needs to Do        11
2.4 Step Four: Assess Alternatives---How Have Other Communities Addressed the   11
        Issues? What Are the Possible Alternatives?
       2.4.1 Examples from Canada: Bans, Phase Outs, and Public Education       12
       2.4.2 Mandating and Defining Integrated Pest Management (IPM)---         13
                Maryland IPM In-Schools Legislation
       2.4.3 Other Innovative US Ordinances                                     14
       2.4.4 The Organic Pest Management and the Organic Land Care Movement     15
                in Landscaping

3. RECOMMENDATIONS                                                              17
3.1 Step Five: Determine the Course of Action and Recommendations               17
3.2 Specific Recommendations to Council                                         17
3.3 Step Six: Monitor and Follow Up                                             19



Appendices                                                                      20
Appendix A---SUMMARY REPORT BY CITY OF GREENBELT STAFF                          20
Appendix B-- ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS REPORT SUMMARY                       27
Appendix C—SAMPLE PESTICIDE LABEL                                               30
Appendix D---EPA CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL                            31
CARCINOGENICITY
Appendix E---EXAMPLES OF CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT                                 35
Appendix F---PESTICIDE BY-LAW OF THE CITY OF TORONTO                            36
Appendix G---BEST PRACTICE REVIEW REPORT SUMMARY                                38
Appendix H--TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD BOARD OF HEALTH ORGANIC                          41
PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Appendix I---ANNOUNCEMENT OF ORGANIC LAND CARE BASIC                            47
TRAINING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OR TRANSITIONING
LANDSCAPERS
Appendix J---RESOURCES ON PESTICIDES AND ALTERNATIVES                           48




8/14/2007                                                                              2
1. BACKGROUND
In fall of 2004, REAC asked City Council to study the issue of pesticide use within Greenbelt. This
request was then sent to Greenbelt Staff for review. City staff recommended that REAC itself do
the study. In 2005 City Council requested REAC to: 1) review pesticide use by the City, 2) study
pesticide use in general, and 3) make recommendations to Council. Over the past 18 months,
REAC has invited experts on the topic to committee meetings and its members have studied the
issue working with City Staff.

Public Works Staff has worked very cooperatively with REAC and provided all information
requested. They have also shared their informed perspective on the topic of concern. REAC wishes
to express our thanks and acknowledgment to the Staff for the help provided.

Using a six-step process, based on the Precautionary Principle, this report presents a summary of
findings of the pesticide study and provides a set of recommendations for the Council to consider.

1.1 Use of the Precautionary Principle and Tools
Consistent with the United Nations (1992), and numerous international conventions and statements
and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1996), REAC endorses what has come to
be known as the Precautionary Principle (Tickner, Raffensperger, and Myers, 2001). The
precautionary principle broadly states: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or
the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (taken from the January 1998 Wingspread Statement
on the Precautionary Principle). The Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21 (which the United States signed and ratified)
similarly stated:

        In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
        States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
        damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
        effective measures to prevent environmental degradation (The Rio Declaration from the
        1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21).

1.2 Precautionary Principle Tools for Decision Making and Action
In the publication (Tickner, Raffensperger, and Myers, The Precautionary Principle in Action: A
Handbook 2001) written for the Science and Environmental Health Network, the authors identify a
six step set of tools for arriving at policy decision making in an area when there is some uncertainty.
This report follows this process as a method of organizing the report--- starting with an
identification of the problem and moving to actionable recommendations. The six steps are:

Step One: Identify the possible threat and characterize the problem
Step Two: Identify what is known and what is not known about the threat.


8/14/2007                                                                                               3
Step Three: Reframe the problem to describe what needs to be done
Step Four: Assess alternatives.
Step Five: Determine the course of action.
Step Six: Monitor and follow up

We move through each of the steps in this report to Council. Our findings are presented in steps
One to Four. Steps Five and Six contain the recommendations to Council. A number of
appendices are included. Appendix A prepared by Bill Phelan contains the report of City Staff on
Recent Pesticide Use and summarizes city staff views. Appendices B to J contain other relevant
information and are identified within the document in appropriate sections.


2. FINDINGS
2. 1 Step One: Identify the Possible Threat and Characterize the
     Problem
The impetus to study the use of pesticides in Greenbelt, grew out of concerns for public and
environmental health (human, animal and plant) specific to Greenbelt, the wider Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, and the global community of which we are also a part. Concerns at these three
geographic levels can be summarized briefly as follows:

   •   The initial request to REAC for the study of pesticide use in Greenbelt grew out of two
       specific incidents in 2004 ---a broad based spraying by GHI of an area around Hillside to
       control invasive plants, and the observation by a member of REAC of evidence of a broad
       based herbicide spraying by the City along the sidewalk on the route to the metro along
       Cherrywood Lane and very close to Indian Creek. These citizens were concerned for their
       own health, the ecology of their neighborhood, and the damage to wildlife, especially as
       some of the spraying was on slopes that went directly into the local streams. In both cases
       the expressed intent by GHI and the City was a positive goal. In one case the goal of the
       spraying was to control invasive species, and in another case the goal was control plants that
       were deemed too close to a public sidewalk where mowing with a large mower was not
       possible. It should be noted that both GHI and the City have reduced the broad based
       spraying that prompted the initial concern in 2004.

   •   The request for the study also grew out of wider general concerns for the Chesapeake Bay
       Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has described the bay as “dangerously
       out of balance,” and a “system in crisis.” Last year’s http://www.cbf.org “Annual State of the
       Bay Report” summary states, “The Chesapeake and its rivers and streams are dying…” While
       the sources of the problem are many, on a per acre basis urban run off is estimated to
       contribute 7 times the pollution that farm areas contribute. The 2000 Chesapeake Bay
       Agreement adopted a goal of a “Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of
       chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impacts
       on the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.” The Toxics 2000 Strategy
       recommends the implementation of “Projects and programs that reduce the use of
       pesticides, promote less toxic alternatives, or employ other voluntary efforts that ultimately


8/14/2007                                                                                                            4
reduce pesticide loads to the watershed.” The Chesapeake Bay Strategy recognizes that
       “Nonpoint-sources, particularly urban stormwater runoff, represent a substantial source of
       chemical contaminants to the Bay and its tidal rivers”. This fact, coupled with, “…increasing
       population and expanded development within the watershed” suggest that efforts to reduce
       the toxic contributions from individuals and homeowners should have a significant
       cumulative benefit for the Bay and its rivers.


   •   Finally, Greenbelt is part of the global community. There is a general recognition that the
       global environment is under grave stress from numerous sources related to burning of fossil
       fuels, and extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, most of which have unknown
       long term effects. Worldwide use of pesticides increases yearly and estimates are that 3
       billion kilograms of pesticides are spread annually. According to the USDA over 100 million
       pounds of pesticides were applied to ornamental landscapes alone in the year 2002 (in the
       USA).

2.2 Step Two: What is Known and Not Known About the Threat?

 The following is a summary of our findings presented under the following topics:

                  1. Pesticides and Health Generally
                  2. Pesticide Use by the City of Greenbelt
                  3. Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses in Greenbelt (on this topic little is
                     known currently, however we include it because one of the things REAC
                     increasingly came to realize was of importance of this issue to the problem)

2.2.1 Pesticides and Health Generally
   •   Definititon of Pesticides as Used in this Document: Pesticides are “substances or
       mixtures of substances that prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate pests, or defoliate, desiccate,
       or regulate plants” (Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture Pesticide Bureau).
       Herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, miticides, avicides and rodenticides are all considered
       pesticides.
   •   Pests are and may be known as undesirable plants, insects, fungi, bacteria, and rodents, birds
       and other animals. Common examples in turf grass and the landscape can be, but are not
       limited to, crabgrass, knotweed, poison ivy, chinch bugs, grubs, and a variety of plant
       pathogens.
   •   While the REAC working group looked at pesticides generally, most of our work has
       been with regard pesticides as applicable to landscape care. We consider only in a
       limited manner issues related to pesticides designed for in-door use, or insect control.
   •   According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “By their
       very nature, most pesticides create some risk of harm. [They] can cause harm to
       humans, animals, or the environment because they are designed to kill or [harm]… living
       organisms.” US court cases have ruled that: it is not legal for companies that make pesticides
       and pest control companies to say that a pesticide is “safe.” They cannot claim it is “safe”
       even if it is registered for public use and even if it is used as directed.


8/14/2007                                                                                            5
•   According to Center for Disease Control studies (2005 Third National Report on Human
       Exposure to Chemicals, as reviewed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America
       (PANNA)), most people in the U.S. have pesticides in their bodies, and 6-11 year olds
       have levels four times and 12-19 year olds three times what EPA considers safe.
   •   Pesticides may kill or harm desirable organisms in addition to those they target.
       There is growing evidence of the hazards associated with long-term use of pesticides.
       Pesticide exposure in humans has been associated with birth defects; numerous cancers,
       including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, (the second fastest growing cancer in the U.S.);
       Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders; immune systems problems; and male
       infertility. The web site for Beyond Pesticides gives summary information on the effects of the
       most commonly used pesticides, as well as providing information on organic lawn care.
       http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/index.
   •   After a comprehensive systemic review of the literature, the Ontario College of
       Family Physicians (OCFP) in April of 2004 strongly recommended that people
       reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible. The review shows consistent
       links to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases,
       among others. The study also shows that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides.
       “Many of the health problems linked with pesticide use are serious and difficult to treat – so
       we are advocating reducing exposure to pesticides and prevention of harm as the best
       approach”, said Dr. Margaret Sanborn of McMaster University, one of the review’s authors.
       Appendix B is a copy of the executive summary of this report. The full text of the report is
       available at:
       http://www.ocfp.on.ca/local/files/Communications/Current%20Issues/Pesticides/Final%
       20Paper%2023APR2004.pdf

   •   The full range of harm from pesticides is not known. This is because few studies have
       looked at: how pesticides affect children; what happens when people are exposed to them
       long-term; what happens when people are exposed to a few different pesticides at the same
       time; what happens when they combine with other chemicals or medicines in our bodies;
       what happens if a person is exposed to a pesticide over and over again (Maryland Pesticide
       Network in Pesticides: The Risks, Prevention and Healthier Choices, 2006).


   •   EPA does not currently evaluate or consider the endocrine disrupting properties of
       pesticides during registration or re-registration. Recent press reports have highlighted
       (Science News September 2006; Beyond Pesticides September 6 2006) that some species of male
       fish are acquiring female sexual characteristics at unusually high frequencies in the Potomac
       River and its tributaries, prompting concerns about pollutants that might be causing the
       problem. Environmentalists have long pointed to pesticides and other endocrine disrupting
       chemicals as having the potential for wreaking such hormonal chaos. Many scientists believe
       that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may
       as yet be unobserved in humans. A recent study found that the commonly used lawn
       pesticide formulation Round-Up, with the active ingredient glyphosate, causes damaging
       endocrine effects in fetuses.

       (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html)
       (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf).


8/14/2007                                                                                           6
•   Recent public concerns raised by EPA science staff have called into question the
       efficacy of EPA rule making in the area of pesticides. For example, on August 2, 2006
       the New York Times reported on recent actions of EPA Staff Unions representing 9,000 of
       EPA's own staff scientists, "We are concerned that the agency has not, consistent with its
       principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn
       conclusions" …about the chemicals. The EPA scientists’, also charge that EPA's
       Administrator is willfully ignoring evidence that "pesticides damage the developing nervous
       systems of fetuses, infants and children," and are calling on EPA to cancel the registrations
       of 20 pesticides in the organophosphate and carbamate chemical family.
   •   EPA regulations do not currently require the labeling of inert ingredients in
       pesticides. Recently, 14 States (including Maryland) have asked EPA to require disclosure
       of inert ingredients. The federal Environmental Protection Agency requires "active" toxic
       ingredients that kill insects and weeds to be listed on labels now but does not require such a
       listing of inert ingredients which have been considered proprietary. "There is no logical
       reason for EPA to mandate disclosure of those ingredients that harm pests, but exempt
       from disclosure other ingredients that cause serious health and environmental problems,"
       said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who has taken the lead for the states asking
       the EPA to expand the labeling requirement. According to the petition inert ingredients
       make up as much as 99 percent of a pesticide and are known or suspected causes of cancer,
       nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects as well as
       environmental damage. The petition includes 40 pages of scientific data and legal precedent
       that the state officials say support their case. The state officials seek to have the inert
       chemicals listed with a caution that they "may pose a hazard to man or the environment."
       They note that the EPA alone has the authority to force the change. (information from ©
       Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company).
   •   Protecting public and environmental health is the primary concern of the Pesticide
       Working Group of REAC. Given the information stated above, this report will recommend
       the City staff adopt a balanced approach to pesticide use that places protection of public and
       environmental health at the forefront.


2.2.2 Pesticide Use By the Public Works Staff
A major focus of our review was the use of pesticides for land care and management by the
Greenbelt Public Works Staff. We did not review pesticide use by the City for in-door space pest
control. Current practices and views of Public Works Staff are described in Appendix A in the
document entitled “Pesticide Summary” written by Bill Phelan.

   •   The responsibility for pest control in the public property and public spaces of the City of
       Greenbelt is the responsibility of the Public Works Department and within Public Works the
       Assistant Director of Public Works has responsibility for pest control.

   •   Public Works personnel have indicated that they welcomed the REAC review, and have
       been supportive and cooperative and have aided the committees review.




8/14/2007                                                                                          7
•   As part of the study REAC asked for and received City records of pesticide use for land
        care, and also staff perspective on the pesticide issue. A summary of recent use is included
        in Appendix A.
    •   It is important to note that the EPA toxicity categorization presented in Appendix A is for
        “acute exposure” and is not an evaluation of the long-term or cumulative effects of exposure
        to humans, animals, or plants. Current federal pesticide labeling laws require pesticide
        manufacturers to include acute (short-term), and not chronic (long-term) health risk
        information on pesticide labels. Therefore, product-specific cancer risk information is not
        readily available. An example of a pesticide label is provided in Appendix D. An
        explanation of the 4 acute toxicity categories as provided by EPA is given below.

Toxicity Categories and Pesticide Label Statements
EPA uses the following criteria to determine the toxicity category of pesticides. These criteria are based on
the results of animal tests done in support of registration of the pesticide. Category I is the most toxic.

                            I                       II                       III                   IV
                Up to and including                                  From 500 thru       Greater than 5000
Oral LD50                              From 50 thru 500 mg/kg
                50 mg/kg                                             5000 mg/kg          mg/kg
Inhalation LC Up to and including                                    From 2.0 thru 20    Greater than 20
                                       From 0.2 thru 2 mg/liter
50            0.2 mg/liter                                           mg/liter            mg/liter
Dermal LD       Up to and including    From 200 thru 2000            From 2,000 thru     Greater than 20,000
50              200 mg/kg.             mg/kg                         20,000 mg/kg        mg/kg
                                                                     No corneal
                Corrosive; corneal     Corneal opacity reversible
                                                                     opacity; irritation
Eye effects     opacity not reversible within 7 days; irritation                         No irritation
                                                                     reversible within 7
                within 7 days          persisting for 7 days.
                                                                     days
                                                                     Moderate
                                       Severe irritation at 72                           Mild or slight
Skin effects    Corrosive                                            irritation at 72
                                       hours                                             irritation at 72 hours.
                                                                     hours

Human hazard signal word

Toxicity Category I - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category I shall bear
on the front panel the signal word "Danger.'' In addition if the product was assigned to Toxicity
Category I on the basis of its oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity (as distinct from skin and eye local
effects) the word "Poison'' shall appear in red on a background of distinctly contrasting color and
the skull and crossbones shall appear in immediate proximity to the word "poison.''

Toxicity Category II - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category II shall bear
on the front panel the signal word "Warning.''

Toxicity Category III - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category III shall
bear on the front panel the signal word "Caution.''




8/14/2007                                                                                                       8
Toxicity Category IV - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category IV shall
bear on the front panel the signal word "Caution.''

Child hazard warning - Every pesticide product label shall bear on the front panel the statement "keep out
of reach of children.'' Only in cases where the likelihood of contact with children during distribution,
marketing, storage, or use is demonstrated by the applicant to be extremely remote, or if the nature of the
pesticide is such that it is approved for use on infants or small children, may the Administrator waive this
requirement.
Further information on these criteria and labeling requirements is published in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR 156.10).

Source: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tpes.html

Interpreting signal words on pesticide labels (refers only to acute toxicity not long term
effects)
Signal Word                   Toxicity                        Approximate amount needed
                                                              to kill the average person
Danger (Category 1)           Highly toxic                    A taste to teaspoon



Warning (Category II)                Moderately toxic                     A teaspoon to a tablespoon
Caution (Category III and IV)        Slightly toxic                       An ounce to more than a pint



    •   To obtain information on such things as evaluation of cancer risk, one must determine the
        ingredients in the product and look up information under the chemical name. Appendix D
        gives an explanation of the EPA cancer risk ratings and Appendix E gives examples of an
        evaluation of the cancer risk classification given by the Program on Breast Cancer and
        Environmental Risk Factors (BCERF) database on Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Data
        Base for some of the chemicals contained in two of the products listed on the City Listing;
        Manage and Kleen-up. For more information, see
        http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/searchProdMore.cfm?key=27295


    •   Public Works Staff has indicated that they have significantly reduced the use of chemical
        pesticides since the REAC review started and they report that attempts are being made to
        use the least toxic chemicals. However, while limiting their use, the city continues to use
        some chemicals that have been classified as Category I and II, and a few others that are in
        the Category III and IV as to acute toxicity, but have been classified as “likely carcinogens”
        or for which sufficient information is not available on long term effects.

    •   Public Works Staff indicates that they have fully adopted Integrated Pest Management
        (IPM).

    •   Integrated Pest Management (IPM) definition. As defined in a report on school
        compliance with the Maryland IPM-In School legislation Integrated Pest Management


8/14/2007                                                                                                      9
(IPM) is a pest management system of prevention, monitoring and control that eliminates or
       mitigates economic and health damage caused by pests while minimizing the use of
       pesticides and their associated health risks. IPM does this through a combination of practices
       such as site or pest inspections, pest population monitoring, and evaluating the need for pest
       control. Pest control methods include sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and living
       biological controls, other non-chemical methods. As defined in the “Maryland IPM in
       Schools Legislation”, only when nontoxic options are exhausted or shown to be
       unreasonable, may the use of the use of the least toxic chemical pesticides be
       considered.

   •   While the Public Works Staff are following Best Practice guidelines for application and use
       of pesticides as required by law and directed in industry manuals, REAC was not made aware
       that Greenbelt has a written statement concerning adoption of and definition of IPM
       implementation in Greenbelt.

   •   Integrated Pest Management suffers from not being specifically defined and
       implementation can range from infrequent use of chemical pesticides as a last resort
       to more frequent pesticide use with much less caution. This issue was recently noted
       with reference to the study of compliance with Maryland In-School Pesticide law that directs
       schools to use IPM. As defined in that legislation, pesticides should only be after all other
       alternatives had been tried.

   •   It is not clear that the understanding of IPM adopted by the City of Greenbelt is that
       indicated in the Maryland School law that requires that pesticides be used only when other
       alternatives have been tried and found not to be effective.

   •   The city contracts for a substantial portion of lawn care. The city currently has two
       contracts with TruGreen (formerly known as ChemLawn). According to Public Works
       Staff, the city does not have pesticide use in the lawn care contract. When pesticides are
       needed in turf areas, the City does the application. However, Trugreen is allowed to use a
       glyphosate product (like Roundup) to spot spray weeds in the landscape contract (median
       landscaping on Mandan, Hanover, Cherrywood and Breezewood). Trugreen uses Manage for
       control of nutsedge- as Public Works Staff note that it cannot be controlled by other means
       such as hand weeding. It should be noted that Manage contains Oryzalin (EPA number
       72167-15-74477) as an active ingredient and that this product has been deemed by
       EPA as likely to be a carcinogenic to humans in the 1999 USEPA Cancer Risk
       Category.

   •   Greenbelt is a recognized leader in city beautification, promotion of native plants and other
       positive landscaping practices. Largely due to resource restraints and perceived levels of
       citizen expectations for aesthetics of land care, the Public Works Staff has indicated that the
       elimination of chemical pesticides use would create problems for the city as described in
       their “Pesticide Summary.”




8/14/2007                                                                                          10
2.2.3 Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses of Greenbelt
As the City Summary Report prepared by Public Works Staff demonstrates, City use of pesticides is
limited, and is being reduced. However, use by citizens and businesses for lawn control in all
probability is a greater problem in terms of health risks and environmental degradation. At this
time, REAC has limited information on pesticide use by private citizens, GHI, condominiums and
apartments, businesses and other governmental entities in and around Greenbelt.

 We note, however, that over the past year, GHI has made notable efforts in environmental
stewardship through hiring an environmental land care manager, through efforts of the Woodlands
Committee, and the newly formed Sustainability Committee in fostering planting of Native Plants
and moving toward more sustainable practices of land care. GHI has recently sponsored purchase
and installing of rain barrels and has prepared a brochure on rain gardens sent to cooperative
members.


2.3     Step Three: Reframe the Problem to Help Decide What REAC
        Needs to Do
•   The material above documents the recognized health hazards to humans and wildlife of pesticide
    use. It also documents the Cities’ expressed adherence to IPM, and also their perceived need to
    continue limited use of certain chemical pesticides for aesthetic, plant health, safety and resource
    reasons. Given this knowledge, what is the best recommendation for REAC to make
    with regard to the City use of pesticides?

•   The prevalence of pesticide use by private residents and businesses is unknown to
    REAC. Given that residents and businesses cover a larger area than that covered by the City
    Staff, and pesticide use may well be more prevalent and uninformed among residents than by the
    City, it is clear that resident and business pesticide usage could well be a large threat to
    health and environment. The question is what needs to be done in this regard?

•   Can a third way be found that will address the aesthetic, health, safety and resource concerns
    of the City as well as the health and safety concerns raised by citizens and environmental
    groups?


2.4     Step Four: Assess Alternatives---How Have Other Communities
        Addressed the Issues? What Are the Possible Alternatives?
Greenbelt is not unique in struggling with this issue. In this section, we include information on 4
topics that discuss alternative ways of approaching the issues.

    •   Examples of what has been done in Canada on the pesticide issue
    •   Examples from two US municipalities (Marin County CA; and Marblehead MA)
    •   The Maryland IPM In School Legislation


8/14/2007                                                                                            11
•   Organic Pest Management (OPM) and the Organic Land Care movement

2.4.1 Examples from Canada:                         Bans, Phase Outs, and Public
      Education
   •   Bans and Phase Outs. Within Canada, as of 2006, about 70 municipalities, covering about
       two-thirds of the population, have passed by-laws prohibiting the use of pesticides for
       cosmetic reasons within their communities. These include major cities such as Toronto,
       London and Montreal, as well as smaller jurisdictions such Hudson and, Port Mooney. An
       example of such a by-law (Toronto) is presented in Appendix F. These by-laws have been
       challenged in the courts in Canada by the pesticide industry. TruGreen-Chemlawn was a
       major sponsor of these challenges. Recently Canada's top court upheld Toronto's pesticide
       ban by refusing to hear an appeal brought by pesticide industry. Toronto's City Council
       passed a by-law in 2003 outlawing cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens. Much earlier
       the Canadian courts in a case involving the town of Hudson ruled: “it is not necessary for
       municipalities to prove or decide that it has proven the exact health effects of pesticides.
       That there is cause for concern and that it is considered prudent to reduce pesticide
       exposure is sufficient to pass a by-law controlling pesticides in the community.”
   •   These by-laws do not outlaw all pesticide use, but have clearly defined exceptions to the ban.
   •   Toronto and other municipalities have usually taken an approach of phasing in the
       prohibitions over time and combined the ordinance with educational work. In the case of
       Toronto, polling of residents found that most residents did not use pesticides, however
       enough used lawn and garden pesticides that the effects were measurable in the urban
       streams in the spring and summer. Toronto found that a large majority of even those
       residents currently using pesticides were in favor of the ban. The by-laws provided the
       impetus to actually change the behavioral norms for accepted and desirable
       landscaping behavior.


   •   In 2004, a best practice review was done to assess the effectiveness of the by-laws and
       educational campaigns in pesticide reduction as measured by surveys and sales of pesticides.
       The study included 62 communities, and an in-depth study of results in 9 communities,
       including 3 in the United States and 2 in Europe. The remainder was in Canada. The study
       concluded that:

              Only those communities that passed a by- law and supported it with
              education or made a community agreement were successful in reducing the
              use of pesticides by a high degree (51-90%) (see summary table below).
              Education and outreach programs alone, while more popular than by-laws, are far
              less effective. We could find none that have achieved more than a low reduction (10-
              24%) in pesticide use to date. (The Impact of By-Laws and Public Education Programs on
              Reducing the Cosmetic/Non-Essential, Residential Use of Pesticides: A Best Practice Review.
              Kassirer Jay, Koswan, and Wolnick Chris. Jointly prepared by the Canadian Centre
              for Pollution Prevention and Cullbridge Marketing and Communications, March
              2004).




8/14/2007                                                                                             12
They also found that controversy itself resulted in reduced use. For example, the publicity
       around the Hudson legal challenge led to large reductions in pesticide use, prior to the
       favorable court decision. The Executive summary is included in appendix G. The complete
       report can be found at:
       http://www.c2p2online.com/documents/Jay_Kassirer.pdf




2.4.2 Mandating and Defining Integrated Pest Management (IPM)-
     --Maryland IPM In-Schools Legislation
In 1998 and 1999, the Maryland State Legislature passed legislation that mandated that schools in
Maryland follow and an IPM program and that “pesticides are only to be considered as an option
when non-toxic options are unreasonable or have been exhausted, in order to a) minimize the use of
pesticides and b) minimize the risk to human health and the environment associated with pesticide
applications.” The law also mandates including potential adverse health effects from exposure to the
pesticides in the notices provided to parents/guardians and employees prior to applications and after
emergency applications of pesticides.

According to the Maryland Pesticide Network report, Are We Passing the Grade? Assessing MD Schools’
Compliance with IPM-In-Schools Law, published in 2004) implementation has been mixed and confused
by a manual that did not track well to the legislation especially the definition of IPM in the


8/14/2007                                                                                         13
legislation. Specifically they noted that schools were not properly instructed to exhaust all other
alternatives before using pesticides and to enact the strict notification provisions. However, they
note that some school systems such as Ann Arundal and Montgomery are examples of successful
implementation. As described in Safer Schools, a National Report, published in April 2003:

       Richard Stack, IPM supervisor for Montgomery County schools, coordinates one of the
       nation’s longest running school IPM programs...He believes that “pesticides are 99%
       unnecessary.” The IPM crew for these schools removes hornet nests manually, catches rodents
       in traps instead of relying on pesticides, and uses vacuum cleaners to eliminate small insect
       pests. School building and cafeteria staff receive annual training regarding the IPM-in-
       Schools program, and each school is monitored at least twice monthly for pest issues and
       IPM compliance, a process involving intensive inspection of food service areas, trash rooms,
       loading docks, and interviews with building services managers. The Montgomery schools
       program has succeeded largely because of preventive measures taken by the schools,
       including sanitation, heat treatment, sand blasting, biological management, and pest
       exclusion. The schools have altered storage practices, storage shelving designs, and food
       inspection practices in order to prevent pests on school grounds and in school buildings.(As
       presented in: Are We Passing the Grade? Assessing MD Schools’ Compliance with IPM-In-Schools Law,
       September 2004)


The report notes that in addition to adherence to the legal instructions with regard to IPM
“Education in the form of workshops, training sessions, and written materials is an essential
component of an IPM program for everyone from administrators, teachers, maintenance, personnel,
cafeteria staff and nurses to parents and students. Regular monitoring, record keeping, and
evaluation are also necessary to guarantee a successful IPM.”


2.4.3 Other Innovative US Ordinances
Within the United States, there are fewer communities that have adopted laws such as Canada;
however there are a number of jurisdictions that have passed pesticide legislation. We note two
below.

   •   Marin County California, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) legislation passed in 1998
       includes specific goals for reduction in pesticide use from 1997 (by 75 percent by the year
       2004) and also not using pesticides unless other alternatives are tried.
   •   A more recent example (2005), is that of a small town in Massachusetts-- Marblehead–a
       town in which the Department of Health has mandated Organic Pest Management
       (OPM) for city property. A copy of their ordinance is included in Appendix H. This
       legislation is notable in that it embraces a positive alternative, rather than simply a ban as
       most of the Canadian legislation does.




8/14/2007                                                                                            14
2.4.4 The Organic Pest Management and the Organic Land Care
      Movement in Landscaping
As defined in the Marblehead legislation:

Organic Pest Management is a problem-solving strategy that prioritizes a natural, organic
approach to turf grass and landscape management without the use of toxic pesticides. It mandates
the use of natural, organic cultural practices that promote healthy soil and plant life as a preventative
measure against the onset of turf and landscape pest problems.
        Essential OPM practices include, but are not limited to:
        • regular soil testing;
        • addition of approved soil amendments as necessitated by soil test results, following, but
            not limited to, the recommendations of NOFA/Mass (Northeast Organic Farmers’
            Association/Mass) and/or the Organic Material Review Institute of Eugene, OR;
        • selection of plantings using criteria of hardiness; suitability to native conditions; drought,
            disease and pest-resistance; and ease of maintenance;
        • modification of outdoor management practices to comply with organic horticultural
            science, including scouting, monitoring, watering, mowing, pruning, proper spacing, and
            mulching;
        • the use of physical controls, including hand-weeding and over-seeding;
        • the use of biological controls, including the introduction of natural predators,
            and enhancement of the environment of a pest’s natural enemies;
        • through observation, determining the most effective treatment time, based on pest
            biology and other variables, such as weather and local conditions; and eliminating pest
            habitats and conditions supportive of pest population increases.

Organic Land Care. Recently in the United States and Canada, there have been efforts to apply
organic farming principles and standards to urban and suburban land care and management. The
Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) and SOUL (Society of Organic Urban Land Care)
have developed organic land care standards and also have developed educational and certification
programs for land care professionals. They noted that the landscape industry is undergoing rapid
change as it responds to a growing demand for organic practices.

•   The Northeast Organic Farming Association Organic Land Care Committee for
    Connecticut and Massachusetts has prepared a set of standards for organic land care.
    REAC has a copy of these standards. They have also prepared a Citizens Guide that can be
    downloaded and they offer periodic courses that can result in certification for landscape
    professionals. They also maintain a listing of certified land care professionals on their web site
    and there are two listings from Maryland on the site http://www.organiclandcare.net/about.php




8/14/2007                                                                                             15
•   Within their Citizens Guide they note: “The guiding principle of organic land care is
    ecological stewardship.’ They note:

                The watchword, as in the ancient medical tradition, is “First, do no harm.”
                This applies to many aspects of the health of the land and the people living on it.
                One of the most harmful practices to be avoided is the use of synthetic chemicals
                like pesticides and fertilizers. Important objectives of organic land care include:
                Working with natural systems to enhance biological cycles rather than seeking to
                dominate them; Maintaining and improving the long-term health of soils; Avoiding
                pollution when creating or caring for landscapes (NOFA, Citizens Guide to Organic
                Land Care 2004).


•   The CT-Mass NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care cover all aspects of land care,
    including: site analysis, soil health, fertilizers and soil amendments, planting and plant care, lawn
    and lawn alternatives, invasive plants, weeds, mulches, pest management, wildlife management,
    and disease control.

•    For each of these areas, the standards include an overview and management practices
    that are designated as preferred, allowed, or prohibited. Preferred practices and materials
    are those considered to be ecologically appropriate and in accordance with the goals of organic
    land care. Allowed practices and materials are acceptable when needed but should be reduced in
    favor of the preferred alternatives. Prohibited practices and materials are not acceptable in
    organic land care.
•   According to the SOUL website: “Organic land care practices go beyond Integrated
    Pest Management (IPM), beyond the use of so-called organic fertilizers and pesticides. They
    acknowledge the concept of intrinsic health, and seek to create environments that cater to the
    well-being of all their inhabitants. Organic land care professionals know that they are but
    stewards of the land, and can at best hope to work WITH nature, never to dominate it.”
•   SOUL Certified Organic Land Care Professionals are certified to have the knowledge
    and experience to provide Organic Land Care according to the SOUL Organic Land
    Care Standard. The SOUL Organic Land Care Standard was developed to define the practice
    of Organic Land Care for the public and for professionals in the industry. This standard clarifies
    the term "organic", and is intended to protect the public from misleading claims and practices.
    http://www.organiclandcare.org/certification/index.php
•   In addition to the NOFA courses, Gaia College offers on-line programs in organic land
    management. More information can be obtained at the site below.

http://www.organic-land-care.com/Gaia_College/programs/land_care/index.php

•   In addition, The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns periodically offers an on-
    line/telephone lunch time course entitled-- Organic Land Care Basic Training for
    Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers. This three-part teleconference explains
    the Simple Steps to beginning an organic turf program and will cover the basic concepts,
    methods, and materials needed to get started. The training is geared toward school or park and
    recreation officials, however landscapers interested in transitioning are encouraged to attend (see
    appendix I) for more information.


8/14/2007                                                                                             16
3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Step Five: Determine the Course of Action and
   Recommendations
Step five involves taking all the information collected thus far to determine what needs to be done in
the specific issues before the working group? Is there a need to change or modify the behaviors that
were the cause of the initial concern? What is the best way to do this? What does the weight of
evidence lead to in terms of a course of action?

Thanks to the dedication of City Staff and high levels of citizen interest, REAC has concluded that
Greenbelt is in a position to be an innovative leader in Maryland in the efforts to promote the health
of its citizens and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed by endorsing and promoting best practice land
care stewardship throughout Greenbelt. We urge the City Council to do so in as many ways as
possible.

3.2 Specific Recommendations to Council
The following are 12 concrete steps, some with performance goals, which REAC urges the City of
Greenbelt to act upon in a timely manner. These recommendations have grown out of our two-year
review of pesticide use and its alternatives. REAC recommends that:

   Adoption of Organic Land Care Standards and Organic Pest Management (OPM) for
   Care of Public Lands and Phasing out of chemical pesticides by 2010

   1.   City Council set a goal for Greenbelt of meeting the Northeast Organic Farming
        Association Standards for Organic Land Care and adopting a program of Organic Pest
        Management (OPM) for all public lands of Greenbelt by January 2010. A copy of these
        standards has been provided to city staff.

   2.   City Council set a goal of phasing out the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides on public
        lands by 2010 and providing City staff with adequate resources to do so. By cosmetic use is
        meant any use other than the direct protection of the public and environmental health.

   Organic Land Care and Pesticide Use Monitoring Group
   3.   City Council instruct REAC to establish a citizen Organic Land Care and Pesticide Use Working
        and Monitoring Group that will be tasked with supporting and monitoring the implementation
        of Organic Land Care practices within the city. Every two years this group would review
        the City’s progress in phasing out the cosmetic use of pesticides by the City and substitution
        of Organic Pest Management and Organic Land Care.




8/14/2007                                                                                          17
Formal Written Policies and Procedures for Organic Land Care for City Staff and
   Contractors

   4.   City staff develop formal written policy and procedures with regard to pesticide use by
        Public Works staff that is consistent with goals noted above of meeting Organic Land Care
        and Organic Pest Management standards and the “pesticide as the last resort” guideline as
        defined in the Maryland Integrated Pest Management in Schools legislation in its’
        implementation of IPM.

   5.   The City require best Organic Pest Management and Organic Land Care practices among its
        contractors, and should include clauses in contracts requiring use of Organic Pest
        Management and Organic Land Care. The City should favor local businesses whenever
        possible.

   Citizen Right to Know
   6.   City staff be required to report to the public on a yearly basis the brand names, listed
        ingredients, EPA ratings, planned locations, and amount and frequency of use of any
        pesticides applied to public lands within Greenbelt by the city staff or city contractors, and
        that this be publicized in a widely read publication, such as the News Review, well ahead of
        dates of application.

City Staff Training and Professional Development

   7.   Council provide funding for adequate training and professional development in Organic
        Land Care methods for city staff such as the organic land care certification programs now
        offered by the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NPFA), Society for Organic Urban
        Land Care (SOUL), and other groups.

Partnerships with Other Government Entities, Local Businesses, and Citizen Groups
   8.   The city of Greenbelt partner wherever possible with: federal, state, other local government
        entities, national and local environmental and watershed groups; and other interested civic
        groups in obtaining funding, technical support, and volunteers to help achieve the goal of
        Organic Land Care for Greenbelt by 2010.

A Comprehensive Study of All of Greenbelt’s Impact--with Metrics and assessment of what
Must be Done to Reduce Pollution and Restore Health of the Chesapeake Bay.
   9.   REAC recommends that the City seek funding and/or volunteers to conduct
        comprehensive study designed to assess impact from Greenbelt upon the Chesapeake Bay
        Watershed, and develop specific goals, metrics, and practices that will be necessary to
        reduce the on-going environmental degradation. As noted in the body of this report, The
        Chesapeake Bay has been described as a “system in crisis,” and on a per acre basis the urban
        areas have been estimated to contribute 7 times the pollution into the Bay as rural areas.

   10. The study should also address the impact of land care practices and pesticide use by private
       citizens and businesses within Greenbelt. REAC was able to find little information about
       the extent of pesticide and chemical fertilizer use by residents and businesses. As we
       proceeded, we became convinced that addressing citizen use on private property must be a
       significant part of any effort to reduce usage. The study might also access public support for


8/14/2007                                                                                          18
policies or legislation that would prohibit pesticide use for cosmetic purposes. The city
        should also seek counsel concerning the legality of legislation such as the Canadian By-laws
        against cosmetic use of pesticides within Maryland.

    Public Outreach and Education Campaign
    11. The City and partners engage in a strong public education campaign designed to inform
        residents of Bay friendly and Organic Land Care, and to provide interested citizens with
        knowledge of alternatives to pesticide use. Outreach and education tools include:
        household brochures, workshops, Greenbelt Recreation Department courses, and
        experimental community demonstration gardens.


    Appreciation, Encouragement, and Rewards for City Staff
    12. City staff be given appreciation, encouragement, and rewards for their efforts to transition
        the city to Organic land Care and help to restore the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Thanks to
        the efforts of dedicated city staff, Greenbelt is known for its beautiful gardens, and
        hopefully will soon be known as a leader and innovator in the area of Organic Land Care.


3.3 Step Six: Monitor and Follow Up
No matter what action is taken, it is critical to monitor that activity over time to identify expected
and unexpected results. All of the recommendations noted above should be monitored and
follow-up should be incorporated into the actions.




8/14/2007                                                                                                19
Appendix A---Summary Report by Greenbelt Public Works
Staff

                                    PESTICIDE SUMMARY

     Pesticides are not used routinely on the majority of City-managed property and there has
been a significant reduction in the variety, toxicity, and amount of pesticides used by City crews
over the last 10 years. For example:
     • Less than 10% (estimate) of the 450 acres of developed parkland and landscape areas
         are treated with pesticides annually.
     • Less than 1% (estimate) of the 7,300 street trees maintained by city crews are treated
         with pesticides annually.
     • Less than 5% (estimate) of the 27 miles of rights of way are treated with pesticides
         annually.
     • Less than 25% (estimate) of the 70 acres of turf/ballfields are treated with pesticides
         annually. This year because of a severe grub infestation 75% of fields were treated. At
         Schrom Hills Park alone, we estimate over 50% of the turf was killed.

    When pesticides are used, they are part of an integrated program of controls, known as
“Integrated Pest Management,” which encourages use of non-chemical approaches - such as
physical, mechanical, and biological – over chemical. The City horticulture staff is very
familiar with the theories, practices and processes of IPM which have been used by the City of
Greenbelt for many years. Management strategies of IPM will vary from one situation to
another, location to location, and year to year, based on changes in pest populations. IPM
focuses on developing an understanding of and an ability to monitor the grounds ecosystem, and
addresses topics such as weed and insect identification, pest monitoring, and how to protect
pests’ natural enemies. The following details provide an overview of general pesticide
application practices (following IPM) for those sites where pesticides are used:
    • Pesticides are applied by or under close supervision of a certified pesticide applicator.
        (The City currently has four Certified Pesticide Applicators and an additional four
        Registered Pesticide Applicators. The State of MD trains, tests and registers Certified
        Pesticide Applicators. Registered Pesticide Applicators are trained and tested in-house
        by Certified Pesticide Applicators and are registered with the State. The Registered
        Pesticide Applicators are supervised by Certified Pesticide Applicators.)
    • Pesticides are only applied when weather conditions permit.
    • Low-toxicity pesticides are used.
    • Pesticide applicators receive annual re-certification training and additional integrated pest
        management training.
    • Pesticide applications are accompanied by public notification (signs).
    • Pesticide inventories and pesticide application records are kept.

    The City primarily purchases Category III pesticides in an effort to use the least toxic option
for each control issue. To further reduce pesticide use, the horticultural staff now uses a large
volume of organic controls (nematodes, beneficial fungal and bacterial products, mulching in


8/14/2007                                                                                        20
lieu of pre-emergent herbicides) and is evaluating ways to expand uses of these controls.
(Pesticides have not been used in City playgrounds since Spring 2005. Weeds have been
controlled through heavy mulching – and changing of mulch when weeds do appear.)

    Bill Phelan, Assistant Director of Public Works, authorizes both the purchasing of all
pesticides and the application of all pesticides by the horticultural staff. A chart is attached
detailing all pesticides used by the City.

Pesticide Free Cities
        There are a number of cities in Europe and Canada and a few cities in the United States
(primarily in the northwest) that are “pesticide free”. However, after researching the cities in the
US, they have not totally eliminated the use of pesticide but have only designated certain parks
and playgrounds as “pesticide free.” There are a number of things that are still treated in the
pesticide free parks when needed:
        • Infestation of noxious weeds that cannot be mowed or controlled by other means.
        • Sprays to control wasp and hornet nests around restrooms and shelters.
        • Treatment of stagnant water to control mosquito larva.
        • Treatment of over population of pests such as grubs, cutworms, ticks and bagworms
            when alternate means have not controlled the problem and further infestation will
            cause significant damage.

    If pesticide use was eliminated in city-maintained parks, playgrounds, ballfields, landscape
beds, it would be a major challenge for us to keep the same level of citizen satisfaction in the
appearance of the parks with these new policies. Even with using best practices and alternative
means of control, we feel labor cost would need to increase significantly to keep up with
weeding landscape beds and replacement of diseased plant materials, additional equipment will
need to be purchased, and some landscape areas will need to be redesigned. It would also
require additional dollars to be spent on alternative product purchases. As an example, treating
grubs in turf with nematodes is several times more expensive than treatment with the products
currently being used and has a much greater chance of failing to control the grubs. There are
significant concerns that our inability to use pesticides may reduce the quality of our parks and
could threaten the long-term health of the City’s parks, trees, shrubs and flowers.




8/14/2007                                                                                          21
PLAYGROUNDS
            Playgrounds        Equip. Maint. Landscaping              Mowing
        1 court Crescent           City          City                 Contract
        2 court Northway           City          City                 Contract
        3 court Gardenway          City          City                 Contract
        14 court Laurel Hill       City          City                 Contract
        54 court Crescent          City          City                 Contract
        Community Center           City          City                 Contract
        Greenbriar Park            City          City                 Contract
        Ivy & Lastner              City          City                 Contract
        SHL Comm. Ctr.             City        Contract               Contract
        St. Hugh’s                 City          City                 Contract
        1 court Southway           City          City                 Contract
        2 court Southway           City          City                 Contract
        5 court Gardenway          City          City                 Contract
        39 court Ridge             City          City                 Contract
        73 court Ridge             City          City                 Contract
        Buddy Attick Park          City          City                   City
        Fayette Place              City          City                 Contract
        GreenSpring Park           City        Contract               Contract
        Plateau & Ridge            City          City                 Contract
        Schrom Hills Park          City          City                   City
        Westway                    City          City                 Contract
        2 court Laurel Hill        City          GHI                    GHI
        4 court Plateau            City          GHI                    GHI
        8 court Southway           City          GHI                    GHI
        38 court Ridge             City          GHI                    GHI
        2 court Research           City          GHI                    GHI
        7 court Southway           City          GHI                    GHI
        12 court Hillside          City          GHI                    GHI
        44 court Ridge             City          GHI                    GHI
        Greenwood Village          City       Greenwood              Greenwood
        7128 Ora Glen Court        City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green
        7251 South Ora Ct.         City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green
        7854 Jacobs Drive          City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green
        7230 Mandan Road           City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green
        7356 Frankfort Dr.         City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green
        8301 Canning Terr.         City      Windsor Green          Windsor Green

       The City has not used chemicals on playgrounds since Spring of 2005. Weeds have been
controlled by heavy application of engineered wood fibers – or removal of old surfacing and
weeds and replacement with new surfacing when weeds are too numerous to hand pull.
However, specific problems could develop in the future and it may be necessary to treat
playgrounds with chemicals; i.e. insect infestation of trees.


8/14/2007                                                                                22
BALLFIELDS & LANDSCAPE AREAS
                      Landscaping/
                      Maintenance  Mowing
Ballfields
Braden Field               City          City
Northway Field             City          City
Schrom Hills               City          City
Mandan Road                City          City
McDonald Field             City          City
Landscape Beds
Windsor Green         City & Contract   Contract
Springhill Lake       City & Contract   Contract
Greenbriar            City & Contract   Contract
Greenbrook Estates    City & Contract   Contract
Schrom Hills               City          City
Buddy Attick Park          City          City
Glen Oaks             City & Contract   Contract
Hanover – Bus. Side   City & Contract   Contract   Includes 2 circles
Southway                   City         Contract   Includes 193@Sway beds
Underpasses
Hillside Underpass         City         Contract
Gardenway                  City         Contract
Underpass
Library Underpass          City         Contract
Roosevelt Center           City         Contract
Underpass
Facilities
Community Center           City         Contract
Youth Center               City         Contract
Police Facility            City         Contract
Public Works               City         Contract
City Office Bldg.          City         Contract
Museum                     City         Contract
Springhill Lake Rec   City & Contract   Contract
Buddy Attick Park          City          City
Schrom Hills               City          City




8/14/2007                                                                   23
PESTICIDES USED BY THE CITY

All pesticides are grouped by the EPA into one of four categories based on acute toxicity. Category I
is the most toxic and category IV the least toxic.
                                   Category III and IV- Slightly Toxic to Relatively Non-Toxic
Chemical        Current Use            Option to Chemical         *Frequency        Size of                                      Type of Area
and                                                               of Use            Treatment Area                               Treated
Signal
Word
Manage          Selective control         No effective treatment                   Limited           Less than 1,000             Landscape beds
Caution         of nutsedge               available                                                  sf.
Dipel Pro       Pest control on           Insecticidal soaps – 50%                   Rare            10,000 sf. –                Street Trees
(Organic)       ornamentals               efficiency                                                 25,000 sf.
Caution                                   Beneficial insects/
                                          remove & replace plants
Merit           Pest control in           Beneficial nematodes in               Turf- rare           >100,000 sq ft of           Ballfields,
Caution         turf and                  turf- not always                     Ornamentals-          turf treated this           Azaleas, German
                ornamentals               effective.                             Limited             year due to heavy           Irises, some
                                          Replace ornamentals                                        infestations in             daylilies
                                          with resistant varieties                                   ballfield turf
Mach2           Pest control in           Beneficial nematodes in                 One time           >100,000 sq ft              Ballfields
Caution         turf                      turf- not always                                           treated this year
                                          effective.                                                 due to heavy
                                                                                                     infestations in
                                                                                                     ballfield turf
Bayleton        Fungal control            Remove and replace                     One Time            1,000 sf. – 9,999           Hawthorne trees
Caution         on ornamentals            trees, shrubs & flowers                                    sf.                         for severe
                                                                                                                                 Quince rust
Princep         Pre-emergent              Hand weeding                               Rare            Less than 1,000             Tree & shrub
Caution         vegetation                Corn gluten-                                               sf.                         beds where
                control                   tried/ineffective                                                                      weeds are out of
                                                                                                                                 control
Acclaim         Post emergent             Hand remove (Used for                  One Time            1,000 sf. – 9,999           Ballfields
Caution         grass control             crabgrass and                                              sf.
                                          goosegrass)
Snapshot        Pre-emergent              Hand weeding                               Rare            1,000 sf. – 9,999           Landscape beds
Caution         vegetation                Corn gluten-                                               sf.                         where weeds are
                control                   tried/ineffective                                                                      out of control
Roundup         Non-selective             Torch type machine                          n/a            Not currently used          Landscape beds,
Pro             vegetation                (Propane Burner),                                          because Kleenup             Sidewalk crack
                control                   horticultural vinegar-                                     Pro is same                 weeds,
                Post Emergent             neither kills the root                                     product at ½ the            Infields of
                                                                                                     cost                        ballfields
* Frequency of Use:
Limited - Specific areas treated as needed approximately 1-2 times annually.
Rare – Specific areas treated as needed less than one time per year.
One Time – Specific weed problems treated one time within past 20 years. At some point specific problem may reappear and another treatment may be
required.




8/14/2007                                                                                                                                           24
Category II- Moderately Toxic
   (The three products used in this category have oral and dermal toxicities in the category III &IV range,
                  but eye contact with the straight chemical will cause substantial damage)
Chemical Current Use           Option to Chemical        *Frequency       Size of              Type of Area
and                                                      of Use           Treatment Area       Treated
Signal
Word
Finale      Post emergent      None (Only used for            Rare        Less than 1,000      Landscape beds
Warning-    vegetation         horsetails) This weed                      sf.
eye         control            has a severe root system
contact                        and cannot be hand
causes                         pulled.)
substantial
damage
Dimension Pre-emergent         Hand remove                 One Time       50,000 sf.           Used once at
Warning - turf control                                                                         Mandan Field
eye
contact
causes
substantial
damage
**Kleen-    Non-selective      Torch type machine            Limited      > 100,000 sf.        Landscape beds,
up Pro      vegetation         (Propane Burner),                                               Sidewalk crack
Warning     control            horticultural vinegar-                                          weeds,
            Post Emergent      neither kill the root                                           Infields of
                                                                                               ballfields
** Kleen-up is a product with the same chemical composition as Round-Up Pro, but it contains a
different surfactant. Our best guess is that the surfactant in Kleenup is different and causes eye irritation,
which would create a need for a Warning label.




8/14/2007                                                                                                  25
Category I- Highly Toxic
    (The two products used in this category have oral and dermal toxicities in the category III &IV
                                                 range,
             but eye contact with the straight chemical will cause irreversible damage.)
Chemical Current Use          Option to Chemical        *Frequency Size of             Type of Area
and Signal                                              of Use       Treatment         Treated
Word                                                                 Area
Confront     Selective        Hand pull them-              Limited   50,000 sf. –      Turf and
Danger-      control of       Corn Gluten-                           100,000 sf.       Ballfields
eye contact broadleaf         expensive and not
can cause    weeds in turf    reliably effective
irreversible
damage.
Garlon 3a    Used to treat    Hand pull/backhoe-           limited   Less than 1000    Landscape
Danger-      cut stumps of    difficult and time                     sf                Beds to kill
eye contact weed trees or     consuming                                                large weed
can cause    shrubs                                                                    trees primarily
irreversible                                                                           by painting cut
damage.                                                                                stumps
*Frequency of Use:
Limited - Specific areas treated as needed approximately 1-2 times annually.
Rare – Specific areas treated as needed less than one time per year.
One Time – Specific weed problems treated one time within past 20 years. At some point specific problem may
reappear and another treatment may be required.




8/14/2007                                                                                                     26
Appendix B--ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS SUMMARY




Report



8/14/2007                                           27
8/14/2007   28
8/14/2007   29
Appendix C—SAMPLE PESTICIDE LABEL




8/14/2007                           30
Appendix D---EPA CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
OF CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY
Source: http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/cancerRiskCat.cfm

The EPA evaluates chemical carcinogenicity using data from many types of studies.

   •   Most of the cancer risk information currently available is in the form of scientific results
       from studies of laboratory animals, such as rats or mice.
   •   Other types of laboratory studies done at a smaller scale, such as individual cells, provide
       information about a chemical's ability to damage DNA or promote tumor growth.
   •   Results from studies of groups of people exposed to certain chemicals, such as in the
       workplace or a community, may provide additional valuable information about a chemical's
       potential to cause cancer.

For many chemicals, however, no human data are available, so we must rely on data from laboratory
and animal studies. Information on the species of laboratory animal tested, and the tumor types
observed, provides some information about the extent to which the chemical may be carcinogenic.
This information is just part of the total information EPA uses to estimate cancer risk. Other
information from human studies and laboratory analyses is not currently available from EPA for use
in the Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk database.

EPA's cancer risk classification systems and categories
In classifying the cancer risk of a particular chemical, EPA uses a combination of all of these types
of evidence to arrive at a cancer risk category. EPA's cancer risk assessment methods have changed
over the years to accommodate new scientific understanding. As a result, the four EPA cancer risk
classification systems cannot be combined or used interchangeably due to the different methods
used.
Pesticide products
Cancer risk categories do not apply directly to pesticide products. Rather, cancer risk information
pertaining to the product's active ingredient(s) can be used in combination with other information to
estimate potential risk.

   •   Estimating the cancer-causing potential of a specific pesticide product involves many factors,
       such as the amount of active ingredient contained in the product, the application methods
       and rates used, proper use of personal protective equipment, and frequency and degree of
       exposure to the pesticide over time.
   •   Current federal pesticide labeling laws require pesticide manufacturers to include only acute
       (short-term), and not chronic (long-term) health risk information on pesticide labels.
       Therefore, product-specific cancer risk information is not available.
   •   Some states, such as California and Massachusetts, require that pesticides sold in those states
       carry labels specifying whether or not the product's active ingredients have been identified as
       health hazards, such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, etc. Other states may include this
       information on their labels as well.




8/14/2007                                                                                          31
Using RED documents and other pesticide review information
Re-registration Eligibility Decision, or 'RED', documents are risk assessment reports done by EPA
to determine whether or not to continue the registration of older pesticide products. Older
pesticides (those first registered before 1984) must be re-evaluated by EPA to ensure that they meet
current health and safety standards. RED documents are publicly available and are included process.
This process, which will take effect October 10, 2006, was established to ensure that all pesticides
distributed and sold in the U.S. (not just older pesticides or those used on food crops) will be re-
evaluated on a periodic basis to ensure they meet current health and safety standards. For more
information, see Pesticide Registration. As pesticides are reviewed as part of this process, risk
information will be added to the Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database as it becomes available.


2005 USEPA Cancer Risk Classification

The following descriptors from the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment can be used as an
introduction to the weight of evidence narrative in the cancer risk assessment. The examples presented in the
discussion of the descriptors are illustrative. The examples are neither a checklist nor a limitation for the
descriptor. The complete weight of evidence narrative, rather than the descriptor alone, provides the
conclusions and the basis for them.

Carcinogenic to Humans
This descriptor indicates strong evidence of human carcinogenicity. It covers different combinations of
evidence.

    •   This descriptor is appropriate when there is convincing epidemiologic evidence of a causal
        association between human exposure and cancer.
    •   Exceptionally, this descriptor may be equally appropriate with a lesser weight of epidemiologic
        evidence that is strengthened by other lines of evidence. It can be used when all of the following
        conditions are met:
            a. there is strong evidence of an association between human exposure and either cancer or the
                 key precursor events of the agent's mode of action but not enough for a causal association,
                 and
            b. there is extensive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, and
            c. the mode(s) of carcinogenic action and associated key precursor events have been identified
                 in animals, and
            d. there is strong evidence that the key precursor events that precede the cancer response in
                 animals are anticipated to occur in humans and progress to tumors, based on available
                 biological information. In this case, the narrative includes a summary of both the
                 experimental and epidemiologic information on mode of action and also an indication of the
                 relative weight that each source of information carries, e.g., based on human information,
                 based on limited human and extensive animal experiments.

Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of the evidence is adequate to demonstrate carcinogenic
potential to humans but does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor "Carcinogenic to Humans."
Adequate evidence consistent with this descriptor covers a broad spectrum. As stated previously, the use of
the term "likely" as a weight of evidence descriptor does not correspond to a quantifiable probability. The
examples below are meant to represent the broad range of data combinations that are covered by this
descriptor; they are illustrative and provide neither a checklist nor a limitation for the data that might support




8/14/2007                                                                                                      32
use of this descriptor. Moreover, additional information, e.g., on mode of action, might change the choice of
descriptor for the illustrated examples. Supporting data for this descriptor may include:

    •   an agent demonstrating a plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human
        exposure and cancer, in most cases with some supporting biological, experimental evidence,
        though not necessarily carcinogenicity data from animal experiments;
    •   an agent that has tested positive in animal experiments in more than one species, sex, strain,
        site, or exposure route, with or without evidence of carcinogenicity in humans;
    •   a positive tumor study that raises additional biological concerns beyond that of a statistically
        significant result, for example, a high degree of malignancy, or an early age at onset;
    •   a rare animal tumor response in a single experiment that is assumed to be relevant to
        humans; or
    •   a positive tumor study that is strengthened by other lines of evidence, for example, either
        plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer or
        evidence that the agent or an important metabolite causes events generally known to be
        associated with tumor formation (such as DNA reactivity or effects on cell growth control)
        likely to be related to the tumor response in this case.

Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of evidence is suggestive of carcinogenicity; a
concern for potential carcinogenic effects in humans is raised, but the data are judged not sufficient
for a stronger conclusion. This descriptor covers a spectrum of evidence associated with varying
levels of concern for carcinogenicity, ranging from a positive cancer result in the only study on an
agent to a single positive cancer result in an extensive database that includes negative studies in other
species. Depending on the extent of the database, additional studies may or may not provide further
insights. Some examples include:

    •   a small, and possibly not statistically significant, increase in tumor incidence observed in a
        single animal or human study that does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor
        "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans." The study generally would not be contradicted by
        other studies of equal quality in the same population group or experimental system (see
        discussions of conflicting evidence and differing results, below);
    •   a small increase in a tumor with a high background rate in that sex and strain, when there is
        some but insufficient evidence that the observed tumors may be due to intrinsic factors that
        cause background tumors and not due to the agent being assessed. (When there is a high
        background rate of a specific tumor in animals of a particular sex and strain, then there may
        be biological factors operating independently of the agent being assessed that could be
        responsible for the development of the observed tumors.) In this case, the reasons for
        determining that the tumors are not due to the agent are explained;
    •   evidence of a positive response in a study whose power, design, or conduct limits the ability
        to draw a confident conclusion (but does not make the study fatally flawed), but where the
        carcinogenic potential is strengthened by other lines of evidence (such as structure-activity
        relationships); or
    •   a statistically significant increase at one dose only, but no significant response at the other
        doses and no overall trend.




8/14/2007                                                                                                  33
Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
This descriptor is appropriate when available data are judged inadequate for applying one of the
other descriptors. Additional studies generally would be expected to provide further insights. Some
examples include:

   •   little or no pertinent information;
   •   conflicting evidence, that is, some studies provide evidence of carcinogenicity but other
       studies of equal quality in the same sex and strain are negative. Differing results, that is,
       positive results in some studies and negative results in one or more different experimental
       systems, do not constitute conflicting evidence, as the term is used here. Depending on the
       overall weight of evidence, differing results can be considered either suggestive evidence or
       likely evidence; or
   •   negative results that are not sufficiently robust for the descriptor, "Not Likely to Be
       Carcinogenic to Humans."

Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
This descriptor is appropriate when the available data are considered robust for deciding that there is
no basis for human hazard concern. In some instances, there can be positive results in experimental
animals when there is strong, consistent evidence that each mode of action in experimental animals
does not operate in humans. In other cases, there can be convincing evidence in both humans and
animals that the agent is not carcinogenic. The judgment may be based on data such as:

   •   animal evidence that demonstrates lack of carcinogenic effect in both sexes in well-designed
       and well-conducted studies in at least two appropriate animal species (in the absence of
       other animal or human data suggesting a potential for cancer effects),
   •   convincing and extensive experimental evidence showing that the only carcinogenic effects
       observed in animals are not relevant to humans,
   •   convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not likely by a particular exposure route, or
   •   convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not likely below a defined dose range.

A descriptor of "not likely" applies only to the circumstances supported by the data. For example, an
agent may be "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic" by one route but not necessarily by another. In those
cases that have positive animal experiment(s) but the results are judged to be not relevant to
humans, the narrative discusses why the results are not relevant.
Multiple Descriptors
More than one descriptor can be used when an agent's effects differ by dose or exposure route. For
example, an agent may be "Carcinogenic to Humans" by one exposure route but "Not Likely to Be
Carcinogenic" by a route by which it is not absorbed. Also, an agent could be "Likely to Be
Carcinogenic" above a specified dose but "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic" below that dose because
a key event in tumor formation does not occur below that dose.




8/14/2007                                                                                           34
Appendix E---EXAMPLES OF CANCER RISK
ASSESSMENT
Summary report on Oryzalin (EPA number 72167-15-74477) an active
ingredient in the MANAGE product (first product on the city list)
  Cancer Risk Information
                                                                                       1999
USEPA Cancer Risk Category: Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

Species and Tumor Types: Multiple sites (thyroid, mammary); F344 rats (M & F).

NOTE: Cancer risk classifications are specific to active ingredients, not products. To arrive at an
overall health or cancer risk evaluation for a pesticide product, active ingredient cancer risk
information should be used together with other risk and exposure information, such as USEPA Risk
Management Decision Documents (REDs, IREDs, TREDs, and others).



Summary report on ingredient Sodium Acifluorfen listed under
KleenUP in the
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/searchProdMore.cfm?key=272
95 data base
Cancer Risk Information
                                                                            Other
USEPA Cancer Risk Category: Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans (High Doses); Not
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans (Low Doses)

Species and Tumor Types: Liver; B6C3F1 & CD-1 mice (M& F).

NOTE: Cancer risk classifications are specific to active ingredients, not products. To arrive at an
overall health or cancer risk evaluation for a pesticide product, active ingredient cancer risk
information should be used together with other risk and exposure information, such as USEPA Risk
Management Decision Documents (REDs, IREDs, TREDs, and others).




8/14/2007                                                                                       35
Appendix F---PESTICIDE BY-LAW OF THE CITY
OF TORONTO

PESTICIDES, USE OF
§ 612-1. Definitions.
§ 612-2. Restrictions.
§ 612-3. Offences.
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 2003-05-23 by By-law
No. 456-2003.1 Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
1
Editor’s Note: This by-law was passed under the authority of section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, ch. 25.
Section 2 of this by-law states that it comes into force 2004-04-01.
Property standards — See Ch. 629.
§ 612-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
ENCLOSED — Closed in by a roof or ceiling and walls with an appropriate opening or openings
for ingress or egress, which openings are equipped with doors which are kept closed except when
actually in use for egress or ingress.
HEALTH HAZARD — A pest which has or is likely to have an adverse effect on
the health of any person.
INFESTATION — The presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an
immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage.
PEST — An animal, a plant or other organism that is injurious, noxious or troublesome, whether
directly or indirectly, and an injurious, noxious or troublesome condition or organic function of
an animal, a plant or other organism.
PESTICIDE — Includes: A. A product, an organism or a substance that is a registered control
product under the federal Pest Control Products Act which is used as a means for directly or
indirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a pest or for mitigating or preventing its
injurious, noxious or troublesome effects.
B. Despite Subsection A, a pesticide does not include:
TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE
§ 612-2 PESTICIDES, USE OF
612-2 2005 - 02 - 16
(1) A product that uses pheromones to lure pests, sticky media to trap pests or “quick-kill” traps
for vertebrate species considered pests, such as mice and rats.(2) A product that is or contains
only the following active ingredients:
[Amended 2004-05-20 by By-law No. 385-2004]
(a) A soap;
(b) A mineral oil, also called “dormant or horticultural oil”;
(c) Silicon dioxide, also called “diatomaceous earth”;
(d) Biological pesticides, including Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) and
nematodes; [Amended 2005-02-16 by By-law No. 121-2005]
(e) Borax, also called “boric acid” or “boracic acid”;
(f) Ferric phosphate;


8/14/2007                                                                                                                 36
(g) Acetic acid;
(h) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins;
(i) Fatty acids;
(j) Sulphur; or
(k) Corn gluten meal.
§ 612-2. Restrictions.
A. No person shall apply or cause or permit the application of pesticides within the
boundaries of the City.
B. The provision set out in Subsection A does not apply when pesticides are used:
(1) To disinfect swimming pools, whirlpools, spas or wading pools;
(2) To purify water intended for the use of humans or animals;
(3) Within an enclosed building;
(4) To control termites;
(5) To control or destroy a health hazard;
(6) To control or destroy pests which have caused infestation to property;
(7) To exterminate or repel rodents;
(8) As a wood preservative;
TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE
PESTICIDES, USE OF § 612-3
612-3 2005 - 02 - 16
(9) As an insecticide bait which is enclosed by the manufacturer in a plastic or
metal container that has been made in a way that prevents or minimizes access
to the bait by humans and pets;
(10) For injection into trees, stumps or wooden poles;
(11) To comply with the Weed Control Act2 and the regulations made there under; or
(12) As an insect repellent for personal use.
§ 612-3. Offences.
Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence and,
upon conviction, is liable to a fine or penalty provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.3
2
Editor’s Note: See R.S.O. 1990, c. W.5.
3
Editor’s Note: This section was passed under the authority of section 425 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, ch. 25, and,
under section 61 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, a person convicted of an offence under this section is
liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.




8/14/2007                                                                                                                       37
Appendix G---BEST PRACTICE REVIEW SUMMARY




8/14/2007                                    38
8/14/2007   39
8/14/2007   40
Appendix H--
               TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD
                 BOARD OF HEALTH

             ORGANIC PEST MANAGEMENT
                   REGULATIONS
                               Adopted: December 7, 2005

                              Effective: December 22, 2005

Carl D. Goodman, Esq., Chairman
David B. Becker, D.M.D., M.P.H.
Helaine R. Hazlett

Wayne O. Attridge, Director of Public Health




                               TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD
                                 BOARD OF HEALTH

               ORGANIC PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

SECTION I – FINDINGS & PURPOSE

The Board of Health does hereby find that:

All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the commonplace, widespread use of pesticides is
both a major environmental problem and a public health issue; and

All citizens, and in particular children, as well as other inhabitants of our natural environment,
have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides in particular; and

A balanced and healthy ecosystem is vital to the health of the town and its citizens; and as such
is also in need of protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides; and


8/14/2007                                                                                       41
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)
Pesticide Report of  Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Environmental science 2nd lecture
Environmental science 2nd lectureEnvironmental science 2nd lecture
Environmental science 2nd lectureJasperBarcelona
 
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997Pakistan environmental protection act 1997
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997AyeshaBashir22
 
UK Environmental Law and Management
UK Environmental Law and ManagementUK Environmental Law and Management
UK Environmental Law and ManagementHelen Tung
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.comENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.comthomashard61
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com KeatonJennings101
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.comENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.comWindyMiller10
 
Environmental legislations
Environmental legislationsEnvironmental legislations
Environmental legislationsNatthu Shrirame
 
Pollution controlboard
Pollution controlboardPollution controlboard
Pollution controlboardOnkar Chauhan
 
Environmental acts
Environmental actsEnvironmental acts
Environmental actsArvind Kumar
 
50644147 solid-waste-management
50644147 solid-waste-management50644147 solid-waste-management
50644147 solid-waste-managementcreambutter
 
Balochistan environmental act 2012
Balochistan environmental act 2012Balochistan environmental act 2012
Balochistan environmental act 2012zubeditufail
 
Philippines.caa
Philippines.caaPhilippines.caa
Philippines.caajbonvier
 
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
 
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...Christina Parmionova
 
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-review
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-reviewhamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-review
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-reviewKim Perrotta
 
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...ELLA Programme
 
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...OECD Environment
 

La actualidad más candente (20)

E012213135
E012213135E012213135
E012213135
 
Environmental science 2nd lecture
Environmental science 2nd lectureEnvironmental science 2nd lecture
Environmental science 2nd lecture
 
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997Pakistan environmental protection act 1997
Pakistan environmental protection act 1997
 
UK Environmental Law and Management
UK Environmental Law and ManagementUK Environmental Law and Management
UK Environmental Law and Management
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.comENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Your Life--env320mentor.com
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Inspiring Innovation--env320mentor.com
 
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.comENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.com
ENV 320 MENTOR Education Planning--env320mentor.com
 
Environmental legislations
Environmental legislationsEnvironmental legislations
Environmental legislations
 
Pollution controlboard
Pollution controlboardPollution controlboard
Pollution controlboard
 
Environmental acts
Environmental actsEnvironmental acts
Environmental acts
 
50644147 solid-waste-management
50644147 solid-waste-management50644147 solid-waste-management
50644147 solid-waste-management
 
Balochistan environmental act 2012
Balochistan environmental act 2012Balochistan environmental act 2012
Balochistan environmental act 2012
 
Philippines.caa
Philippines.caaPhilippines.caa
Philippines.caa
 
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...
Professor Michael Depledge, EPA, HSE and ESRI, Environment, Health and Wellbe...
 
Environmental act and regulaction
Environmental act and regulactionEnvironmental act and regulaction
Environmental act and regulaction
 
Environmental acts and regulations
Environmental acts and regulationsEnvironmental acts and regulations
Environmental acts and regulations
 
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...
2012 status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resou...
 
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-review
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-reviewhamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-review
hamilton-pesticides-on-private-property-policy-review
 
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities: Mexico City and Quito Cli...
 
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...
18 January 2022: OECD Webinar on Risk Reduction Initiatives for PFAS - Jeff D...
 

Similar a Pesticide Report of Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)

South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102
South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102
South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102Patrícia Pereira
 
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentSamanth kumar
 
Clean development mechanism
Clean development mechanismClean development mechanism
Clean development mechanismIbero Posgrados
 
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th  esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsJanuary 8th  esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsCEQAplanner
 
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...MdHaque78
 
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptx
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptxIntroduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptx
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptxAlmawYetnayet
 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)
ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)Lucasrukona
 
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptx
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptxPPT presentation ESIAF1.pptx
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptxyonas513377
 
Pest man sc presentation 3
Pest man sc presentation 3Pest man sc presentation 3
Pest man sc presentation 3Mark Healy
 
Envirornment Impact Assessment
Envirornment Impact AssessmentEnvirornment Impact Assessment
Envirornment Impact AssessmentRJ
 
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental Regulation
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental RegulationManaging risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental Regulation
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental RegulationDara Lynott Consultants LTD.
 
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...ssuser879abc
 
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...v2zq
 
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil PollutionOrganization of the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil PollutionFAO
 
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicology
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicologyFranz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicology
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicologycropprotection
 
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati Consulting
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati ConsultingEnvironmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati Consulting
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati ConsultingAagatiConsulting
 

Similar a Pesticide Report of Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity) (20)

South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102
South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102
South africaprojectprojectproposal20151102
 
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessment
 
Clean development mechanism
Clean development mechanismClean development mechanism
Clean development mechanism
 
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th  esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsJanuary 8th  esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
 
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
 
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptx
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptxIntroduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptx
Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.pptx
 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)
ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESMENT (EIA)
 
Carlos Soria
Carlos SoriaCarlos Soria
Carlos Soria
 
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptx
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptxPPT presentation ESIAF1.pptx
PPT presentation ESIAF1.pptx
 
Pest man sc presentation 3
Pest man sc presentation 3Pest man sc presentation 3
Pest man sc presentation 3
 
Mauricio Limón Aguirre: Chemicals Management in Mexico
Mauricio Limón Aguirre: Chemicals Management in MexicoMauricio Limón Aguirre: Chemicals Management in Mexico
Mauricio Limón Aguirre: Chemicals Management in Mexico
 
Envirornment Impact Assessment
Envirornment Impact AssessmentEnvirornment Impact Assessment
Envirornment Impact Assessment
 
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental Regulation
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental RegulationManaging risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental Regulation
Managing risk and delivering outcomes through Environmental Regulation
 
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...
DBCP-36-ppt-Breakout Session-3 Environmental Stewardship breakout session_DBC...
 
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...
Environmental & Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents & Cos...
 
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil PollutionOrganization of the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution
Organization of the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution
 
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicology
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicologyFranz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicology
Franz Streissl - The revision of the GD on terrestrial ecotoxicology
 
David Boyd: The Environmental Rights Revolution: Constitutions, Human Rights,...
David Boyd: The Environmental Rights Revolution: Constitutions, Human Rights,...David Boyd: The Environmental Rights Revolution: Constitutions, Human Rights,...
David Boyd: The Environmental Rights Revolution: Constitutions, Human Rights,...
 
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati Consulting
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati ConsultingEnvironmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati Consulting
Environmental Impact Assessment in India - Aagati Consulting
 
Composting.pdf
Composting.pdfComposting.pdf
Composting.pdf
 

Más de CHEARS

MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick Park
MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick ParkMLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick Park
MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick ParkCHEARS
 
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis Results
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis ResultsErrors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis Results
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis ResultsCHEARS
 
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old Farmstead
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old FarmsteadA Permaculture Design for a York PA Old Farmstead
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old FarmsteadCHEARS
 
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenation
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenationEleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenation
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenationCHEARS
 
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!CHEARS
 
Rain Barrels: Harvesting the Heavens Saving Streams
Rain Barrels:  Harvesting the Heavens Saving StreamsRain Barrels:  Harvesting the Heavens Saving Streams
Rain Barrels: Harvesting the Heavens Saving StreamsCHEARS
 
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate Program
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate ProgramPrince George's County Raincheck Rebate Program
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate ProgramCHEARS
 
Stormwater and rain barrels
Stormwater and rain barrelsStormwater and rain barrels
Stormwater and rain barrelsCHEARS
 
Forest Pests
Forest PestsForest Pests
Forest PestsCHEARS
 
Emerald Ash Borer
Emerald Ash BorerEmerald Ash Borer
Emerald Ash BorerCHEARS
 
Invasive Species
Invasive SpeciesInvasive Species
Invasive SpeciesCHEARS
 
Seeing the Forest and the Trees
Seeing the Forest and the TreesSeeing the Forest and the Trees
Seeing the Forest and the TreesCHEARS
 
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID Presentation
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID PresentationTim Culbreth: Tree ID Presentation
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID PresentationCHEARS
 
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest Gardening
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest GardeningReplenishing Ecosystems: Forest Gardening
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest GardeningCHEARS
 
The Value of Trees
The Value of TreesThe Value of Trees
The Value of TreesCHEARS
 
Water and Forests
Water and ForestsWater and Forests
Water and ForestsCHEARS
 
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for Conservation
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for ConservationForest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for Conservation
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for ConservationCHEARS
 
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest Stewards
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest StewardsApril 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest Stewards
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest StewardsCHEARS
 
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo Journal
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo JournalGreenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo Journal
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo JournalCHEARS
 
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual Archive
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual ArchiveThe Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual Archive
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual ArchiveCHEARS
 

Más de CHEARS (20)

MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick Park
MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick ParkMLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick Park
MLK Day of Service Tree Protection Workday at Buddy Attick Park
 
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis Results
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis ResultsErrors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis Results
Errors Found in National Evaluation of UpwardBound- Postive Re-Analysis Results
 
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old Farmstead
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old FarmsteadA Permaculture Design for a York PA Old Farmstead
A Permaculture Design for a York PA Old Farmstead
 
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenation
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenationEleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenation
Eleanor Roosevelt High School Career Day presenation
 
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!
Stormwater Solutions: Rain Barrels and More!
 
Rain Barrels: Harvesting the Heavens Saving Streams
Rain Barrels:  Harvesting the Heavens Saving StreamsRain Barrels:  Harvesting the Heavens Saving Streams
Rain Barrels: Harvesting the Heavens Saving Streams
 
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate Program
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate ProgramPrince George's County Raincheck Rebate Program
Prince George's County Raincheck Rebate Program
 
Stormwater and rain barrels
Stormwater and rain barrelsStormwater and rain barrels
Stormwater and rain barrels
 
Forest Pests
Forest PestsForest Pests
Forest Pests
 
Emerald Ash Borer
Emerald Ash BorerEmerald Ash Borer
Emerald Ash Borer
 
Invasive Species
Invasive SpeciesInvasive Species
Invasive Species
 
Seeing the Forest and the Trees
Seeing the Forest and the TreesSeeing the Forest and the Trees
Seeing the Forest and the Trees
 
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID Presentation
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID PresentationTim Culbreth: Tree ID Presentation
Tim Culbreth: Tree ID Presentation
 
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest Gardening
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest GardeningReplenishing Ecosystems: Forest Gardening
Replenishing Ecosystems: Forest Gardening
 
The Value of Trees
The Value of TreesThe Value of Trees
The Value of Trees
 
Water and Forests
Water and ForestsWater and Forests
Water and Forests
 
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for Conservation
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for ConservationForest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for Conservation
Forest Fragmentation: The States of Our Forests & Prospects for Conservation
 
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest Stewards
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest StewardsApril 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest Stewards
April 6th Presentation: Greenbelt Forest Stewards
 
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo Journal
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo JournalGreenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo Journal
Greenbelt Food Forest Phase II Photo Journal
 
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual Archive
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual ArchiveThe Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual Archive
The Art of Teaching: Chestory Virtual Archive
 

Último

Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Will Schroeder
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Brian Pichman
 
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a WebsiteCOMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Websitedgelyza
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarPrecisely
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdfPedro Manuel
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6DianaGray10
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioChristian Posta
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Commit University
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfinfogdgmi
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsSeth Reyes
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLRuncy Oommen
 
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXVoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXTarek Kalaji
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxMatsuo Lab
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding TeamAdam Moalla
 
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDEADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELiveplex
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxGDSC PJATK
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.YounusS2
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopBachir Benyammi
 

Último (20)

Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
 
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a WebsiteCOMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
 
20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
 
20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 6
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
 
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXVoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
 
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDEADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
 

Pesticide Report of Green Aces (Greenbelt Committee on Enviromental Sustainablity)

  • 1. Report 2007-02 July 9, 2007 GREENBELT RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REAC) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES REGARDING PESTICIDE USE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADOPTION OF ORGANIC LAND CARE AND ORGANIC PEST MANAGEMENT (OPM) PRACTICES FOR GREENBELT
  • 2. Table of Contents Page 1. BACKGROUND 3 1.1 Use of the Precautionary Principle and Tools 3 1.2 Precautionary Principle Tools for Decision Making and Action 3 2. FINDINGS 4 2.1 Step One: Identify the Possible Threat and Characterize the Problem 4 2.2 Step Two: What is Known and Not Known About the Threat? 5 2.2.1 Pesticides and Health Generally 5 2.2.2 Pesticide Use By the City Staff 7 2.2.3 Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses of Greenbelt 10 2.3 Step Three: Reframe the Problem to Help Decide What REAC Needs to Do 11 2.4 Step Four: Assess Alternatives---How Have Other Communities Addressed the 11 Issues? What Are the Possible Alternatives? 2.4.1 Examples from Canada: Bans, Phase Outs, and Public Education 12 2.4.2 Mandating and Defining Integrated Pest Management (IPM)--- 13 Maryland IPM In-Schools Legislation 2.4.3 Other Innovative US Ordinances 14 2.4.4 The Organic Pest Management and the Organic Land Care Movement 15 in Landscaping 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 17 3.1 Step Five: Determine the Course of Action and Recommendations 17 3.2 Specific Recommendations to Council 17 3.3 Step Six: Monitor and Follow Up 19 Appendices 20 Appendix A---SUMMARY REPORT BY CITY OF GREENBELT STAFF 20 Appendix B-- ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS REPORT SUMMARY 27 Appendix C—SAMPLE PESTICIDE LABEL 30 Appendix D---EPA CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL 31 CARCINOGENICITY Appendix E---EXAMPLES OF CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT 35 Appendix F---PESTICIDE BY-LAW OF THE CITY OF TORONTO 36 Appendix G---BEST PRACTICE REVIEW REPORT SUMMARY 38 Appendix H--TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD BOARD OF HEALTH ORGANIC 41 PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Appendix I---ANNOUNCEMENT OF ORGANIC LAND CARE BASIC 47 TRAINING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OR TRANSITIONING LANDSCAPERS Appendix J---RESOURCES ON PESTICIDES AND ALTERNATIVES 48 8/14/2007 2
  • 3. 1. BACKGROUND In fall of 2004, REAC asked City Council to study the issue of pesticide use within Greenbelt. This request was then sent to Greenbelt Staff for review. City staff recommended that REAC itself do the study. In 2005 City Council requested REAC to: 1) review pesticide use by the City, 2) study pesticide use in general, and 3) make recommendations to Council. Over the past 18 months, REAC has invited experts on the topic to committee meetings and its members have studied the issue working with City Staff. Public Works Staff has worked very cooperatively with REAC and provided all information requested. They have also shared their informed perspective on the topic of concern. REAC wishes to express our thanks and acknowledgment to the Staff for the help provided. Using a six-step process, based on the Precautionary Principle, this report presents a summary of findings of the pesticide study and provides a set of recommendations for the Council to consider. 1.1 Use of the Precautionary Principle and Tools Consistent with the United Nations (1992), and numerous international conventions and statements and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1996), REAC endorses what has come to be known as the Precautionary Principle (Tickner, Raffensperger, and Myers, 2001). The precautionary principle broadly states: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (taken from the January 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle). The Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21 (which the United States signed and ratified) similarly stated: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation (The Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21). 1.2 Precautionary Principle Tools for Decision Making and Action In the publication (Tickner, Raffensperger, and Myers, The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook 2001) written for the Science and Environmental Health Network, the authors identify a six step set of tools for arriving at policy decision making in an area when there is some uncertainty. This report follows this process as a method of organizing the report--- starting with an identification of the problem and moving to actionable recommendations. The six steps are: Step One: Identify the possible threat and characterize the problem Step Two: Identify what is known and what is not known about the threat. 8/14/2007 3
  • 4. Step Three: Reframe the problem to describe what needs to be done Step Four: Assess alternatives. Step Five: Determine the course of action. Step Six: Monitor and follow up We move through each of the steps in this report to Council. Our findings are presented in steps One to Four. Steps Five and Six contain the recommendations to Council. A number of appendices are included. Appendix A prepared by Bill Phelan contains the report of City Staff on Recent Pesticide Use and summarizes city staff views. Appendices B to J contain other relevant information and are identified within the document in appropriate sections. 2. FINDINGS 2. 1 Step One: Identify the Possible Threat and Characterize the Problem The impetus to study the use of pesticides in Greenbelt, grew out of concerns for public and environmental health (human, animal and plant) specific to Greenbelt, the wider Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the global community of which we are also a part. Concerns at these three geographic levels can be summarized briefly as follows: • The initial request to REAC for the study of pesticide use in Greenbelt grew out of two specific incidents in 2004 ---a broad based spraying by GHI of an area around Hillside to control invasive plants, and the observation by a member of REAC of evidence of a broad based herbicide spraying by the City along the sidewalk on the route to the metro along Cherrywood Lane and very close to Indian Creek. These citizens were concerned for their own health, the ecology of their neighborhood, and the damage to wildlife, especially as some of the spraying was on slopes that went directly into the local streams. In both cases the expressed intent by GHI and the City was a positive goal. In one case the goal of the spraying was to control invasive species, and in another case the goal was control plants that were deemed too close to a public sidewalk where mowing with a large mower was not possible. It should be noted that both GHI and the City have reduced the broad based spraying that prompted the initial concern in 2004. • The request for the study also grew out of wider general concerns for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has described the bay as “dangerously out of balance,” and a “system in crisis.” Last year’s http://www.cbf.org “Annual State of the Bay Report” summary states, “The Chesapeake and its rivers and streams are dying…” While the sources of the problem are many, on a per acre basis urban run off is estimated to contribute 7 times the pollution that farm areas contribute. The 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement adopted a goal of a “Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impacts on the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.” The Toxics 2000 Strategy recommends the implementation of “Projects and programs that reduce the use of pesticides, promote less toxic alternatives, or employ other voluntary efforts that ultimately 8/14/2007 4
  • 5. reduce pesticide loads to the watershed.” The Chesapeake Bay Strategy recognizes that “Nonpoint-sources, particularly urban stormwater runoff, represent a substantial source of chemical contaminants to the Bay and its tidal rivers”. This fact, coupled with, “…increasing population and expanded development within the watershed” suggest that efforts to reduce the toxic contributions from individuals and homeowners should have a significant cumulative benefit for the Bay and its rivers. • Finally, Greenbelt is part of the global community. There is a general recognition that the global environment is under grave stress from numerous sources related to burning of fossil fuels, and extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, most of which have unknown long term effects. Worldwide use of pesticides increases yearly and estimates are that 3 billion kilograms of pesticides are spread annually. According to the USDA over 100 million pounds of pesticides were applied to ornamental landscapes alone in the year 2002 (in the USA). 2.2 Step Two: What is Known and Not Known About the Threat? The following is a summary of our findings presented under the following topics: 1. Pesticides and Health Generally 2. Pesticide Use by the City of Greenbelt 3. Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses in Greenbelt (on this topic little is known currently, however we include it because one of the things REAC increasingly came to realize was of importance of this issue to the problem) 2.2.1 Pesticides and Health Generally • Definititon of Pesticides as Used in this Document: Pesticides are “substances or mixtures of substances that prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate pests, or defoliate, desiccate, or regulate plants” (Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture Pesticide Bureau). Herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, miticides, avicides and rodenticides are all considered pesticides. • Pests are and may be known as undesirable plants, insects, fungi, bacteria, and rodents, birds and other animals. Common examples in turf grass and the landscape can be, but are not limited to, crabgrass, knotweed, poison ivy, chinch bugs, grubs, and a variety of plant pathogens. • While the REAC working group looked at pesticides generally, most of our work has been with regard pesticides as applicable to landscape care. We consider only in a limited manner issues related to pesticides designed for in-door use, or insect control. • According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “By their very nature, most pesticides create some risk of harm. [They] can cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment because they are designed to kill or [harm]… living organisms.” US court cases have ruled that: it is not legal for companies that make pesticides and pest control companies to say that a pesticide is “safe.” They cannot claim it is “safe” even if it is registered for public use and even if it is used as directed. 8/14/2007 5
  • 6. According to Center for Disease Control studies (2005 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Chemicals, as reviewed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA)), most people in the U.S. have pesticides in their bodies, and 6-11 year olds have levels four times and 12-19 year olds three times what EPA considers safe. • Pesticides may kill or harm desirable organisms in addition to those they target. There is growing evidence of the hazards associated with long-term use of pesticides. Pesticide exposure in humans has been associated with birth defects; numerous cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, (the second fastest growing cancer in the U.S.); Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders; immune systems problems; and male infertility. The web site for Beyond Pesticides gives summary information on the effects of the most commonly used pesticides, as well as providing information on organic lawn care. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/index. • After a comprehensive systemic review of the literature, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) in April of 2004 strongly recommended that people reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible. The review shows consistent links to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases, among others. The study also shows that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides. “Many of the health problems linked with pesticide use are serious and difficult to treat – so we are advocating reducing exposure to pesticides and prevention of harm as the best approach”, said Dr. Margaret Sanborn of McMaster University, one of the review’s authors. Appendix B is a copy of the executive summary of this report. The full text of the report is available at: http://www.ocfp.on.ca/local/files/Communications/Current%20Issues/Pesticides/Final% 20Paper%2023APR2004.pdf • The full range of harm from pesticides is not known. This is because few studies have looked at: how pesticides affect children; what happens when people are exposed to them long-term; what happens when people are exposed to a few different pesticides at the same time; what happens when they combine with other chemicals or medicines in our bodies; what happens if a person is exposed to a pesticide over and over again (Maryland Pesticide Network in Pesticides: The Risks, Prevention and Healthier Choices, 2006). • EPA does not currently evaluate or consider the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides during registration or re-registration. Recent press reports have highlighted (Science News September 2006; Beyond Pesticides September 6 2006) that some species of male fish are acquiring female sexual characteristics at unusually high frequencies in the Potomac River and its tributaries, prompting concerns about pollutants that might be causing the problem. Environmentalists have long pointed to pesticides and other endocrine disrupting chemicals as having the potential for wreaking such hormonal chaos. Many scientists believe that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may as yet be unobserved in humans. A recent study found that the commonly used lawn pesticide formulation Round-Up, with the active ingredient glyphosate, causes damaging endocrine effects in fetuses. (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html) (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf). 8/14/2007 6
  • 7. Recent public concerns raised by EPA science staff have called into question the efficacy of EPA rule making in the area of pesticides. For example, on August 2, 2006 the New York Times reported on recent actions of EPA Staff Unions representing 9,000 of EPA's own staff scientists, "We are concerned that the agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions" …about the chemicals. The EPA scientists’, also charge that EPA's Administrator is willfully ignoring evidence that "pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and children," and are calling on EPA to cancel the registrations of 20 pesticides in the organophosphate and carbamate chemical family. • EPA regulations do not currently require the labeling of inert ingredients in pesticides. Recently, 14 States (including Maryland) have asked EPA to require disclosure of inert ingredients. The federal Environmental Protection Agency requires "active" toxic ingredients that kill insects and weeds to be listed on labels now but does not require such a listing of inert ingredients which have been considered proprietary. "There is no logical reason for EPA to mandate disclosure of those ingredients that harm pests, but exempt from disclosure other ingredients that cause serious health and environmental problems," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who has taken the lead for the states asking the EPA to expand the labeling requirement. According to the petition inert ingredients make up as much as 99 percent of a pesticide and are known or suspected causes of cancer, nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects as well as environmental damage. The petition includes 40 pages of scientific data and legal precedent that the state officials say support their case. The state officials seek to have the inert chemicals listed with a caution that they "may pose a hazard to man or the environment." They note that the EPA alone has the authority to force the change. (information from © Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company). • Protecting public and environmental health is the primary concern of the Pesticide Working Group of REAC. Given the information stated above, this report will recommend the City staff adopt a balanced approach to pesticide use that places protection of public and environmental health at the forefront. 2.2.2 Pesticide Use By the Public Works Staff A major focus of our review was the use of pesticides for land care and management by the Greenbelt Public Works Staff. We did not review pesticide use by the City for in-door space pest control. Current practices and views of Public Works Staff are described in Appendix A in the document entitled “Pesticide Summary” written by Bill Phelan. • The responsibility for pest control in the public property and public spaces of the City of Greenbelt is the responsibility of the Public Works Department and within Public Works the Assistant Director of Public Works has responsibility for pest control. • Public Works personnel have indicated that they welcomed the REAC review, and have been supportive and cooperative and have aided the committees review. 8/14/2007 7
  • 8. As part of the study REAC asked for and received City records of pesticide use for land care, and also staff perspective on the pesticide issue. A summary of recent use is included in Appendix A. • It is important to note that the EPA toxicity categorization presented in Appendix A is for “acute exposure” and is not an evaluation of the long-term or cumulative effects of exposure to humans, animals, or plants. Current federal pesticide labeling laws require pesticide manufacturers to include acute (short-term), and not chronic (long-term) health risk information on pesticide labels. Therefore, product-specific cancer risk information is not readily available. An example of a pesticide label is provided in Appendix D. An explanation of the 4 acute toxicity categories as provided by EPA is given below. Toxicity Categories and Pesticide Label Statements EPA uses the following criteria to determine the toxicity category of pesticides. These criteria are based on the results of animal tests done in support of registration of the pesticide. Category I is the most toxic. I II III IV Up to and including From 500 thru Greater than 5000 Oral LD50 From 50 thru 500 mg/kg 50 mg/kg 5000 mg/kg mg/kg Inhalation LC Up to and including From 2.0 thru 20 Greater than 20 From 0.2 thru 2 mg/liter 50 0.2 mg/liter mg/liter mg/liter Dermal LD Up to and including From 200 thru 2000 From 2,000 thru Greater than 20,000 50 200 mg/kg. mg/kg 20,000 mg/kg mg/kg No corneal Corrosive; corneal Corneal opacity reversible opacity; irritation Eye effects opacity not reversible within 7 days; irritation No irritation reversible within 7 within 7 days persisting for 7 days. days Moderate Severe irritation at 72 Mild or slight Skin effects Corrosive irritation at 72 hours irritation at 72 hours. hours Human hazard signal word Toxicity Category I - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category I shall bear on the front panel the signal word "Danger.'' In addition if the product was assigned to Toxicity Category I on the basis of its oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity (as distinct from skin and eye local effects) the word "Poison'' shall appear in red on a background of distinctly contrasting color and the skull and crossbones shall appear in immediate proximity to the word "poison.'' Toxicity Category II - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category II shall bear on the front panel the signal word "Warning.'' Toxicity Category III - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category III shall bear on the front panel the signal word "Caution.'' 8/14/2007 8
  • 9. Toxicity Category IV - All pesticide products meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category IV shall bear on the front panel the signal word "Caution.'' Child hazard warning - Every pesticide product label shall bear on the front panel the statement "keep out of reach of children.'' Only in cases where the likelihood of contact with children during distribution, marketing, storage, or use is demonstrated by the applicant to be extremely remote, or if the nature of the pesticide is such that it is approved for use on infants or small children, may the Administrator waive this requirement. Further information on these criteria and labeling requirements is published in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 156.10). Source: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tpes.html Interpreting signal words on pesticide labels (refers only to acute toxicity not long term effects) Signal Word Toxicity Approximate amount needed to kill the average person Danger (Category 1) Highly toxic A taste to teaspoon Warning (Category II) Moderately toxic A teaspoon to a tablespoon Caution (Category III and IV) Slightly toxic An ounce to more than a pint • To obtain information on such things as evaluation of cancer risk, one must determine the ingredients in the product and look up information under the chemical name. Appendix D gives an explanation of the EPA cancer risk ratings and Appendix E gives examples of an evaluation of the cancer risk classification given by the Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors (BCERF) database on Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Data Base for some of the chemicals contained in two of the products listed on the City Listing; Manage and Kleen-up. For more information, see http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/searchProdMore.cfm?key=27295 • Public Works Staff has indicated that they have significantly reduced the use of chemical pesticides since the REAC review started and they report that attempts are being made to use the least toxic chemicals. However, while limiting their use, the city continues to use some chemicals that have been classified as Category I and II, and a few others that are in the Category III and IV as to acute toxicity, but have been classified as “likely carcinogens” or for which sufficient information is not available on long term effects. • Public Works Staff indicates that they have fully adopted Integrated Pest Management (IPM). • Integrated Pest Management (IPM) definition. As defined in a report on school compliance with the Maryland IPM-In School legislation Integrated Pest Management 8/14/2007 9
  • 10. (IPM) is a pest management system of prevention, monitoring and control that eliminates or mitigates economic and health damage caused by pests while minimizing the use of pesticides and their associated health risks. IPM does this through a combination of practices such as site or pest inspections, pest population monitoring, and evaluating the need for pest control. Pest control methods include sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and living biological controls, other non-chemical methods. As defined in the “Maryland IPM in Schools Legislation”, only when nontoxic options are exhausted or shown to be unreasonable, may the use of the use of the least toxic chemical pesticides be considered. • While the Public Works Staff are following Best Practice guidelines for application and use of pesticides as required by law and directed in industry manuals, REAC was not made aware that Greenbelt has a written statement concerning adoption of and definition of IPM implementation in Greenbelt. • Integrated Pest Management suffers from not being specifically defined and implementation can range from infrequent use of chemical pesticides as a last resort to more frequent pesticide use with much less caution. This issue was recently noted with reference to the study of compliance with Maryland In-School Pesticide law that directs schools to use IPM. As defined in that legislation, pesticides should only be after all other alternatives had been tried. • It is not clear that the understanding of IPM adopted by the City of Greenbelt is that indicated in the Maryland School law that requires that pesticides be used only when other alternatives have been tried and found not to be effective. • The city contracts for a substantial portion of lawn care. The city currently has two contracts with TruGreen (formerly known as ChemLawn). According to Public Works Staff, the city does not have pesticide use in the lawn care contract. When pesticides are needed in turf areas, the City does the application. However, Trugreen is allowed to use a glyphosate product (like Roundup) to spot spray weeds in the landscape contract (median landscaping on Mandan, Hanover, Cherrywood and Breezewood). Trugreen uses Manage for control of nutsedge- as Public Works Staff note that it cannot be controlled by other means such as hand weeding. It should be noted that Manage contains Oryzalin (EPA number 72167-15-74477) as an active ingredient and that this product has been deemed by EPA as likely to be a carcinogenic to humans in the 1999 USEPA Cancer Risk Category. • Greenbelt is a recognized leader in city beautification, promotion of native plants and other positive landscaping practices. Largely due to resource restraints and perceived levels of citizen expectations for aesthetics of land care, the Public Works Staff has indicated that the elimination of chemical pesticides use would create problems for the city as described in their “Pesticide Summary.” 8/14/2007 10
  • 11. 2.2.3 Pesticide Use by Residents and Businesses of Greenbelt As the City Summary Report prepared by Public Works Staff demonstrates, City use of pesticides is limited, and is being reduced. However, use by citizens and businesses for lawn control in all probability is a greater problem in terms of health risks and environmental degradation. At this time, REAC has limited information on pesticide use by private citizens, GHI, condominiums and apartments, businesses and other governmental entities in and around Greenbelt. We note, however, that over the past year, GHI has made notable efforts in environmental stewardship through hiring an environmental land care manager, through efforts of the Woodlands Committee, and the newly formed Sustainability Committee in fostering planting of Native Plants and moving toward more sustainable practices of land care. GHI has recently sponsored purchase and installing of rain barrels and has prepared a brochure on rain gardens sent to cooperative members. 2.3 Step Three: Reframe the Problem to Help Decide What REAC Needs to Do • The material above documents the recognized health hazards to humans and wildlife of pesticide use. It also documents the Cities’ expressed adherence to IPM, and also their perceived need to continue limited use of certain chemical pesticides for aesthetic, plant health, safety and resource reasons. Given this knowledge, what is the best recommendation for REAC to make with regard to the City use of pesticides? • The prevalence of pesticide use by private residents and businesses is unknown to REAC. Given that residents and businesses cover a larger area than that covered by the City Staff, and pesticide use may well be more prevalent and uninformed among residents than by the City, it is clear that resident and business pesticide usage could well be a large threat to health and environment. The question is what needs to be done in this regard? • Can a third way be found that will address the aesthetic, health, safety and resource concerns of the City as well as the health and safety concerns raised by citizens and environmental groups? 2.4 Step Four: Assess Alternatives---How Have Other Communities Addressed the Issues? What Are the Possible Alternatives? Greenbelt is not unique in struggling with this issue. In this section, we include information on 4 topics that discuss alternative ways of approaching the issues. • Examples of what has been done in Canada on the pesticide issue • Examples from two US municipalities (Marin County CA; and Marblehead MA) • The Maryland IPM In School Legislation 8/14/2007 11
  • 12. Organic Pest Management (OPM) and the Organic Land Care movement 2.4.1 Examples from Canada: Bans, Phase Outs, and Public Education • Bans and Phase Outs. Within Canada, as of 2006, about 70 municipalities, covering about two-thirds of the population, have passed by-laws prohibiting the use of pesticides for cosmetic reasons within their communities. These include major cities such as Toronto, London and Montreal, as well as smaller jurisdictions such Hudson and, Port Mooney. An example of such a by-law (Toronto) is presented in Appendix F. These by-laws have been challenged in the courts in Canada by the pesticide industry. TruGreen-Chemlawn was a major sponsor of these challenges. Recently Canada's top court upheld Toronto's pesticide ban by refusing to hear an appeal brought by pesticide industry. Toronto's City Council passed a by-law in 2003 outlawing cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens. Much earlier the Canadian courts in a case involving the town of Hudson ruled: “it is not necessary for municipalities to prove or decide that it has proven the exact health effects of pesticides. That there is cause for concern and that it is considered prudent to reduce pesticide exposure is sufficient to pass a by-law controlling pesticides in the community.” • These by-laws do not outlaw all pesticide use, but have clearly defined exceptions to the ban. • Toronto and other municipalities have usually taken an approach of phasing in the prohibitions over time and combined the ordinance with educational work. In the case of Toronto, polling of residents found that most residents did not use pesticides, however enough used lawn and garden pesticides that the effects were measurable in the urban streams in the spring and summer. Toronto found that a large majority of even those residents currently using pesticides were in favor of the ban. The by-laws provided the impetus to actually change the behavioral norms for accepted and desirable landscaping behavior. • In 2004, a best practice review was done to assess the effectiveness of the by-laws and educational campaigns in pesticide reduction as measured by surveys and sales of pesticides. The study included 62 communities, and an in-depth study of results in 9 communities, including 3 in the United States and 2 in Europe. The remainder was in Canada. The study concluded that: Only those communities that passed a by- law and supported it with education or made a community agreement were successful in reducing the use of pesticides by a high degree (51-90%) (see summary table below). Education and outreach programs alone, while more popular than by-laws, are far less effective. We could find none that have achieved more than a low reduction (10- 24%) in pesticide use to date. (The Impact of By-Laws and Public Education Programs on Reducing the Cosmetic/Non-Essential, Residential Use of Pesticides: A Best Practice Review. Kassirer Jay, Koswan, and Wolnick Chris. Jointly prepared by the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention and Cullbridge Marketing and Communications, March 2004). 8/14/2007 12
  • 13. They also found that controversy itself resulted in reduced use. For example, the publicity around the Hudson legal challenge led to large reductions in pesticide use, prior to the favorable court decision. The Executive summary is included in appendix G. The complete report can be found at: http://www.c2p2online.com/documents/Jay_Kassirer.pdf 2.4.2 Mandating and Defining Integrated Pest Management (IPM)- --Maryland IPM In-Schools Legislation In 1998 and 1999, the Maryland State Legislature passed legislation that mandated that schools in Maryland follow and an IPM program and that “pesticides are only to be considered as an option when non-toxic options are unreasonable or have been exhausted, in order to a) minimize the use of pesticides and b) minimize the risk to human health and the environment associated with pesticide applications.” The law also mandates including potential adverse health effects from exposure to the pesticides in the notices provided to parents/guardians and employees prior to applications and after emergency applications of pesticides. According to the Maryland Pesticide Network report, Are We Passing the Grade? Assessing MD Schools’ Compliance with IPM-In-Schools Law, published in 2004) implementation has been mixed and confused by a manual that did not track well to the legislation especially the definition of IPM in the 8/14/2007 13
  • 14. legislation. Specifically they noted that schools were not properly instructed to exhaust all other alternatives before using pesticides and to enact the strict notification provisions. However, they note that some school systems such as Ann Arundal and Montgomery are examples of successful implementation. As described in Safer Schools, a National Report, published in April 2003: Richard Stack, IPM supervisor for Montgomery County schools, coordinates one of the nation’s longest running school IPM programs...He believes that “pesticides are 99% unnecessary.” The IPM crew for these schools removes hornet nests manually, catches rodents in traps instead of relying on pesticides, and uses vacuum cleaners to eliminate small insect pests. School building and cafeteria staff receive annual training regarding the IPM-in- Schools program, and each school is monitored at least twice monthly for pest issues and IPM compliance, a process involving intensive inspection of food service areas, trash rooms, loading docks, and interviews with building services managers. The Montgomery schools program has succeeded largely because of preventive measures taken by the schools, including sanitation, heat treatment, sand blasting, biological management, and pest exclusion. The schools have altered storage practices, storage shelving designs, and food inspection practices in order to prevent pests on school grounds and in school buildings.(As presented in: Are We Passing the Grade? Assessing MD Schools’ Compliance with IPM-In-Schools Law, September 2004) The report notes that in addition to adherence to the legal instructions with regard to IPM “Education in the form of workshops, training sessions, and written materials is an essential component of an IPM program for everyone from administrators, teachers, maintenance, personnel, cafeteria staff and nurses to parents and students. Regular monitoring, record keeping, and evaluation are also necessary to guarantee a successful IPM.” 2.4.3 Other Innovative US Ordinances Within the United States, there are fewer communities that have adopted laws such as Canada; however there are a number of jurisdictions that have passed pesticide legislation. We note two below. • Marin County California, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) legislation passed in 1998 includes specific goals for reduction in pesticide use from 1997 (by 75 percent by the year 2004) and also not using pesticides unless other alternatives are tried. • A more recent example (2005), is that of a small town in Massachusetts-- Marblehead–a town in which the Department of Health has mandated Organic Pest Management (OPM) for city property. A copy of their ordinance is included in Appendix H. This legislation is notable in that it embraces a positive alternative, rather than simply a ban as most of the Canadian legislation does. 8/14/2007 14
  • 15. 2.4.4 The Organic Pest Management and the Organic Land Care Movement in Landscaping As defined in the Marblehead legislation: Organic Pest Management is a problem-solving strategy that prioritizes a natural, organic approach to turf grass and landscape management without the use of toxic pesticides. It mandates the use of natural, organic cultural practices that promote healthy soil and plant life as a preventative measure against the onset of turf and landscape pest problems. Essential OPM practices include, but are not limited to: • regular soil testing; • addition of approved soil amendments as necessitated by soil test results, following, but not limited to, the recommendations of NOFA/Mass (Northeast Organic Farmers’ Association/Mass) and/or the Organic Material Review Institute of Eugene, OR; • selection of plantings using criteria of hardiness; suitability to native conditions; drought, disease and pest-resistance; and ease of maintenance; • modification of outdoor management practices to comply with organic horticultural science, including scouting, monitoring, watering, mowing, pruning, proper spacing, and mulching; • the use of physical controls, including hand-weeding and over-seeding; • the use of biological controls, including the introduction of natural predators, and enhancement of the environment of a pest’s natural enemies; • through observation, determining the most effective treatment time, based on pest biology and other variables, such as weather and local conditions; and eliminating pest habitats and conditions supportive of pest population increases. Organic Land Care. Recently in the United States and Canada, there have been efforts to apply organic farming principles and standards to urban and suburban land care and management. The Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) and SOUL (Society of Organic Urban Land Care) have developed organic land care standards and also have developed educational and certification programs for land care professionals. They noted that the landscape industry is undergoing rapid change as it responds to a growing demand for organic practices. • The Northeast Organic Farming Association Organic Land Care Committee for Connecticut and Massachusetts has prepared a set of standards for organic land care. REAC has a copy of these standards. They have also prepared a Citizens Guide that can be downloaded and they offer periodic courses that can result in certification for landscape professionals. They also maintain a listing of certified land care professionals on their web site and there are two listings from Maryland on the site http://www.organiclandcare.net/about.php 8/14/2007 15
  • 16. Within their Citizens Guide they note: “The guiding principle of organic land care is ecological stewardship.’ They note: The watchword, as in the ancient medical tradition, is “First, do no harm.” This applies to many aspects of the health of the land and the people living on it. One of the most harmful practices to be avoided is the use of synthetic chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers. Important objectives of organic land care include: Working with natural systems to enhance biological cycles rather than seeking to dominate them; Maintaining and improving the long-term health of soils; Avoiding pollution when creating or caring for landscapes (NOFA, Citizens Guide to Organic Land Care 2004). • The CT-Mass NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care cover all aspects of land care, including: site analysis, soil health, fertilizers and soil amendments, planting and plant care, lawn and lawn alternatives, invasive plants, weeds, mulches, pest management, wildlife management, and disease control. • For each of these areas, the standards include an overview and management practices that are designated as preferred, allowed, or prohibited. Preferred practices and materials are those considered to be ecologically appropriate and in accordance with the goals of organic land care. Allowed practices and materials are acceptable when needed but should be reduced in favor of the preferred alternatives. Prohibited practices and materials are not acceptable in organic land care. • According to the SOUL website: “Organic land care practices go beyond Integrated Pest Management (IPM), beyond the use of so-called organic fertilizers and pesticides. They acknowledge the concept of intrinsic health, and seek to create environments that cater to the well-being of all their inhabitants. Organic land care professionals know that they are but stewards of the land, and can at best hope to work WITH nature, never to dominate it.” • SOUL Certified Organic Land Care Professionals are certified to have the knowledge and experience to provide Organic Land Care according to the SOUL Organic Land Care Standard. The SOUL Organic Land Care Standard was developed to define the practice of Organic Land Care for the public and for professionals in the industry. This standard clarifies the term "organic", and is intended to protect the public from misleading claims and practices. http://www.organiclandcare.org/certification/index.php • In addition to the NOFA courses, Gaia College offers on-line programs in organic land management. More information can be obtained at the site below. http://www.organic-land-care.com/Gaia_College/programs/land_care/index.php • In addition, The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns periodically offers an on- line/telephone lunch time course entitled-- Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers. This three-part teleconference explains the Simple Steps to beginning an organic turf program and will cover the basic concepts, methods, and materials needed to get started. The training is geared toward school or park and recreation officials, however landscapers interested in transitioning are encouraged to attend (see appendix I) for more information. 8/14/2007 16
  • 17. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Step Five: Determine the Course of Action and Recommendations Step five involves taking all the information collected thus far to determine what needs to be done in the specific issues before the working group? Is there a need to change or modify the behaviors that were the cause of the initial concern? What is the best way to do this? What does the weight of evidence lead to in terms of a course of action? Thanks to the dedication of City Staff and high levels of citizen interest, REAC has concluded that Greenbelt is in a position to be an innovative leader in Maryland in the efforts to promote the health of its citizens and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed by endorsing and promoting best practice land care stewardship throughout Greenbelt. We urge the City Council to do so in as many ways as possible. 3.2 Specific Recommendations to Council The following are 12 concrete steps, some with performance goals, which REAC urges the City of Greenbelt to act upon in a timely manner. These recommendations have grown out of our two-year review of pesticide use and its alternatives. REAC recommends that: Adoption of Organic Land Care Standards and Organic Pest Management (OPM) for Care of Public Lands and Phasing out of chemical pesticides by 2010 1. City Council set a goal for Greenbelt of meeting the Northeast Organic Farming Association Standards for Organic Land Care and adopting a program of Organic Pest Management (OPM) for all public lands of Greenbelt by January 2010. A copy of these standards has been provided to city staff. 2. City Council set a goal of phasing out the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides on public lands by 2010 and providing City staff with adequate resources to do so. By cosmetic use is meant any use other than the direct protection of the public and environmental health. Organic Land Care and Pesticide Use Monitoring Group 3. City Council instruct REAC to establish a citizen Organic Land Care and Pesticide Use Working and Monitoring Group that will be tasked with supporting and monitoring the implementation of Organic Land Care practices within the city. Every two years this group would review the City’s progress in phasing out the cosmetic use of pesticides by the City and substitution of Organic Pest Management and Organic Land Care. 8/14/2007 17
  • 18. Formal Written Policies and Procedures for Organic Land Care for City Staff and Contractors 4. City staff develop formal written policy and procedures with regard to pesticide use by Public Works staff that is consistent with goals noted above of meeting Organic Land Care and Organic Pest Management standards and the “pesticide as the last resort” guideline as defined in the Maryland Integrated Pest Management in Schools legislation in its’ implementation of IPM. 5. The City require best Organic Pest Management and Organic Land Care practices among its contractors, and should include clauses in contracts requiring use of Organic Pest Management and Organic Land Care. The City should favor local businesses whenever possible. Citizen Right to Know 6. City staff be required to report to the public on a yearly basis the brand names, listed ingredients, EPA ratings, planned locations, and amount and frequency of use of any pesticides applied to public lands within Greenbelt by the city staff or city contractors, and that this be publicized in a widely read publication, such as the News Review, well ahead of dates of application. City Staff Training and Professional Development 7. Council provide funding for adequate training and professional development in Organic Land Care methods for city staff such as the organic land care certification programs now offered by the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NPFA), Society for Organic Urban Land Care (SOUL), and other groups. Partnerships with Other Government Entities, Local Businesses, and Citizen Groups 8. The city of Greenbelt partner wherever possible with: federal, state, other local government entities, national and local environmental and watershed groups; and other interested civic groups in obtaining funding, technical support, and volunteers to help achieve the goal of Organic Land Care for Greenbelt by 2010. A Comprehensive Study of All of Greenbelt’s Impact--with Metrics and assessment of what Must be Done to Reduce Pollution and Restore Health of the Chesapeake Bay. 9. REAC recommends that the City seek funding and/or volunteers to conduct comprehensive study designed to assess impact from Greenbelt upon the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and develop specific goals, metrics, and practices that will be necessary to reduce the on-going environmental degradation. As noted in the body of this report, The Chesapeake Bay has been described as a “system in crisis,” and on a per acre basis the urban areas have been estimated to contribute 7 times the pollution into the Bay as rural areas. 10. The study should also address the impact of land care practices and pesticide use by private citizens and businesses within Greenbelt. REAC was able to find little information about the extent of pesticide and chemical fertilizer use by residents and businesses. As we proceeded, we became convinced that addressing citizen use on private property must be a significant part of any effort to reduce usage. The study might also access public support for 8/14/2007 18
  • 19. policies or legislation that would prohibit pesticide use for cosmetic purposes. The city should also seek counsel concerning the legality of legislation such as the Canadian By-laws against cosmetic use of pesticides within Maryland. Public Outreach and Education Campaign 11. The City and partners engage in a strong public education campaign designed to inform residents of Bay friendly and Organic Land Care, and to provide interested citizens with knowledge of alternatives to pesticide use. Outreach and education tools include: household brochures, workshops, Greenbelt Recreation Department courses, and experimental community demonstration gardens. Appreciation, Encouragement, and Rewards for City Staff 12. City staff be given appreciation, encouragement, and rewards for their efforts to transition the city to Organic land Care and help to restore the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Thanks to the efforts of dedicated city staff, Greenbelt is known for its beautiful gardens, and hopefully will soon be known as a leader and innovator in the area of Organic Land Care. 3.3 Step Six: Monitor and Follow Up No matter what action is taken, it is critical to monitor that activity over time to identify expected and unexpected results. All of the recommendations noted above should be monitored and follow-up should be incorporated into the actions. 8/14/2007 19
  • 20. Appendix A---Summary Report by Greenbelt Public Works Staff PESTICIDE SUMMARY Pesticides are not used routinely on the majority of City-managed property and there has been a significant reduction in the variety, toxicity, and amount of pesticides used by City crews over the last 10 years. For example: • Less than 10% (estimate) of the 450 acres of developed parkland and landscape areas are treated with pesticides annually. • Less than 1% (estimate) of the 7,300 street trees maintained by city crews are treated with pesticides annually. • Less than 5% (estimate) of the 27 miles of rights of way are treated with pesticides annually. • Less than 25% (estimate) of the 70 acres of turf/ballfields are treated with pesticides annually. This year because of a severe grub infestation 75% of fields were treated. At Schrom Hills Park alone, we estimate over 50% of the turf was killed. When pesticides are used, they are part of an integrated program of controls, known as “Integrated Pest Management,” which encourages use of non-chemical approaches - such as physical, mechanical, and biological – over chemical. The City horticulture staff is very familiar with the theories, practices and processes of IPM which have been used by the City of Greenbelt for many years. Management strategies of IPM will vary from one situation to another, location to location, and year to year, based on changes in pest populations. IPM focuses on developing an understanding of and an ability to monitor the grounds ecosystem, and addresses topics such as weed and insect identification, pest monitoring, and how to protect pests’ natural enemies. The following details provide an overview of general pesticide application practices (following IPM) for those sites where pesticides are used: • Pesticides are applied by or under close supervision of a certified pesticide applicator. (The City currently has four Certified Pesticide Applicators and an additional four Registered Pesticide Applicators. The State of MD trains, tests and registers Certified Pesticide Applicators. Registered Pesticide Applicators are trained and tested in-house by Certified Pesticide Applicators and are registered with the State. The Registered Pesticide Applicators are supervised by Certified Pesticide Applicators.) • Pesticides are only applied when weather conditions permit. • Low-toxicity pesticides are used. • Pesticide applicators receive annual re-certification training and additional integrated pest management training. • Pesticide applications are accompanied by public notification (signs). • Pesticide inventories and pesticide application records are kept. The City primarily purchases Category III pesticides in an effort to use the least toxic option for each control issue. To further reduce pesticide use, the horticultural staff now uses a large volume of organic controls (nematodes, beneficial fungal and bacterial products, mulching in 8/14/2007 20
  • 21. lieu of pre-emergent herbicides) and is evaluating ways to expand uses of these controls. (Pesticides have not been used in City playgrounds since Spring 2005. Weeds have been controlled through heavy mulching – and changing of mulch when weeds do appear.) Bill Phelan, Assistant Director of Public Works, authorizes both the purchasing of all pesticides and the application of all pesticides by the horticultural staff. A chart is attached detailing all pesticides used by the City. Pesticide Free Cities There are a number of cities in Europe and Canada and a few cities in the United States (primarily in the northwest) that are “pesticide free”. However, after researching the cities in the US, they have not totally eliminated the use of pesticide but have only designated certain parks and playgrounds as “pesticide free.” There are a number of things that are still treated in the pesticide free parks when needed: • Infestation of noxious weeds that cannot be mowed or controlled by other means. • Sprays to control wasp and hornet nests around restrooms and shelters. • Treatment of stagnant water to control mosquito larva. • Treatment of over population of pests such as grubs, cutworms, ticks and bagworms when alternate means have not controlled the problem and further infestation will cause significant damage. If pesticide use was eliminated in city-maintained parks, playgrounds, ballfields, landscape beds, it would be a major challenge for us to keep the same level of citizen satisfaction in the appearance of the parks with these new policies. Even with using best practices and alternative means of control, we feel labor cost would need to increase significantly to keep up with weeding landscape beds and replacement of diseased plant materials, additional equipment will need to be purchased, and some landscape areas will need to be redesigned. It would also require additional dollars to be spent on alternative product purchases. As an example, treating grubs in turf with nematodes is several times more expensive than treatment with the products currently being used and has a much greater chance of failing to control the grubs. There are significant concerns that our inability to use pesticides may reduce the quality of our parks and could threaten the long-term health of the City’s parks, trees, shrubs and flowers. 8/14/2007 21
  • 22. PLAYGROUNDS Playgrounds Equip. Maint. Landscaping Mowing 1 court Crescent City City Contract 2 court Northway City City Contract 3 court Gardenway City City Contract 14 court Laurel Hill City City Contract 54 court Crescent City City Contract Community Center City City Contract Greenbriar Park City City Contract Ivy & Lastner City City Contract SHL Comm. Ctr. City Contract Contract St. Hugh’s City City Contract 1 court Southway City City Contract 2 court Southway City City Contract 5 court Gardenway City City Contract 39 court Ridge City City Contract 73 court Ridge City City Contract Buddy Attick Park City City City Fayette Place City City Contract GreenSpring Park City Contract Contract Plateau & Ridge City City Contract Schrom Hills Park City City City Westway City City Contract 2 court Laurel Hill City GHI GHI 4 court Plateau City GHI GHI 8 court Southway City GHI GHI 38 court Ridge City GHI GHI 2 court Research City GHI GHI 7 court Southway City GHI GHI 12 court Hillside City GHI GHI 44 court Ridge City GHI GHI Greenwood Village City Greenwood Greenwood 7128 Ora Glen Court City Windsor Green Windsor Green 7251 South Ora Ct. City Windsor Green Windsor Green 7854 Jacobs Drive City Windsor Green Windsor Green 7230 Mandan Road City Windsor Green Windsor Green 7356 Frankfort Dr. City Windsor Green Windsor Green 8301 Canning Terr. City Windsor Green Windsor Green The City has not used chemicals on playgrounds since Spring of 2005. Weeds have been controlled by heavy application of engineered wood fibers – or removal of old surfacing and weeds and replacement with new surfacing when weeds are too numerous to hand pull. However, specific problems could develop in the future and it may be necessary to treat playgrounds with chemicals; i.e. insect infestation of trees. 8/14/2007 22
  • 23. BALLFIELDS & LANDSCAPE AREAS Landscaping/ Maintenance Mowing Ballfields Braden Field City City Northway Field City City Schrom Hills City City Mandan Road City City McDonald Field City City Landscape Beds Windsor Green City & Contract Contract Springhill Lake City & Contract Contract Greenbriar City & Contract Contract Greenbrook Estates City & Contract Contract Schrom Hills City City Buddy Attick Park City City Glen Oaks City & Contract Contract Hanover – Bus. Side City & Contract Contract Includes 2 circles Southway City Contract Includes 193@Sway beds Underpasses Hillside Underpass City Contract Gardenway City Contract Underpass Library Underpass City Contract Roosevelt Center City Contract Underpass Facilities Community Center City Contract Youth Center City Contract Police Facility City Contract Public Works City Contract City Office Bldg. City Contract Museum City Contract Springhill Lake Rec City & Contract Contract Buddy Attick Park City City Schrom Hills City City 8/14/2007 23
  • 24. PESTICIDES USED BY THE CITY All pesticides are grouped by the EPA into one of four categories based on acute toxicity. Category I is the most toxic and category IV the least toxic. Category III and IV- Slightly Toxic to Relatively Non-Toxic Chemical Current Use Option to Chemical *Frequency Size of Type of Area and of Use Treatment Area Treated Signal Word Manage Selective control No effective treatment Limited Less than 1,000 Landscape beds Caution of nutsedge available sf. Dipel Pro Pest control on Insecticidal soaps – 50% Rare 10,000 sf. – Street Trees (Organic) ornamentals efficiency 25,000 sf. Caution Beneficial insects/ remove & replace plants Merit Pest control in Beneficial nematodes in Turf- rare >100,000 sq ft of Ballfields, Caution turf and turf- not always Ornamentals- turf treated this Azaleas, German ornamentals effective. Limited year due to heavy Irises, some Replace ornamentals infestations in daylilies with resistant varieties ballfield turf Mach2 Pest control in Beneficial nematodes in One time >100,000 sq ft Ballfields Caution turf turf- not always treated this year effective. due to heavy infestations in ballfield turf Bayleton Fungal control Remove and replace One Time 1,000 sf. – 9,999 Hawthorne trees Caution on ornamentals trees, shrubs & flowers sf. for severe Quince rust Princep Pre-emergent Hand weeding Rare Less than 1,000 Tree & shrub Caution vegetation Corn gluten- sf. beds where control tried/ineffective weeds are out of control Acclaim Post emergent Hand remove (Used for One Time 1,000 sf. – 9,999 Ballfields Caution grass control crabgrass and sf. goosegrass) Snapshot Pre-emergent Hand weeding Rare 1,000 sf. – 9,999 Landscape beds Caution vegetation Corn gluten- sf. where weeds are control tried/ineffective out of control Roundup Non-selective Torch type machine n/a Not currently used Landscape beds, Pro vegetation (Propane Burner), because Kleenup Sidewalk crack control horticultural vinegar- Pro is same weeds, Post Emergent neither kills the root product at ½ the Infields of cost ballfields * Frequency of Use: Limited - Specific areas treated as needed approximately 1-2 times annually. Rare – Specific areas treated as needed less than one time per year. One Time – Specific weed problems treated one time within past 20 years. At some point specific problem may reappear and another treatment may be required. 8/14/2007 24
  • 25. Category II- Moderately Toxic (The three products used in this category have oral and dermal toxicities in the category III &IV range, but eye contact with the straight chemical will cause substantial damage) Chemical Current Use Option to Chemical *Frequency Size of Type of Area and of Use Treatment Area Treated Signal Word Finale Post emergent None (Only used for Rare Less than 1,000 Landscape beds Warning- vegetation horsetails) This weed sf. eye control has a severe root system contact and cannot be hand causes pulled.) substantial damage Dimension Pre-emergent Hand remove One Time 50,000 sf. Used once at Warning - turf control Mandan Field eye contact causes substantial damage **Kleen- Non-selective Torch type machine Limited > 100,000 sf. Landscape beds, up Pro vegetation (Propane Burner), Sidewalk crack Warning control horticultural vinegar- weeds, Post Emergent neither kill the root Infields of ballfields ** Kleen-up is a product with the same chemical composition as Round-Up Pro, but it contains a different surfactant. Our best guess is that the surfactant in Kleenup is different and causes eye irritation, which would create a need for a Warning label. 8/14/2007 25
  • 26. Category I- Highly Toxic (The two products used in this category have oral and dermal toxicities in the category III &IV range, but eye contact with the straight chemical will cause irreversible damage.) Chemical Current Use Option to Chemical *Frequency Size of Type of Area and Signal of Use Treatment Treated Word Area Confront Selective Hand pull them- Limited 50,000 sf. – Turf and Danger- control of Corn Gluten- 100,000 sf. Ballfields eye contact broadleaf expensive and not can cause weeds in turf reliably effective irreversible damage. Garlon 3a Used to treat Hand pull/backhoe- limited Less than 1000 Landscape Danger- cut stumps of difficult and time sf Beds to kill eye contact weed trees or consuming large weed can cause shrubs trees primarily irreversible by painting cut damage. stumps *Frequency of Use: Limited - Specific areas treated as needed approximately 1-2 times annually. Rare – Specific areas treated as needed less than one time per year. One Time – Specific weed problems treated one time within past 20 years. At some point specific problem may reappear and another treatment may be required. 8/14/2007 26
  • 27. Appendix B--ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS SUMMARY Report 8/14/2007 27
  • 28. 8/14/2007 28
  • 29. 8/14/2007 29
  • 30. Appendix C—SAMPLE PESTICIDE LABEL 8/14/2007 30
  • 31. Appendix D---EPA CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY Source: http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/cancerRiskCat.cfm The EPA evaluates chemical carcinogenicity using data from many types of studies. • Most of the cancer risk information currently available is in the form of scientific results from studies of laboratory animals, such as rats or mice. • Other types of laboratory studies done at a smaller scale, such as individual cells, provide information about a chemical's ability to damage DNA or promote tumor growth. • Results from studies of groups of people exposed to certain chemicals, such as in the workplace or a community, may provide additional valuable information about a chemical's potential to cause cancer. For many chemicals, however, no human data are available, so we must rely on data from laboratory and animal studies. Information on the species of laboratory animal tested, and the tumor types observed, provides some information about the extent to which the chemical may be carcinogenic. This information is just part of the total information EPA uses to estimate cancer risk. Other information from human studies and laboratory analyses is not currently available from EPA for use in the Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk database. EPA's cancer risk classification systems and categories In classifying the cancer risk of a particular chemical, EPA uses a combination of all of these types of evidence to arrive at a cancer risk category. EPA's cancer risk assessment methods have changed over the years to accommodate new scientific understanding. As a result, the four EPA cancer risk classification systems cannot be combined or used interchangeably due to the different methods used. Pesticide products Cancer risk categories do not apply directly to pesticide products. Rather, cancer risk information pertaining to the product's active ingredient(s) can be used in combination with other information to estimate potential risk. • Estimating the cancer-causing potential of a specific pesticide product involves many factors, such as the amount of active ingredient contained in the product, the application methods and rates used, proper use of personal protective equipment, and frequency and degree of exposure to the pesticide over time. • Current federal pesticide labeling laws require pesticide manufacturers to include only acute (short-term), and not chronic (long-term) health risk information on pesticide labels. Therefore, product-specific cancer risk information is not available. • Some states, such as California and Massachusetts, require that pesticides sold in those states carry labels specifying whether or not the product's active ingredients have been identified as health hazards, such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, etc. Other states may include this information on their labels as well. 8/14/2007 31
  • 32. Using RED documents and other pesticide review information Re-registration Eligibility Decision, or 'RED', documents are risk assessment reports done by EPA to determine whether or not to continue the registration of older pesticide products. Older pesticides (those first registered before 1984) must be re-evaluated by EPA to ensure that they meet current health and safety standards. RED documents are publicly available and are included process. This process, which will take effect October 10, 2006, was established to ensure that all pesticides distributed and sold in the U.S. (not just older pesticides or those used on food crops) will be re- evaluated on a periodic basis to ensure they meet current health and safety standards. For more information, see Pesticide Registration. As pesticides are reviewed as part of this process, risk information will be added to the Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database as it becomes available. 2005 USEPA Cancer Risk Classification The following descriptors from the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment can be used as an introduction to the weight of evidence narrative in the cancer risk assessment. The examples presented in the discussion of the descriptors are illustrative. The examples are neither a checklist nor a limitation for the descriptor. The complete weight of evidence narrative, rather than the descriptor alone, provides the conclusions and the basis for them. Carcinogenic to Humans This descriptor indicates strong evidence of human carcinogenicity. It covers different combinations of evidence. • This descriptor is appropriate when there is convincing epidemiologic evidence of a causal association between human exposure and cancer. • Exceptionally, this descriptor may be equally appropriate with a lesser weight of epidemiologic evidence that is strengthened by other lines of evidence. It can be used when all of the following conditions are met: a. there is strong evidence of an association between human exposure and either cancer or the key precursor events of the agent's mode of action but not enough for a causal association, and b. there is extensive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, and c. the mode(s) of carcinogenic action and associated key precursor events have been identified in animals, and d. there is strong evidence that the key precursor events that precede the cancer response in animals are anticipated to occur in humans and progress to tumors, based on available biological information. In this case, the narrative includes a summary of both the experimental and epidemiologic information on mode of action and also an indication of the relative weight that each source of information carries, e.g., based on human information, based on limited human and extensive animal experiments. Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of the evidence is adequate to demonstrate carcinogenic potential to humans but does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor "Carcinogenic to Humans." Adequate evidence consistent with this descriptor covers a broad spectrum. As stated previously, the use of the term "likely" as a weight of evidence descriptor does not correspond to a quantifiable probability. The examples below are meant to represent the broad range of data combinations that are covered by this descriptor; they are illustrative and provide neither a checklist nor a limitation for the data that might support 8/14/2007 32
  • 33. use of this descriptor. Moreover, additional information, e.g., on mode of action, might change the choice of descriptor for the illustrated examples. Supporting data for this descriptor may include: • an agent demonstrating a plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer, in most cases with some supporting biological, experimental evidence, though not necessarily carcinogenicity data from animal experiments; • an agent that has tested positive in animal experiments in more than one species, sex, strain, site, or exposure route, with or without evidence of carcinogenicity in humans; • a positive tumor study that raises additional biological concerns beyond that of a statistically significant result, for example, a high degree of malignancy, or an early age at onset; • a rare animal tumor response in a single experiment that is assumed to be relevant to humans; or • a positive tumor study that is strengthened by other lines of evidence, for example, either plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer or evidence that the agent or an important metabolite causes events generally known to be associated with tumor formation (such as DNA reactivity or effects on cell growth control) likely to be related to the tumor response in this case. Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of evidence is suggestive of carcinogenicity; a concern for potential carcinogenic effects in humans is raised, but the data are judged not sufficient for a stronger conclusion. This descriptor covers a spectrum of evidence associated with varying levels of concern for carcinogenicity, ranging from a positive cancer result in the only study on an agent to a single positive cancer result in an extensive database that includes negative studies in other species. Depending on the extent of the database, additional studies may or may not provide further insights. Some examples include: • a small, and possibly not statistically significant, increase in tumor incidence observed in a single animal or human study that does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans." The study generally would not be contradicted by other studies of equal quality in the same population group or experimental system (see discussions of conflicting evidence and differing results, below); • a small increase in a tumor with a high background rate in that sex and strain, when there is some but insufficient evidence that the observed tumors may be due to intrinsic factors that cause background tumors and not due to the agent being assessed. (When there is a high background rate of a specific tumor in animals of a particular sex and strain, then there may be biological factors operating independently of the agent being assessed that could be responsible for the development of the observed tumors.) In this case, the reasons for determining that the tumors are not due to the agent are explained; • evidence of a positive response in a study whose power, design, or conduct limits the ability to draw a confident conclusion (but does not make the study fatally flawed), but where the carcinogenic potential is strengthened by other lines of evidence (such as structure-activity relationships); or • a statistically significant increase at one dose only, but no significant response at the other doses and no overall trend. 8/14/2007 33
  • 34. Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential This descriptor is appropriate when available data are judged inadequate for applying one of the other descriptors. Additional studies generally would be expected to provide further insights. Some examples include: • little or no pertinent information; • conflicting evidence, that is, some studies provide evidence of carcinogenicity but other studies of equal quality in the same sex and strain are negative. Differing results, that is, positive results in some studies and negative results in one or more different experimental systems, do not constitute conflicting evidence, as the term is used here. Depending on the overall weight of evidence, differing results can be considered either suggestive evidence or likely evidence; or • negative results that are not sufficiently robust for the descriptor, "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans." Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans This descriptor is appropriate when the available data are considered robust for deciding that there is no basis for human hazard concern. In some instances, there can be positive results in experimental animals when there is strong, consistent evidence that each mode of action in experimental animals does not operate in humans. In other cases, there can be convincing evidence in both humans and animals that the agent is not carcinogenic. The judgment may be based on data such as: • animal evidence that demonstrates lack of carcinogenic effect in both sexes in well-designed and well-conducted studies in at least two appropriate animal species (in the absence of other animal or human data suggesting a potential for cancer effects), • convincing and extensive experimental evidence showing that the only carcinogenic effects observed in animals are not relevant to humans, • convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not likely by a particular exposure route, or • convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not likely below a defined dose range. A descriptor of "not likely" applies only to the circumstances supported by the data. For example, an agent may be "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic" by one route but not necessarily by another. In those cases that have positive animal experiment(s) but the results are judged to be not relevant to humans, the narrative discusses why the results are not relevant. Multiple Descriptors More than one descriptor can be used when an agent's effects differ by dose or exposure route. For example, an agent may be "Carcinogenic to Humans" by one exposure route but "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic" by a route by which it is not absorbed. Also, an agent could be "Likely to Be Carcinogenic" above a specified dose but "Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic" below that dose because a key event in tumor formation does not occur below that dose. 8/14/2007 34
  • 35. Appendix E---EXAMPLES OF CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT Summary report on Oryzalin (EPA number 72167-15-74477) an active ingredient in the MANAGE product (first product on the city list) Cancer Risk Information 1999 USEPA Cancer Risk Category: Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans Species and Tumor Types: Multiple sites (thyroid, mammary); F344 rats (M & F). NOTE: Cancer risk classifications are specific to active ingredients, not products. To arrive at an overall health or cancer risk evaluation for a pesticide product, active ingredient cancer risk information should be used together with other risk and exposure information, such as USEPA Risk Management Decision Documents (REDs, IREDs, TREDs, and others). Summary report on ingredient Sodium Acifluorfen listed under KleenUP in the http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/turf/searchProdMore.cfm?key=272 95 data base Cancer Risk Information Other USEPA Cancer Risk Category: Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans (High Doses); Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans (Low Doses) Species and Tumor Types: Liver; B6C3F1 & CD-1 mice (M& F). NOTE: Cancer risk classifications are specific to active ingredients, not products. To arrive at an overall health or cancer risk evaluation for a pesticide product, active ingredient cancer risk information should be used together with other risk and exposure information, such as USEPA Risk Management Decision Documents (REDs, IREDs, TREDs, and others). 8/14/2007 35
  • 36. Appendix F---PESTICIDE BY-LAW OF THE CITY OF TORONTO PESTICIDES, USE OF § 612-1. Definitions. § 612-2. Restrictions. § 612-3. Offences. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 2003-05-23 by By-law No. 456-2003.1 Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES 1 Editor’s Note: This by-law was passed under the authority of section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, ch. 25. Section 2 of this by-law states that it comes into force 2004-04-01. Property standards — See Ch. 629. § 612-1. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: ENCLOSED — Closed in by a roof or ceiling and walls with an appropriate opening or openings for ingress or egress, which openings are equipped with doors which are kept closed except when actually in use for egress or ingress. HEALTH HAZARD — A pest which has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person. INFESTATION — The presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage. PEST — An animal, a plant or other organism that is injurious, noxious or troublesome, whether directly or indirectly, and an injurious, noxious or troublesome condition or organic function of an animal, a plant or other organism. PESTICIDE — Includes: A. A product, an organism or a substance that is a registered control product under the federal Pest Control Products Act which is used as a means for directly or indirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a pest or for mitigating or preventing its injurious, noxious or troublesome effects. B. Despite Subsection A, a pesticide does not include: TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE § 612-2 PESTICIDES, USE OF 612-2 2005 - 02 - 16 (1) A product that uses pheromones to lure pests, sticky media to trap pests or “quick-kill” traps for vertebrate species considered pests, such as mice and rats.(2) A product that is or contains only the following active ingredients: [Amended 2004-05-20 by By-law No. 385-2004] (a) A soap; (b) A mineral oil, also called “dormant or horticultural oil”; (c) Silicon dioxide, also called “diatomaceous earth”; (d) Biological pesticides, including Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) and nematodes; [Amended 2005-02-16 by By-law No. 121-2005] (e) Borax, also called “boric acid” or “boracic acid”; (f) Ferric phosphate; 8/14/2007 36
  • 37. (g) Acetic acid; (h) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins; (i) Fatty acids; (j) Sulphur; or (k) Corn gluten meal. § 612-2. Restrictions. A. No person shall apply or cause or permit the application of pesticides within the boundaries of the City. B. The provision set out in Subsection A does not apply when pesticides are used: (1) To disinfect swimming pools, whirlpools, spas or wading pools; (2) To purify water intended for the use of humans or animals; (3) Within an enclosed building; (4) To control termites; (5) To control or destroy a health hazard; (6) To control or destroy pests which have caused infestation to property; (7) To exterminate or repel rodents; (8) As a wood preservative; TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE PESTICIDES, USE OF § 612-3 612-3 2005 - 02 - 16 (9) As an insecticide bait which is enclosed by the manufacturer in a plastic or metal container that has been made in a way that prevents or minimizes access to the bait by humans and pets; (10) For injection into trees, stumps or wooden poles; (11) To comply with the Weed Control Act2 and the regulations made there under; or (12) As an insect repellent for personal use. § 612-3. Offences. Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, is liable to a fine or penalty provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.3 2 Editor’s Note: See R.S.O. 1990, c. W.5. 3 Editor’s Note: This section was passed under the authority of section 425 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, ch. 25, and, under section 61 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, a person convicted of an offence under this section is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. 8/14/2007 37
  • 38. Appendix G---BEST PRACTICE REVIEW SUMMARY 8/14/2007 38
  • 39. 8/14/2007 39
  • 40. 8/14/2007 40
  • 41. Appendix H-- TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD BOARD OF HEALTH ORGANIC PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Adopted: December 7, 2005 Effective: December 22, 2005 Carl D. Goodman, Esq., Chairman David B. Becker, D.M.D., M.P.H. Helaine R. Hazlett Wayne O. Attridge, Director of Public Health TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD BOARD OF HEALTH ORGANIC PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS SECTION I – FINDINGS & PURPOSE The Board of Health does hereby find that: All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the commonplace, widespread use of pesticides is both a major environmental problem and a public health issue; and All citizens, and in particular children, as well as other inhabitants of our natural environment, have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides in particular; and A balanced and healthy ecosystem is vital to the health of the town and its citizens; and as such is also in need of protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides; and 8/14/2007 41