growing trends - 48h57c2l31ua3c3fmq1ne58b … trends: successful ... munity support means that the...
TRANSCRIPT
Growing Trends
Successful Strategies for ReducingPesticides in Public Places
A Washington Toxics Coalition Report
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the leaders of all the programs profiled inthis report, for generously giving their time to provide information to us. Thanks to
Ken Steffenson for proofreading and producing the report. The following foundationssupported this project: the Russell Family Foundation, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation,
Wallace Genetic Foundation, Bullitt Foundation, C.S. Fund, the Northwest Fund for theEnvironment, Social Venture Partners, the North American Fund for Environmental
Cooperation, and The Dudley Foundation.
Authors
Philip DickeyErika SchrederAngela StoreyAustin Walters
Anne Marie Winter
Photos by and/or courtesy of Aubrey Palmer and BIRC, Philip Dickey,Erika Schreder, Austin Walters, and Thurston County staff.
The Washington Toxics Coalition is a non-profit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) organizationthat works to protect public health and the environment by preventing pollution.
Washington Toxics Coalition4649 Sunnyside Ave. N. Suite 540
Seattle, WA 98103206-632-1545
Growing Trends: Successful Strategies for Reducing Pesticides in Public Places© 2002 Washington Toxics Coalition
Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, not rebleached with chlorine compounds.
Growing TrendsGrowing TrendsGrowing TrendsGrowing TrendsGrowing Trends
Successful Strategies for ReducingPesticides in Public Places
A Washington Toxics Coalition Report
October 2002
Growing Trends
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................ 3
Chapter 1: Thurston County: A County-wide IPM Program ................... 5
Chapter 2: The City of Seattle ................................................................. 8
Chapter 3: Seattle University.................................................................. 13
Chapter 4: Bainbridge Island School District ......................................... 15
Chapter 5: Leavenworth Knapweed Control Program ............................ 17
Chapter 6: All-Organic Port of Seattle ................................................... 20
Chapter 7: Woodland Park Zoo ............................................................. 22
Chapter 8: Carl Sandburg Elementary School ........................................ 25
Chapter 9: Jefferson County’s Roadside Vegetation Program .................. 28
Chapter 10: The Good Shepherd Gardener............................................ 31
Recommendations ................................................................................. 34
Appendix A: Schools .............................................................................. 36
Appendix B: Cities, Counties, and Roadsides ......................................... 39
Appendix C: Resources .......................................................................... 45
Growing Trends
3
Introduction
When Thurston County adopted apesticide phaseout policy nearly ten yearsago, the county was truly breaking newground. The county was the first govern-ment in the state to end the use of pesticideslinked to health and environmental prob-lems and adopt safer pest managementstrategies in every part of its operations.
Today, Thurston County’s program isthriving and many more school districts,cities, counties, and other institutionshave made the decision to put publichealth and the environment first byreplacing pesticides with safer practices.We now have a growing body of landscap-ers, administrators, and structural pestspecialists that have expertise in imple-menting programs that reduce or elimi-nate reliance on toxic chemicals. Mostframe their programs with the principlesof Integrated Pest Management (IPM),which is a method that focuses on pre-venting pest problems, uses monitoringand thresholds to determine when actionis needed, and prioritizes mechanical,cultural, and biological controls overchemical controls. Least-toxic pesticidesare used as a last resort.
These government agencies and otherinstitutions have reduced their pesticideuse in response to growing evidence thatpesticides, including herbicides, insecti-cides, and other pest-control chemicals,are harmful to human health and theenvironment. Scientific studies continueto link pesticides to devastating healtheffects including cancer, harm to thenervous system, disruption of the hor-monal system, and birth defects. Recentinformation also shows that pesticideswidely contaminate the waterways of theNorthwest, and that even low levels of
pesticides can harm salmon and otheraquatic life.
Because federal and state agencies havefailed to take the actions needed toensure that pesticides that are legallyavailable are also safe, local agencies andbusinesses have taken the lead in makingsure the landscapes they manage are safefor people, water, and wildlife. Many ofthe agencies profiled in this report havestrong policies that prevent the use ofpesticides linked to serious healthproblems, water pollution, or harm tofish and wildlife. Others have adoptedpolicies to eliminate all use of pesticides.
This report profiles ten successfulprograms, including cities, counties,school districts, forest lands, and otherinstitutions. While all of these programsface ongoing challenges, they haveshown that landscapes and buildingsmaintained without pesticides can bebeautiful, functional, and sustainable.The ten case studies in this reportdescribe how these models came aboutand share their secrets on overcomingchallenges.
A number of themes emerge from thesecase studies:
Community support and involvementare crucial. The programs that havebeen the most successful over the longterm are those that were requested bymembers of the community and thathave regular public involvement. Com-munity support means that the pro-grams get public recognition and drawon the resources of the community.Regular public involvement allowsmembers of the community to monitorthe success of the program and developresources when lack of resources islimiting success.
Growing Trends
4
An ounce of prevention is worth a poundof cure. Programs that couple the use ofalternative controls such as mechanicalmethods with aggressive preventionprograms develop sustainable approachesthat do not increase resource needs. Incase after case, it is clear that appropriatedesign — for example, using native and/orpest-resistant plants in thick plantings thatcrowd out weeds — can save countlesshours of labor, provide attractive land-scapes, and reduce frustration.
Successful programs are backed bystrong policies. Policies are crucial toestablishing that eliminating the use ofthe most hazardous pesticides andreducing all pesticide use are priorities atall levels of the institution. The bestprograms are guided by a policy that hasbeen approved by the highest levels ofleadership, such as elected officials, and
implemented by staff members that arehighly motivated and well-trained. High-level support, formalized in policy, leads toconsistency in the program as well asgreater resources for implementation.
Strong leadership is essential to getprograms off the ground. Particularly ina large bureaucracy, leadership in the earlypart of implementation is critical tochange behavior by providing neededtraining and information and by develop-ing written guidelines and IPM plans.Investing resources in coordinating aprogram early-on can greatly reduce theresources needed later.
Pesticide-free landscapes are healthierand more attractive. The ten case studiesshow how plants can be maintainedwithout pesticides to result in beautifullandscapes of many kinds. From roadsideswhere native plants are used to crowd outweeds to intensively managed groundssuch as at Woodland Park Zoo or SeattleUniversity, smart design and a focus onplant health have led to very attractive,thriving landscapes that are healthy forboth people and plants.
The ten programs profiled in this reportrepresent just a handful of the manyinstitutions that have successfully reducedor eliminated pesticides in favor of saferalternatives. The report’s appendices listother successful programs, along withresources for establishing and maintainingprograms. As these case studies and otherprograms demonstrate, pesticides can besuccessfully reduced in small or largeinstitutions. Many resources are availableto ease the transition, and we hope thatthe future will bring many more examplesof landscapes and buildings that aremaintained in a healthy, sustainable way,without toxic pesticides.
What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?
Since the time that the concept of IPM was establisheddecades ago, many definitions have been developed, to thepoint that the term has been used to describe a full rangeof pest-management practices. The Washington ToxicsCoalition believes in least-toxic IPM, which focuses onprevention and non-chemical controls, and uses least-toxicchemicals as a last resort. We have adopted a definition ofIPM that was originally developed by the Bio-IntegralResource Center. We define IPM as follows:
“Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to pestcontrol that utilizes regular monitoring to determine if andwhen treatments are needed and employs physical,mechanical, cultural, biological and educational tactics tokeep pest numbers low enough to prevent intolerabledamage or annoyance. Least-toxic chemical controls areused as a last resort.”
While many programs that use toxic pesticides claim touse IPM, the programs profiled in this report adheregenerally to least-toxic IPM and use pesticides either not atall or only as a last resort.
Growing Trends
5
Chapter 1:
Thurston County:
A County-wide
IPM Program
When residents of Thurston Countystarted pressing for reduced pesticide usein the late 1980s, they had few models tolook to. It took two years for a Citizens’Advisory Committee to develop a Pestand Vegetation Management Policy forthe county, but once they did, ThurstonCounty became a true pioneer in develop-ing an IPM program and reducing pesti-cide use. Today, the county has one of themost comprehensive IPM programs in thecountry, and county departments use fewto no pesticides.
Building Political SupportBuilding Political SupportBuilding Political SupportBuilding Political SupportBuilding Political Support
In the 1980s, a number of individuals andorganizations banded together to convinceThurston County to reduce its pesticideuse on roadsides, in parks, and on othercounty property. Leaders included mem-bers of the Audubon Society as well as theSierra Club, who built a base of supportwith the assistance of the WashingtonToxics Coalition. Jean McGregor, whorepresented the Black Hills AudubonSociety, said, “We wanted to break thecycle of chemical dependence in thecounty around herbicide use.”
As a result, then-county executive TomFitzsimmons (and current director of thestate Department of Ecology) created aCitizens’ Advisory Committee andcharged them with developing a policy. Akey breakthrough in the process occurredwhen the county surveyed residents about
its attitudes toward herbicide use.According to Jean, “there was over-whelming interest in reducing herbicidesand moving toward alternatives.” Thecommittee passed a policy after twoyears of intense work, and with minorchanges, that policy guides the countytoday.
Creating an IPM ProgramCreating an IPM ProgramCreating an IPM ProgramCreating an IPM ProgramCreating an IPM Program
Shortly after the policy was adopted, thecounty hired Mark Swartout to serve asits IPM Coordinator. Despite the lack
of models in other cities and counties tolook to, Mark led county departments inthe process of developing comprehensiveIPM programs. Mark now has a four-inch-thick binder containing the writtenprograms of each county department,together with specific prescriptions foreach department on how it will dealwith certain pest problems. The “IPMprograms” provide general guidance tothe department on how it will managepests and vegetation. For example, forroads and transportation, the program
Under Thurston County’s IPM program, plum trees that werepreviously sprayed every year with insecticides are now thrivingwith better plant care and no pesticide treatment.
Growing Trends
6
lists goals such as protecting waterquality and encouraging native plants;provides a full description of the roadsystem and associated vegetation; pre-sents policy statements on how wildlife,water quality, and other benefits will beprotected; and details the techniques anddecision-making process for the use ofmechanical, biological, cultural, andchemical controls.
Procedures associated with the programinclude public notification, communi-cating with the public on the use ofpesticides, and handling of pesticides.The roads program also developedspecific “prescriptions” or techniquesthat will be used for certain problems.
The departmentdeveloped anumber of theseprescriptions fornoxious weeds, inaddition toprescriptions thatdetail whatcontrols will beused for whatportions of theroadside. Thedepartment now
uses no pesticides for regular vegetationmanagement, using mowing instead, andapplies pesticides only to control noxiousweeds.
Other county departments that havesimilar IPM programs and prescriptionsinclude the Solid Waste Division, whichmanages a landfill as well as transferstations; the Noxious Weed ControlBoard, which provides chemical-freeremoval of noxious weeds for privateproperty owners (for a fee); the Stormand Surface Water Utility; Facilities,which manages structural pest problems
in county buildings; Parks, which manages2,595 acres of parks and other landscapes;and two lake management districts man-aged by the county.
Once the programs and prescriptions weredeveloped, departments found that inmost cases they could manage with nopesticides or least-toxic pesticides. Onestriking example is Parks’ management ofa group of plum trees that had persistentinfestations of scale, aphids, and white-flies. These pests were “managed” throughyearly applications of insecticides, but theapplications did not solve the problem.After the policy was passed, the applica-tions were stopped, as was harsh pruningthat was stressing the trees. Since the treesregained health, there have been noproblems with insect pests, and no pesti-cide applications have been made.
The Facilities department found that thebest way to deal with indoor pest prob-lems is to correct the structural problemsthat are allowing the infestation. In onebuilding, a carpenter ant nest was locatedand removed to solve an ongoing prob-lem. In a covered walkway, rotten woodthat was harboring ants was removed, andboric acid was applied to prevent futureproblems. According to Mark, “Unlessyou deal with the structural problem, youcan spray until you’re blue in the face andyou won’t get rid of insects.”
Restrictions on PesticideRestrictions on PesticideRestrictions on PesticideRestrictions on PesticideRestrictions on Pesticide
UseUseUseUseUse
Any pesticide proposed for use must beapproved by the Thurston County Envi-ronmental Health Division or the Boardof Health, according to criteria in thepolicy. The policy states that pesticidesmay not be used if they are linked to
“There was overwhelming
interest in reducing herbi-
cides and moving toward
alternatives.”
–Jean McGregor
Black Hills Audubon Society
Growing Trends
7
cancer, reproductive or developmentaltoxicity, or if they are mutagenic; if theyare mobile or persistent, or if they havehigh acute toxicity. Other factors that areconsidered are degradation products,aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation, and“inert” ingredients. No product may beused if its inert ingredients (which are allingredients besides the active ingredient)are considered to have a known or suspecttoxicological concern by the Environmen-tal Protection Agency. The policy givespreference to pesticides whose manufac-turers disclose the identity of inert ingre-dients. Under this policy, nine pesticidesare currently approved for use within theprescriptions developed by departments.
Accountability and PublicAccountability and PublicAccountability and PublicAccountability and PublicAccountability and Public
InvolvementInvolvementInvolvementInvolvementInvolvement
Since the policy was first established, thecounty has made a practice of releasingannual reports detailing pesticide use.Mark says, “We shine a bright light onwhat we do because public advocates arethe way we can keep the political will tocontinue the program.” The report for2001 details each pesticide use by theroads and transportation department,including the purpose of the application,with similar information for parks andrecreation. In 2001, the other depart-ments made no pesticide applications. Toprovide ongoing citizen oversight to theprogram, the policy created the Pest andVegetation Management Advisory Com-mittee, which includes representativesfrom the agricultural and environmentalcommunities as well as citizen representa-tives. According to Mark, the committeehas provided important expertise and hasserved as a key body for developingsolutions for persistent managementproblems.
Ten years after the policy’s implementa-tion, community members involved inestablishing it are pleased with itsprogress and hopeful that the model willspread. “The county is only one of manypublic entities that need to deal withweeds and other pest problems,” saysJean McGregor. “We have state govern-ment, we have city government, ports,and schools, all of which could be doingmore to reduce pesticide use. Withmore public entities learning the ropes ofIPM, more sharing can occur and wecan continue to build up these goodpractices.”
Mark Swartout, Thurston County’s IPM Coordinator, has made thecounty’s program a model with detailed written IPM plans for eachdepartment.
Growing Trends
8
Chapter 2:
The City of
Seattle
The City of Seattle has long prided
itself on being a leader in protecting
the environment. In 1999, however,
the listing of the region’s salmon as
endangered served as a wake-up call
that existing efforts weren’t enough to
prevent harm to the environment. When
it came to pesticides, the City found that
it needed to walk its talk and take its
own advice to stop using pesticides that
could harm salmon. As a result, Seattle
adopted one of the strongest pesticide
reduction programs in the region, phas-
ing out the use of the most hazardous
pesticides and reducing all pesticide use
by 30%.
Tackling ChallengesTackling ChallengesTackling ChallengesTackling ChallengesTackling Challenges
Since making its commitment in 1999,
Seattle has used research, creativity, and
hard work to meet its goals. To make
the program successful, the city council
appropriated $360,000 to implement the
program by evaluating the hazards of
pesticides, establishing pilot projects to
test and demonstrate alternatives, and
coordinating the efforts of the various
departments. The City started its efforts
by engaging those responsible for land-
scape maintenance, conducting inter-
views to identify the biggest problems,
and developing an inventory of pesti-
cides currently used. It also established
a database to accurately track all pesti-
cide use and to determine a baseline of
past pesticide use.
The main challenges faced by Seattle
were a lack of coordination between
departments, since the City has a number
of departments with landscape manage-
ment responsibilities, and lack of re-
sources to replace the labor saved by
pesticide use. To solve these problems,
the City’s Office of Sustainability and
Environment hired a city-wide Pesticide
Reduction Coordinator to implement
pilot projects, and established a commit-
tee of IPM Coordinators from various
departments. The pilot projects were
On the Green Lake shoreline, coconut fiber logs and nativeplantings were used to combat shoreline erosion and providehabitat. To suppress weeds and provide a healthy growingmedium, high quality soil was brought in and compost wasincorporated, then coconut fiber mats were placed on top andcovered with a thick layer of wood chips.
Growing Trends
9
designed to test and demonstrate novel
approaches to common or particularly
difficult pest problems. In addition, a
committee of landscapers from different
departments created a set of landscape
guidelines to ensure that important
prevention methods including the use of
pest-resistant plants and mulch were
used. The Office of Sustainability and
Environment has trained grounds staff,
designers, and project managers on these
guidelines, and conducts an annual
training on integrated pest management.
Seattle ParksSeattle ParksSeattle ParksSeattle ParksSeattle Parks
Since the Pesticide Reduction Policy
was adopted in 1999, the Seattle Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation (excluding
golf courses) has succeeded in reducing
overall pesticide use by 45%. Parks has
achieved this short-term success prima-
rily through replacing pesticide use in
shrub beds with the heavy use of wood
chips and bark mulch and increased
hand weeding. At Green Lake, for
example, gardeners use 1000 cubic
yards of mulch each year. When pos-
sible, landscapers replace turf around
trees with mulch so that regular spray-
ing, trimming, or mowing isn’t neces-
sary.
The Parks Department has also under-
taken some novel long-term solutions to
landscape problems. In several parks,
grounds staff have converted turf areas
to meadows and other naturalized areas.
At Seward Park, for example, several
areas are mowed only once every few
years to keep invasive blackberries from
establishing, and native trees and shrubs
have started to establish. This approach
creates habitat while reducing water
used in irrigation and energy used in
mowing. Labor saved is used in other
areas of the park or to control invasive
plants.
The department is finding that the most
important long-term approach for both
naturalized and highly maintained
landscapes is excellent site preparation.
To replant areas
dominated by
weeds, Parks
Department
employees
cleared the site
then put
geotextile cloth
in place for a
year to kill
existing weeds.
This approach
was successful
for a shoreline
restoration at
Green Lake,
where reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea),
morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis),
and other weedy species dominated.
After the tarp was used to kill weeds,
This walkway at Seward Park serves two functions: it showcasesnative plants in a natural setting, and provides wheelchair access tothe second floor of an education building.
At Seward Park, severalareas are mowed only onceevery few years to keepinvasive blackberries fromestablishing, and nativetrees and shrubs havestarted to establish. Thisapproach creates habitatwhile reducing water usedin irrigation and energyused in mowing.
Growing Trends
10
landscapers brought in high-quality
soil compatible with native plants as
well as compost, installed drip irriga-
tion, and planted native shrubs includ-
ing sword fern (Polystichum munitum),
salal (Gaultheria shallon), ocean spray
(Holodiscus discolor), and snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus). A local high
school helps maintain the site by
monitoring plant establishment and
weeding. Near Lake Washington,
geotextile fabric has been placed on a
shoreline site dominated by Japanese
knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
and will stay in place for two years to
kill the knotweed before other plants are
planted.
At Bradner Gardens, a new pesticide-
free park in Seattle’s Mt. Baker neigh-
borhood, all of the planning and design
was geared toward long-term sustainable
maintenance. Raised beds were created
for plantings and were separated by
crushed rock trails. To keep weeds from
growing in the trails, designers used
relatively fine (3/8 inch minus) crushed
rock, which contains particles that help it
compact easily and resist weeds. Four
different organizations, including a
neighborhood group (Friends of Bradner
Gardens), Seattle Tilth, Master Garden-
ers, and the Seattle Department of Parks
and Recreation collaborate on the park’s
maintenance.
Bradner is one of fourteen parks that
have been designated as pesticide-free.
These parks are now places that anyone
can enjoy without fear of pesticide
exposure. Besides providing this benefit
to the public, the parks also serve as
demonstration projects for the use of
techniques to reduce long-term mainte-
nance. In some of these parks, hard
borders have been placed around shrub
beds, and plant density has been in-
creased. The Parks Department plans to
track labor use in these parks to better
understand the cost associated with
reducing pesticide use.
Golf Courses: A MajorGolf Courses: A MajorGolf Courses: A MajorGolf Courses: A MajorGolf Courses: A Major
ChallengeChallengeChallengeChallengeChallenge
Managing the city’s four golf courses to
reduce pesticide use has been one of the
city’s biggest challenges. In 2001, a
total of 893 pounds of pesticides were
Ongoing weeding has been reduced at the pesticide-free MeridianPark by removing turf around trees and replacing it with heavymulch. This treatment ends the need for string trimming aroundtrees while maintaining an attractive appearance.
Growing Trends
11
used in the golf courses, making up over
half the City’s total pesticide use. Much
of this use comes in the form of fungi-
cides, used to treat Fusarium patch and
other fungal diseases on putting greens.
To reduce the use of pesticides on golf
courses, The Parks Department has
piloted the use of a turf-management
program designed to optimize turf
growing conditions. The program
includes the extensive use of soil analy-
sis on organic matter content, available
nutrients, and soil chemistry in order to
tailor fertilizer applications. The goal of
the program is to provide the grass with
the healthiest possible growing condi-
tions so that it can withstand the fungal
infection. So far, golf superintendents
have found that by creating healthy turf,
they can reduce the severity of the
disease and in many cases avoid treat-
ment. Jackson Park Golf Course in
North Seattle has been able to reduce its
pesticide applications by 59% using this
approach coupled with stringent IPM
practices.
Putting Beneficial InsectsPutting Beneficial InsectsPutting Beneficial InsectsPutting Beneficial InsectsPutting Beneficial Insects
to Workto Workto Workto Workto Work
The heaviest insecticide use occurs in
the City’s greenhouses, which include a
production greenhouse for parks and the
Volunteer Park Conservatory. Green-
house managers reduced their pesticide
use by researching which beneficial
insects would control the specific pest
problems they were facing, and intro-
ducing those insects into the greenhouse.
On a larger scale, the Parks Department
has released beneficial wasps to control
a new pest, the cherry bark tortrix,
which can affect a wide range of trees in
the rose family by burrowing into the
cambium and girdling the tree. With
assistance from Washington State
University and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the department is releas-
ing 200,000 native wasps each week
around the city. The tiny wasps, the
size of a pinhead, lay their eggs in
cherry bark tortrix eggs, and the wasp
larvae eat the eggs when they hatch.
Pesticide PhaseoutPesticide PhaseoutPesticide PhaseoutPesticide PhaseoutPesticide Phaseout
Because Seattle aimed to protect not
only people but also water quality and
wildlife, the phaseout of the most
hazardous pesticides included a rela-
tively comprehensive list of criteria.
The City chose to end its use of pesti-
cides linked to human health problems
including cancer, hormone disruption,
and high acute toxicity, as well as those
likely to pollute water because they are
mobile or persistent, and those highly
toxic to fish, birds, bees, and other
wildlife. Once these criteria were
applied to the City’s pesticide inven-
tory, 40% of insecticides, 61% of
Colman Park is the site of a public-private partnership that has hadexcellent results. The Starflower Foundation designed, planted, andmaintains a number of park features including this island denselyplanted with native plants.
Growing Trends
12
herbicides, and 78% of fungicides
received the highest hazard ranking
and were placed into “Tier 1.” These
products are off limits unless a gar-
dener makes a specific exception
request and obtains permission. Tier 2
products are those that pose a moderate
hazard, and Tier 3 products are those
that pose a low hazard. The City’s goal
is to continue to reduce the use of Tier
2 products. The initial phaseout of Tier
1 products included herbicides and
insecticides, but not fungicides. This
means that, unfortunately, fungicides
that are linked to serious health and
environmental problems are still used
on City landscapes. Fungicides were
not included primarily because of lack
of alternatives for golf courses that
were considered sufficiently effective.
Keys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to Success
Tracy Dieckhoner, who oversees the
pesticide use reduction policy for the
City, says the key to Seattle’s success
has been the combination of commit-
ment from grounds staff together with
commitment from high-level manage-
ment. Grounds staff have been trained
for nearly a decade on alternatives to
pesticides, and in many cases welcomed
the challenge to further reduce pesticide
use. High-level support from the mayor
and the city council gave the program
the staff support it needed, including
development of a comprehensive data
base and creation of a Pesticide Reduc-
tion Coordinator position.
In the future, Seattle hopes to continue
its pesticide reductions and completely
eliminate use of the most-hazardous
products. Seattle has seen benefits from
its program in providing a safer environ-
ment for people and wildlife, in serving
as a model for the community, and in
making its operations more sustainable.
According to Phil Renfrow, the pesticide
reduction coordinator, “It’s a huge
benefit to the bottom line of any man-
agement agency to conserve resources.”
Phil advises other agencies considering
how to transition away from pesticide
use to focus on designing sustainable
landscapes. “Get into the front end of the
project development,” he said. “That’s
where tomorrow’s landscapes are being
developed.”
Bradner Gardens is a pesticide-free park that proves that beautifullandscapes can be maintained without pesticides. It includes achildren's garden, native plant garden, as well as other demonstrationgardens.
Growing Trends
13
Chapter 3:
Seattle University
The 54-acre campus of Seattle Universityis located on Capitol Hill in the heart ofSeattle. The transition to an IPM programwas instigated by James “Ciscoe” Morrisroughly halfway through his tenure asmanager of grounds and landscaping,which lasted from 1980 to 2002. Duringthat period, the campus served as Ciscoe’slaboratory, where he and his staff experi-mented with various approaches to plantcare and pest control. The results areobvious today in the beauty of the campus— which was the first state-designatedWildlife Sanctuary on a college campus— the documented reduction in pesticideuse, and the commitment of the landscapestaff, which has continued since Ciscoe’sdeparture. Perhaps even more impor-tantly, Ciscoe has inspired thousands oflandscapers and amateur gardenersthrough his entertaining and insightfulwriting and public appearances. Thedepartment is now headed by JohnWright, who manages a team of 11gardeners and assistant gardeners, supple-mented by a handful of work-studystudents.
Mission StatementMission StatementMission StatementMission StatementMission Statement
The Seattle University Grounds Depart-ment mission statement seeks to “main-tain the most attractive, safe and environ-mentally conscious campus in the PacificNorthwest, to continue to be the leader indeveloping sustainable grounds mainte-nance practices, to create an originallandscape that identifies the university asan inviting, exciting and well-cared-forcampus.” Upon visiting the campus, it isimmediately obvious that the program
begins with careful plant selection thatemphasizes pest and disease resistantcultivars, native plants, and appropriateplant placement. The statement alsostresses research, staff continuing educa-tion, and an unusual emphasis onoutreach by playing “a key leadershiprole in outreach through sharing ourknowledge and enthusiasm for sustain-able gardening practices with membersof our whole community — this univer-sity, its neighbors and other institu-tions.” Since Ciscoe’s departure, thedepartment staff have begun to sharemore of the responsibility for IPMplanning. One of the current needs is towrite up detailed procedures for dealingwith the range of pest problems that areroutinely encountered.
Pesticide ReductionPesticide ReductionPesticide ReductionPesticide ReductionPesticide Reduction
Prior to implementing the IPM pro-gram, the department used an assort-ment of chemical methods, including
When wasp andhornet nests are leftalone, this sign warnsstudents and faculty.
Growing Trends
14
broad-spectrum herbicides, pre-emer-gence herbicides, various insecticides,and horticultural oils. Today, pesticidesare rarely used on the campus. Moneythat used to be spent on chemicals hasbeen invested in equipment, such assteam weeders, flame weeders, andcompost tea brewers.
Weed control also includes denseplantings, repeated mowing or choppingof horsetail and other difficult weeds,extensive mulching with wood chipssupplemented with cardboard or news-paper barriers underneath, and use ofvinegar-based herbicides. Considerablenumbers of weeds such as horsetail aretolerated or hidden with dense plantingsof rock rose (Cistus), rugosa rose (Rosarugosa), or other perennials. In turf areas,weeds are tolerated to a considerabledegree, and control focuses mainly onlawn health. All lawnmowers on campusare mulching mowers. Fertilizing, topdressing, and aeration are performed ona regular basis. Many ornamental bedshave paving stones laid as mowing strips toeliminate the need for string trimmers.
Raising insect tolerance levels and educat-ing faculty, staff, and students has reducedthe need for treatments. Insect pests havealso been reduced by careful plant selec-tion, siting, and maintenance, as well asbeneficial-insect releases. This latterapproach is being utilized with the cherrybark tortrix (CBT), a new insect pest inwestern Washington that threatens thecampus’ extensive cherry trees. SeattleUniversity is working with WashingtonState University to monitor CBT and testthe use of parasitic wasps as a naturalcontrol. Stinging insects are tolerated asmuch as possible, and nests that can beleft in place are roped off or identifiedwith signs. If necessary, nests are removedor, rarely, exterminated.
Keys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to SuccessKeys to Success
From a technical perspective, soil buildingand preventing drought-stress are two keysto success. A great deal of attention is paidto building soil quality. Generous amountsof compost (2 to 3 inches) and wood chips(3 to 4 inches) are used on planting beds.Compost tea is used to improve planthealth and prevent disease. A lot of timeand money is put into improving irriga-tion systems to make them more efficientand to monitor moisture levels. Dripsystems are used wherever possible.
Gardener Janice Murphy credits “toler-ance, persistence, and determination” ascritical elements contributing to thesuccess of the program. In addition,ongoing staff education, a willingness toencourage experimentation, and “thesupport of administrators and faculty andstaff and students as well as neighborhoodapproval” have also been important.
Improvised mow strip provides a path for the mower wheel, allowingmowing right up to the edge. Photo also shows use of mulch.
Growing Trends
15
Chapter 4:
Bainbridge Island
School District
The residents of Bainbridge Island learnedthe hard way about how devastating theeffects of toxic chemicals can be onchildren’s health. In 1993, during therenovation of an elementary school, theuse of a toxic solvent to remove tiles led towidespread illness among the students.Many students and teachers became ill,with symptoms including nosebleeds,rashes, increased asthma, and headache.Some students and teachers are stillexperiencing some of these symptoms.
Since that time, the Bainbridge IslandSchool District, parents, and communitymembers have made environmental healtha priority when designing, building, andmaintaining schools and school grounds.In 1994, the Association of BainbridgeCommunities asked the school board toprovide them with information on pesti-cide use in the school district, and discov-ered that pesticides were being used withfew protections for children’s health or theenvironment. For example, pesticideswere used while children were present.Kären Ahern, a parent, said, “Mostparents assume that poisonous thingswouldn’t be used in schools. There wereno rules for less-toxic materials, and nolaws related to keeping dangerous pesti-cides away from children, so we had takeaction locally to protect our own back-yard.”
To address this problem, the schooldistrict agreed to join the WashingtonToxics Coalition’s Model Schools Programin 1996. School district administrators,
groundskeepers, maintenance staff,parents, and representatives of theAssociation of Bainbridge Communities,EPA and the Washington Toxics Coali-tion formed an IPM Committee thatworked together to develop an IPMpolicy. Through a series of regularmeetings, the committee agreed on apolicy that was adopted by the schoolboard in 1996. The committee alsocollected information on the most-serious pest problems the district wasfacing, and researched least-toxic solu-tions. Throughout the process, theparents and community membersinvolved built community support byinforming the media, doing presenta-tions at schools and elsewhere, andpublishing newsletter articles.
Making the TransitionMaking the TransitionMaking the TransitionMaking the TransitionMaking the Transition
One of the first things that grounds staffdid was to load up a truck with nearly allof the pesticides in the inventory anddispose of them through the stateDepartment of Agriculture’s pesticidedisposal program. Since the policy waspassed, the district has stepped up itsefforts to prevent pest problems, andwhen they occur it relies almost exclu-sively on physical methods or least-toxicproducts. For example, when wasp oryellowjacket nests become problematic,staff remove them manually if it’s coolenough that the insects are not active, orthey use a mint-oil product. Thesestrategies eliminate the need to use neuro-toxic insecticides to kill stinging insects.
To deal with indoor insect problems, thedistrict contracts with a biologically-based company called ExterminationServices. They focus on finding the rootof the problem and creating long-term
Growing Trends
16
solutions such as blocking entry points.They have also used biological controlsas well as least-toxic chemicals, such asusing nematodes to address termites andapplying a mixture of boric acid anddiatomaceous earth to control carpenterants. The use of these products preventsstudents from being exposed to hazard-ous insecticides used inside the schools.
Protecting Streams andProtecting Streams andProtecting Streams andProtecting Streams andProtecting Streams and
SalmonSalmonSalmonSalmonSalmon
Bainbridge’s first pesticide-free schoolwas Woodward Middle School, whichwas designated pesticide-free when it wasbuilt because of its proximity to a
salmon stream that bears coho. Thebiggest challenge that grounds staff havefaced at Woodward is maintaining thetrack, which tends to develop weedswhen the track isn’t used heavily enoughto prevent them. To address this prob-lem, the district purchased new equip-ment that uproots the weeds without theuse of pesticides.
Stubborn ChallengesStubborn ChallengesStubborn ChallengesStubborn ChallengesStubborn Challenges
The ongoing challenge for grounds staff isto maintain school grounds in an aestheti-cally appealing condition with limitedresources for manual labor. The staff isworking toward a long-term solution thatincludes using native plantings andmaking sure new landscapes are designedwith an eye toward reduced maintenanceneed. At Sakai Elementary School, a newschool that is also pesticide-free because itis near a salmon stream, high-maintenanceareas such as thinly planted shrub bedswere minimized.
Sustaining Over the LongSustaining Over the LongSustaining Over the LongSustaining Over the LongSustaining Over the Long
TermTermTermTermTerm
Jack Evans, the district’s maintenanceforeman, cites community support as thenumber-one reason that their program hasbeen successful over the long term.“When word got out on what we weredoing, there was more support from thecommunity than most people had imag-ined,” he said. He also advises otherdistricts not to try to make the switchwithout help, but to use organizations likethe Toxics Coalition and resources withinthe community to develop a committee.Today, the district’s IPM committeecontinues to meet to serve as a forum foridentifying problems and developing long-term solutions so that the district will beable to maintain its policy of very lowpesticide use over the long haul.
Turf and other outdoor areas at Woodward Middle School aremaintained without pesticides to protect a nearby salmon stream.
Growing Trends
17
Chapter 5:
Leavenworth
Knapweed
Control Program
Many counties throughout the state ofWashington struggle to control noxiousweeds along roadsides and on other publiclands. When noxious weeds spread, theycan rapidly displace native plant speciesthat provide habitat for wildlife and foodfor people and livestock. In the town ofLeavenworth, a volunteer hand pullingprogram for the past six years has allevi-ated some major problems with a com-mon noxious weed called diffuse knap-weed (Centaurea diffusa). With the helpof inmates from the Chelan County Jail,the volunteer program has grown to servemany areas throughout Chelan County,helping to restore native plant species andnatural habitat for birds and animals. Thehands-on approach of this program is agreat example of a simple and successfulIPM program that is managed and run byvolunteers and concerned citizens.
The 10-Foot RuleThe 10-Foot RuleThe 10-Foot RuleThe 10-Foot RuleThe 10-Foot Rule
The town of Leavenworth lies at the baseof the spectacular Icicle Canyon, just eastof the Cascade crest in the north-centralCascades. The town and surroundingareas bring in more than 1,000,000visitors per year, and the local waterwaysprovide important habitat for endangeredsalmon. Knapweed is a fearsome weed inits ability to spread quickly along road-sides by lodging in car tires and clingingto hikers’ backpacks and equipment,making it a severe threat to places with theamount of traffic common to Leavenworth.
In 1996, the U.S.Forest Servicedecided to at-tempt eradicationof knapweed inIcicle Canyon byspraying herbi-cides ten feet oneither side of theroadside, creatinga buffer so thatthe weed seedswould not enterthe roadway andbe transported bytires. However,concerned citizensand organizationsargued that therehad to be a better,less-toxic ap-proach to takingcare of the prob-lem, one thatwould not kill all of the other speciesgrowing along the roadsides. With thisin mind, French teacher turned forestactivist Pat Rasmussen solicited thesupport of Leavenworth AudubonAdopt-a-Forest and began a volunteer-based IPM program to combat knap-weed through hand pulling and nativeplant restoration.
The PlanThe PlanThe PlanThe PlanThe Plan
As Pat began to develop a hands-on IPMapproach to combating knapweed, shetook what is called a stronghold ap-proach. The group focused on eliminat-ing knapweed in specific areas as a pilotproject to see if their ideas would work,establishing strongholds of success. Even-tually, this approach allowed Pat and hervolunteers to connect the stronghold areas
Hand pulling, together with restorationwith native plants, are at the core of thesuccessful knapweed control program.Here, Pat Rasmussen pulls toadflax,another noxious weed.
Growing Trends
18
to make one large area that is successfullycontrolled. Pat also knew that they wouldlearn many tips along the way that wouldhelp the overall effort.
The DoubtThe DoubtThe DoubtThe DoubtThe Doubt
From the start, this program faced aconsiderable amount of opposition andresistance from the Forest Service, whichfelt the spraying of herbicides would bethe easiest and fastest way to approachthe problem. Federal officials alsodoubted the level of commitment thatPat and her crew could give to theproject in the long term.
Because of this lack of support from theForest Service, Pat was vigilant to pre-vent sprays and ensure that no rulesrelated to sprays were violated. On onememorable afternoon, Pat walked alonga roadside stretch that was scheduled tobe sprayed earlier in the day but hadbeen spared, and she saw a tiny frog onthe tip of a knapweed plant. Pat under-stood then more than ever why she wasdevoting her life to this cause. She felteven better about the incredible amountof work that she and her crew weredoing, because of saving the life of thattiny forest frog.
Community SupportCommunity SupportCommunity SupportCommunity SupportCommunity Support
In the beginning, Pat motivated groupsand individuals to adopt half-milestretches of the roadside that led intoIcicle Canyon. These groups becameresponsible for hand pulling all of theknapweed in their stretch. In especiallyinfested areas and the larger car turn-outs, the first step was mowing toweaken the plants, followed by regularlyscheduled hand pulling sessions. As the
project progressed, the groups learnedmore about the life cycle of the weed, aswell as the native species and landscapethat surrounded their homes. Volunteersare now spending time saving seeds ofnative plants for use in the areas that theyhave pulled, learning about life-cycles ofother noxious weeds in the area, andlearning how to plant cover crops.
Local newspapers and radio stationsplayed a large part in promoting theprogram and enlisting the support of thecommunity, which continues to be strong.This year, the employees at Key Bank willdonate an entire workday to plantingnative species in a pulled area. This helpcomes through the Make A DifferenceDay program, through which businessesdonate time and energy to a worthy cause.In this case, Pat has received a $2,000donation of plants and will use the 17employees of Key Bank to install them.
Inmate InvolvementInmate InvolvementInmate InvolvementInmate InvolvementInmate Involvement
When Pat first began the IPM programthrough the half-mile adoption program,one group was able to bring in a crew of4-6 inmates from the Chelan County Jailand have them work for the entire day.Pat immediately saw this as an incredibleresource for her project, and found outwhat she needed to do to be able tosupervise her own crew. Pat now countson a crew of 4-6 inmates three days aweek, and sometimes in the evenings forabout three hours. Pat completed atraining that allowed her to be solely incharge of a crew of inmates for the courseof a workday. In the time that the groupis in her care, Pat feeds them healthy andhearty food, and makes an effort to maketheir time as worthwhile for them as it isfor the project.
Growing Trends
19
Pat has had incredible success with theCounty Jail program, and inmates nowscramble to be on her team. Many havemade comments during interviews ex-plaining that they now have a greaterappreciation for nature, and a betterunderstanding of the importance ofrestoration. Alonso, one of the handpullers, said “I feel like I am doing goodfor my fellow man. I thank Pat forshowing me all this and thank Karen forcooking for us.” Another hand puller,John Henry, is more explicit. “By pullingthe knapweed we avoid herbicides thatwon’t end up in up in the river to harmthe salmon, so that the orca whales willhave a better life. It’s peaceful out hereand by doing this I’m making thingsbetter for myself and everyone else.”
The BudgetThe BudgetThe BudgetThe BudgetThe Budget
In 2002, the cost of the program wasabout $12,800, much of which wasobtained via in-kind donations. Localrestaurants have willingly donated deli-cious food for the inmate crew, whileother donors have given money forsupplies and gas. As the hand pullingareas have expanded to cover more publicareas, business owners have donated waterto maintain the new native plantings.
Successful ExpansionSuccessful ExpansionSuccessful ExpansionSuccessful ExpansionSuccessful Expansion
After six years of hard work, the knapweedproblem in the Icicle Canyon is so con-trolled that activity is now limited tocareful monitoring and well-timed handpulling sessions. this success has spurredother efforts in the county. Pat and herteam have moved on to do work oncounty roads; a high profile stretch of theHi-Line Canal through Wenatchee; an11-mile loop trail along the Columbia
River in Wenatchee; along the watershedin Tumwater Canyon and Blewett Pass;and on a private 22,000-acre ranchcalled Hay Canyon Ranch. The PublicUtility District, which manages the looptrail and other lands, has now established athree-year pilot program to document therecovery of natural ecosystems throughhand pulling. The owners of HayCanyon Ranch have also signed a three-year agreement with the hand pullingteam, in which they document theirtime and experience in restoring naturalhabitat on that specific piece of land.
ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion
What began as a small volunteer projectin the small town of Leavenworth hasevolved to become a very successful andambitious IPM program to eradicatenoxious weeds from natural places andrestore native communities in ChelanCounty. As Pat often says, “Nature wasdoing a fine job of controlling knapweed,and we should just let that work to ouradvantage.” Perseverance has been theultimate key to success, as well as strongcommunity involvement and support.
The success of the Leavenworth knapweed control program dependson community involvement, including from inmates at the ChelanCounty Jail.
Growing Trends
20
Chapter 6:
All-Organic Port
of Seattle
Since 1998, the waterfront properties,parks, bike trails, greenbelts and habitatrestoration sites that make up the Port ofSeattle have all been maintained usingorganic methods. This might seemsurprising because seaports are generallyhighly toxic, chemical-laden areas,reeking of oil and the exhaust of com-mercial spaces. Craig Chatburn, head ofthe landscape department at the Port,has simply adopted a different philoso-phy that looks at landscapes as opportu-
nities to benefitthe public andthe environment.This requires thatother factors betaken into con-sideration alongwith traditionallandscape aesthet-ics, such asincreasing waterconservation andwildlife habitat,
and eliminating the use of toxic pesti-cides and synthetic fertilizers.
The Hard SellThe Hard SellThe Hard SellThe Hard SellThe Hard Sell
When Craig made the decision to switchfrom a chemically dependent program atthe Port to an all-organic one, he wasmet with some resistance and doubtfrom his staff. His team of landscapershad spent their careers depending onchemicals to solve their problems. Manyof the experienced members of thelandscape crew were skeptical that the
new mechanical and cultural means tosolve pest, weed and disease problemswould be successful. Through thesuccess of the program over time, how-ever, the group has come to fully supportthe organic approach. The crew nowregularly attends the annual GreenGardening seminar, which offers alterna-tives to pesticides for professional land-scapers, as well as courses offeredthrough the University of Washington’sProHort program.
The Big SwitchThe Big SwitchThe Big SwitchThe Big SwitchThe Big Switch
To implement the organic approach,Craig put together a plan based oninformation obtained from Seattle Tilthand the Soil Food Web on alternatives topesticides and then began to educate hiscrew. They took things slowly and triedthe new practices on smaller park areasto prove that there was no noticeablechange in the quality of appearance ofthe landscapes and no added cost. Afterthis test period, they made the commit-ment to eliminate all toxic pesticides andsynthetic fertilizers in the 70-plus acresthat they maintain, using only least-toxicpesticides such as insecticidal soap.
The Way it WorksThe Way it WorksThe Way it WorksThe Way it WorksThe Way it Works
The landscapers at the Port have becomemore knowledgeable in identifying pestor disease problems and in using thisinformation to indicate the changes thatcan be made to avoid the problem in thefuture. This also means that newplantings are done with drought tolerant,disease-resistant exotic species and nativeplants, with the goal of Craig and hisstaff being that ultimately all plantingswill be made up of at least 70% nativeplants. The Port crew suppresses weeds
“We do not miss usingpesticides, and none of ourlandscapers would go backto using them.”
–Craig Chatburn
Head of Landscape Department
Port of Seattle
Growing Trends
21
with a thick layer of coarse wood-chipmulch, obtained from chipping woodymaterial from the trees on the Port andpark landscapes. In using this mulchingmethod, the crew aims to simulate theecosystem of the forest floor, insulatingthe soil and increasing organic matter.The focus is more on controlling weedsthan on eradicating them, making for afar more realistic form of maintenance.
Money MattersMoney MattersMoney MattersMoney MattersMoney Matters
While the Port of Seattle has eliminatedall pesticide use, the cost of labor hasstayed the same. All of the changes thathad to be made to accommodate the neworganic methods were done within theoperating budget. For the calendar yearsof 2000 and 2001, zero dollars were spenton pesticides or pesticide use. In thebeginning, all unopened pesticides werereturned to the distributor and the moneywas used to buy needed equipment.
The Port crew is currently conductingexperiments to make use of other re-sources that are already on site, includinggrass and weed clippings, as well assediment picked up in sweeping of thestorm drains. The crew hopes that someof these projects might help to make theport even more IPM focused and environ-mentally sound.
The Real ReasonThe Real ReasonThe Real ReasonThe Real ReasonThe Real Reason
When asked what suggestions he couldmake for other groups or landscapes thatwere considering the organic option,Craig stated that going 100% at the verybeginning is the only way to go, despiteits challenges. He states, “we do not missusing pesticides, and none of our land-scapers would go back to using them.”
While Craig was well supported by thepublic and Port officials, he worked hardto get his crew behind the rigid 100%organic policy. By being proactive inbeing completely organic, the programeliminates any gray areas, and promotesalternative strategies as the only option.This is important in a landscape like acity port, in that both industry and thepublic can see the success of the pro-gram.
Smart design means easier maintenance in the long term: Portshrub beds are designed with a high percentage of native and pest-resistant plants, and planted densely to crowd out weeds.
Growing Trends
22
Chapter 7:
Woodland Park
Zoo
The Woodland Park Zoo, perched on ahillside between the neighborhoods ofFremont and Wallingford in Seattle, iswell known for its large, natural exhibits.The zoo also deserves recognition,however, for its healthy and innovativelandscaping practices: for many yearsnow, the 92 acres of the Zoo landscapeshave been virtually pesticide free. To-day, the zoo staff is a leader in develop-ing and applying new solutions inmanaging challenging landscapes.
Commitment to SaferCommitment to SaferCommitment to SaferCommitment to SaferCommitment to Safer
Pest ManagementPest ManagementPest ManagementPest ManagementPest Management
Some very strict rules set the standardsfor landscapes at the zoo. To ensure thehealth of zoo animals, absolutely nopesticides and only veterinary-approvedsynthetic fertilizers are used in the any of
the indoor or outdoor exhibits. Thelandscapers use a philosophy of "planthealth care," putting plant needs and carefirst and foremost, and then using cul-tural, biological and mechanical IPMmethods to control pests. Beyond this,the landscapers try to anticipate problemsand stop them before they start: preventivemethods include a vigorous mulchingprogram to suppress weeds, a consciouseffort to grow the right plants in the rightplace, and smart landscape design thatconsiders use patterns to avoid problems.
Compost tea plays a large part in zoomaintenance. Landscapers use regularapplications in exhibits and greenhousesto prevent disease and improve soil fertil-ity. The staff is able to produce a viablebatch of tea in 24 hours by slightly tweak-ing the normal recipe and timing schedulefor a standard Soil Soup brewer. Theystart the temperature of the water at 85degrees in the morning, and they use 8pounds of compost to make up the idealbrew. Two tea bags containing 2 poundsof compost each are placed at the bottomof the brewer, and two on either side,allowing for a well-distributed nutrientrelease. The zoo staff has also found thatby using a different type of tea bag (largermesh sacks found at hardware stores), theycan get more air and water circulation,thus allowing them to produce faster andbetter tea.
Minimal, carefully timed, sprayings ofRoundUp are conducted in very specificplaces like the Rose Garden, which is partof the Park, but is outside of the actualzoo area. E. J. Hook, the new landscapemanager, and his 18 staff members areeager to adopt policies that would elimi-nate all use of chemicals from the zoolandscapes, as well as to develop writtenIPM plans. As anyone can see here, it is
No pesticides are used in the Woodland Park greenhouse, whichsupplies plants for the zoo’s landscapes. Here greenhouse managerAllen Howard shows some of the plants in the greenhouse.
Growing Trends
23
ironic that the areas set aside for animalsare toxic-free, but areas where people gostill contain some chemicals. As E. J. says,“I’m an animal too!”
The Biggest IssuesThe Biggest IssuesThe Biggest IssuesThe Biggest IssuesThe Biggest Issues
The zoo is a very large space with manydelicate landscapes and unusual inhabit-ants that require careful attention. Be-sides managing the interior of the exhib-its, landscapers face the challenge of theincredible amount of human traffic thatflows through the grounds on a regularbasis. Frequently, these factors createsome substantial aesthetic and physicalchallenges for the landscape crew, includ-ing dealing with rodents, stinging insects,powdery mildew and other plant diseases,as well as weeds in high-traffic turf areas.Sometimes the landscapers are asked tofast-track installation of an animal exhibit,forcing them to be creative in their IPMtactics.
Rodents and Stinging Insects
Rodents are a constant issue with openfood containers in animal exhibits. Thezoo prevents rodent problems with physi-cal barriers to keep rodents from food andwater sources and out of buildings, alongwith constant monitoring of troublesomeareas. Stinging insects are dealt with on apriority basis, where nests or infested areasthat are a direct threat to the public areoften sprayed with a low-toxicity pesti-cide, while nests that are far enough frompublic areas are left alone.
Powdery Mildew and other Plant
Diseases
Powdery mildew is the largest plant-careissue that plagues the zoo. For the mostpart, landscapers prevent mildew usingregular compost tea applications, as well
as with the efforts of the grounds crew toalways put plants in the places wherethey will be the most successful. Insidethe greenhouse and in any of the animalenclosures, plant diseases are dealt withusing careful monitoring and a risk-benefit analysis that considers the
importance to the overall exhibit and thelikelihood that the disease might infectother plants. Under the motto of “elimi-nate the battle rather than fight it,”landscapers will remove and dispose of aplant if no least-toxic method canalleviate the problem.
Greenhouses
One of the Zoo’s most remarkablesuccesses is the near-elimination ofpesticides from its greenhouses. TheZoo has been able to accomplish thisthrough careful monitoring combinedwith least-toxic techniques when aproblem develops. For example, staffhave found that since plants can with-stand water immersion longer thaninsects can, immersing plants in waterfor twenty minutes is an effective mea-
E. J. Hook explains how substituting a more porous “sock” to holdthe compost speeds up the brewing of compost tea. The brewer isshown at the right of the photo.
Growing Trends
24
sure for insect control. The staff has alsostopped preventive pesticide applicationsthat were made in the past, finding themunnecessary for successful pest manage-ment.
Weeds
A long list of mechanical, cultural, andphysical controls are used to manageweeds at the Woodland Park Zoo. Someexamples include thickly planted beds, arigorous mulching program, planting theright plants in the right place, smart
watering,developingand maintain-ing healthysoil, removalof flower andseed heads,and mowingturf to thecorrect heightat the righttimes.
High-Traffic Turf Areas
Every summer, the zoo hosts a summerconcert series called Zoo Tunes, which
takes place on a large lawn area at thePark. During these events, there is highfoot traffic of 3000-6000 people on thelawn, as well as vehicle traffic. Amazingly,E. J. and his team are able to maintain thisturf in excellent condition with a careregime that inlcudes spring and fallaerating, overseeding, and top dressingwith compost. During the summer,watering is done around a busy eventsschedule and for a program called "visitorenrichment," when the sprinklers areturned on in small areas to cool off thecrowd. Some weeds and imperfectpatches are accepted in turf areas, high-lighting the fact that there are no chemi-cals used and that the space is safe for allliving creatures.
Roaring SuccessRoaring SuccessRoaring SuccessRoaring SuccessRoaring Success
The key to the successful IPM program atthe Woodland Park Zoo is a well-trained,highly motivated and caring staff, as wellthe support of the community and conser-vation-oriented groups. In addition, E. J.and his landscape crew are never afraid totry new things and potentially makemistakes. To any group or organizationthat is thinking about moving toward anIPM program, E. J. and his crew suggestthat they use open-minded thinking totackle all problems and issues. Thismindset includes a willingness to try newthings, and to research new ideas thatmight help solve pest problems.
By installing the rocks first and then pouring concrete right up to theedge, E. J. Hook eliminated a common weed problem.
The key to the successful IPMprogram at the Woodland ParkZoo is a well-trained, highlymotivated and caring staff, aswell the support of the commu-nity and conservation-orientedgroups.
Growing Trends
25
Chapter 8:
Carl Sandburg
Elementary
School
All too often, the places where children goto play and learn are riddled with chemi-cals, from pressure-treated wood to thelush grass that pads them as they tumblethrough parks and school playgrounds.Children don’t seem to notice weeds inturf, or weather stains on their playstructures. So why are we exposing theirdeveloping bodies to some of the most-toxic substances? At Carl SandburgElementary School in the Lake Washing-ton School District, one parent askedherself this same question when she heardthat toxic pesticides were used on schoolgrounds. Jill Albinger found out that thedistrict had sprayed 60 gallons of herbi-cides at her son’s school in July of 1999, afew short months before students returnedfrom summer vacation. She decided thatshe was going to start a project to protecther son and his friends from this type ofexposure, thus beginning a very simpleand successful herbicide-free program atCarl Sandburg.
New School RulesNew School RulesNew School RulesNew School RulesNew School Rules
Jill began her quest to find an alternativeto the herbicides at Carl Sandburg byproposing an arrangement that would giveher primary responsibility for groundskeeping, with the help of volunteers andwork parties. The principal and assistantsuperintendent agreed to let Jill try it forone year on the condition that she main-tain the landscape to the standards thatwere already in place. Jill felt confident
that with the help of volunteers, shecould not only maintain the grounds toexisting standards but also make CarlSandburg a model for schools every-where.
Through site assessments, the help ofprofessional landscaper and Sandburgparent E. J. Hook (see Chapter 7:Woodland Park Zoo), and input fromthe Washington Toxics Coalition, theywere able to develop a successful pro-gram. They started by establishing amaintenance and improvement plan toeliminate the need for any herbicidetreatment in the future and to reduce theamount of staff time needed to controlthe problem.
Examples of tactics used at Sandburginclude hand pulling, flame weeding,mulching, cementing weed-laden cracksin the hard surfaces (see photo on nextpage), and raising fence lines. All ofthese tactics proved extremely successfulfor future maintenance, as hand-pullingcan be done by individual volunteers at
At Carl Sandburg Elementary, parents and community memberstook over groundskeeping. They have abandoned herbicides andinstead use corn gluten, heavy mulching, and flame weeding to keepweeds under control.
Growing Trends
26
their convenience, or in large organizedgroups during work parties. Flameweeding works well as a maintenancetool for hard-to-reach areas on the edgesof portable classrooms, in sidewalkcracks and in gravel areas.
Mulching has been a primary tool forshrub beds. The mulching process atCarl Sandburg was systematic andsuccessful in that areas were weeded,then treated with corn gluten to preventweed germination, and then covered
with a dense layer of wood chip mulch.This has made these beds and plantingseasy to maintain and aesthetically pleasing.
Another trouble spot — fence lines —were addressed with a creative solution.Fence lines are always difficult to managewhen weeds become strongly tangled inthe links from the bottom. By raising thefence just a few inches off the ground,they have made it much easier to controlweeds using a string trimmer. Finally, theperennial problem of weeds in sidewalkcracks was addressed with the long-termsolution of sealing sidewalk cracks andseams to prevent the establishment ofweeds.
Jill and the volunteers also worked tomaintain a butterfly garden where theyplanted densely to suppress weeds and toencourage beneficial insects. This gardenis managed by students during the year,and is used as a teaching tool by the staff.
Difficult ClassesDifficult ClassesDifficult ClassesDifficult ClassesDifficult Classes
The main challenges in this project wererecruiting volunteers and getting supportfrom the school staff and parents. Jill hadhigh hopes that the school administrationand her fellow parents would be a greathelp in making the project a success, butthis aspect proved more difficult than shehad anticipated. While the school admin-istration supported her efforts, they didnot promote and expand the program toother schools. In addition, the school stilluses pesticides to deal with indoor pestswhen a problem arises. Jill is still workingto expand this herbicide-free program tothe entire district, but the district has notyet adopted the practices on a district-wide basis. And while most parentssupported her efforts, it is difficult to
Weeds that grow in sidewalk cracks are often treated withherbicides because they are tough to tackle with manual controls.Here, cracks that were filled in have been maintenance-free forthree years.
Growing Trends
27
maintain an all-volunteer effort on a long-term basis. E. J., who now has a childattending classes at the school, is hopefulthat district staff will take over moremaintenance responsibilities at the school,such as filling in cracks in sidewalks andpavement to prevent weeds.
AccountingAccountingAccountingAccountingAccounting
In the beginning, the school agreed to givethe herbicide-free project $165 dollars,which was approximately the amount thedistrict spent in the past to purchaseherbicides and to pay for the labor tospray. In addition, Jill received funds fromthe school district and from the PTAgroups of both the elementary and themiddle schools. Jill used the start-upmoney to buy the flame weeder, thepropane needed to operate the machineand a pre-emergent, corn-gluten productto suppress weeds in beds and belowmulched areas. Now the program isvirtually sustainable so that Jill and E. J.need only minimal funds to purchase corngluten, tools for volunteers, and propanefor the flame weeder. Overall, the herbi-cide-free project was simple and inexpen-sive to introduce, and is now almost freeto maintain, making it an asset to theschool, and, most importantly, to thestudents.
Graduation Goals andGraduation Goals andGraduation Goals andGraduation Goals andGraduation Goals and
Continuing EducationContinuing EducationContinuing EducationContinuing EducationContinuing Education
Now that the herbicide-free program atCarl Sandburg Elementary School is apermanent part of the maintenanceprocedures, Jill can easily make somesuggestions to other schools that areconsidering adopting IPM programs. Themost important of these suggestions is todo research and get training from people
who know what they are doing beforejumping in. At Carl Sandburg, Jill feelsthat she would have struggled morewithout the help of the WashingtonToxics Coalition and E. J.’s professionaladvice. However, there is ample docu-mentation available about other schoolsand entire districts that have extremelysuccessful, well-established IPM pro-grams that can serve as excellent modelsfor groups that might be thinking aboutmaking a switch. The IPM program atCarl Sandburg is an example of a simple,yet effective, project that is managed withalmost no cost and makes the schoolgrounds much safer for children.
Controlling weeds that grow alongside portable buildings (top photo)has been a major challenge at Carl Sandburg. Along some portables,a girl scout troup did a thorough initial handweeding (results shownin bottom photo) that has allowed for control with a flame weederever since.
Growing Trends
28
Chapter 9:
Jefferson
County’s Road-
side Vegetation
Program
Managing vegetation along roadsides is atask faced by every county in Washing-ton. While most counties rely onregular herbicide sprays to manageroadside vegetation, more and more
counties are successfully managingroadsides without the use of herbicides.Jefferson County has set a very strongexample by managing their roadsidevegetation without chemicals for 23years. Jefferson County has been ex-tremely thorough in researching andimplementing the most appropriatetechniques to replace herbicides. All thehard work has paid off over the years,making Jefferson’s program an excellentmodel for counties throughout the state.
The “No Spray” ProgramThe “No Spray” ProgramThe “No Spray” ProgramThe “No Spray” ProgramThe “No Spray” Program
In the late 1970’s, many Jefferson Countyresidents became concerned about thehazards of herbicides for humans andaquatic life. Community groups asked thecounty commissioners to investigate theuse of alternatives to pesticides. As aresult, a moratorium was put in place, andthe county commissioners asked the roadmaintenance division to develop a plan tomanage roadsides without herbicides.Based on this request, the crew acceptedthe challenge and began a two-year transi-tion that resulted in a mechanical weed-management program that is still goingstrong today.
The Science of the RoadThe Science of the RoadThe Science of the RoadThe Science of the RoadThe Science of the Road
The Jefferson County road crew maintainsapproximately 400 miles of roads withinthe county, which equates to about 800miles of shoulders. The responsibilities ofthe crew include pavement-crack sealing,road-shoulder maintenance, roadwaysweeping, culvert cleaning and repair,storm-drain systems maintenance, sloperepair, litter pickup, control of vegetation,bridge-deck repair, and snow and icecontrol.
Most of Jefferson County has high rain-fall, creating an ideal ecosystem for woodytrees and shrubs. In the drier regions,annual broadleaf weeds pose an additionalchallenge. Before the no-spray programwas created, the county performed yearlysprayings along the roadsides. Today, thecounty uses no herbicides at all, butinstead employs an aggressive mechanicalprogram based on a vegetation study doneby Dr. Roger del Moral of the Universityof Washington’s Department of Botany.This study, conducted in 1979, was
Brushing machines are used to control woody plants, such as thealder that has been leveled here. The machine takes the tree downin the first pass and mulches it in the second.
Growing Trends
29
conducted to identify plant communitieswith the low-growing, spreading charac-teristics that are the most desirable for lowmaintenance, and to find ways to encour-age their survival through continuedmowing and other mechanical controls.
Dr. del Moral found that the most com-mon problem plants were commonhorsetail (Equisetum arvense), Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) red alder (Alnusrubra), and salmonberry (Rubusspectabilis). To address the problems, thereport outlined a non-chemical approachto control based on manipulation ofnatural plant succession. The goal of thismanipulation was to keep plants at thesuccessional stage that would provide forrelatively easy roadside maintenance androad safety. Thus, Jefferson Countyadopted a strategy that replaced routineherbicide spraying with selective actionsbased on extensive knowledge of theecology of common species.
Success TodaySuccess TodaySuccess TodaySuccess TodaySuccess Today
The primary goal suggested by Dr. delMoral was to produce relatively stableplant communities that require littlemaintenance and possess other desirabletraits. The roadside program elaboratedupon this general philosophy to establishthe following goals:
1. To economically insure the efficientand safe operation of roads;
2. To produce naturalized vegetationon the right-of-way that is self-sustaining and which blends into thesurrounding vegetation;
3. To control erosion from slopes andcutbanks;
4. To produce an aesthetically pleasingright-of-way;
5. To provide cover for desirablespecies of wildlife; and
6. To reduce the opportunities for themigration and distribution ofundesirable weeds.
To achieve these goals, the road crewuses a number of different methods.Machine mowing is a key tool to controlgrasses, broadleaf weeds, and immaturewoody vegetation. The mowing height isset at six to eight inches to favor plantssuch as salal (Gaultheria shallon) andOregon grape (Berberis nervosa), whichhave a low-growing growth habit thatallows good visibility while keeping outweeds. The road crew generally mowsfrom April to September, skippingsections where desirable low-growingnative vegetation already dominates.
The mowers are often followed bymechanical brooms, which in additionto cleaning the pavement can removesoil and vegetation at the edge of thepavement and thus allow for better water
Jeff Ackerman, lead mower operator, shows off one of the mowersthat are the backbone of Jefferson County's no-pesticide roadsidevegetation management.
Growing Trends
30
drainage. Machine brush cutting isconducted approximately annuallywhere woody plants need to be con-trolled to maintain visibility along theroadsides. Other techniques includemanual control of weeds, tree trimmingwith a pneumatic saw, periodic gradingof roadside shoulders, annual clearing ofditches, and hydroseeding grasses andwildflowers in bare anddisturbed soils to discour-age the establishment ofproblem vegetation,prevent erosion, and addto the aesthetics of theroadside.
All of the above methodsrequire an alternative baseof knowledge for the crewto match the philosophyof the program. This hasgiven the machine opera-tors an added degree ofrespect for the precisionand care that they employin using IPM methods.
Crew members are also encouraged tocontinue to develop non-chemical meth-ods to control any new problem thatmight develop.
Future PlansFuture PlansFuture PlansFuture PlansFuture Plans
Ultimately, the IPM program for vegeta-tion management along roadsides inJefferson County took a long time toevolve to what it is today, but it is anincredibly inspiring and encouragingmodel for other counties and jurisdictions.Aubrey Palmer, Operations Manager forthe Maintenance Division, sums it all up:“It took a major change of an ingrainedmindset for our maintenance crews toinitiate and support a non-chemicalvegetation-management program. How-ever, we consider it to be extremely suc-cessful. Vegetation control withoutchemicals is doable.”
This figure illustrates road maintenance zones along a highway.
Jefferson County's program aims to promote low-growing, nativevegetation that outcompetes weeds. Here, Oregon grape and thenative rhododendron will be skipped by the mower.
Illustration courtesy of CA Dept. of Transportation
Growing Trends
31
Chapter 10:
The Good Shepherd
Gardener
The Good Shepherd Center, with its 11acres of grounds, is a refuge for residentsof the busy urban Wallingford District inSeattle. The building houses a school,senior center, artists’ residences, and manynon-profit organizations. It is surroundedby a park with play and picnic areas,Seattle Tilth’s organic demonstrationgarden and children’s garden, and exten-sive organic lawns and gardens. Thebuilding’s grounds serve as an importantdemonstration of the value of healthy soiland plant diversity in maintaining a beauti-ful and healthy pesticide-free landscape.
The Center was built in 1906 by theSisters of the Good Shepherd to provide aresidence for the housing, education, andtraining of young women in need. Thegrounds through this period consisted ofan orchard and minimal conventionallandscape plantings. Today, the buildingis owned by Historic Seattle Preservationand Development Authority and is usedas a multi-purpose community center.The building is on the national register ofhistoric places and in 1984 it gainedofficial City of Seattle Landmark status.
Good Shepherd asGood Shepherd asGood Shepherd asGood Shepherd asGood Shepherd as
Gardening CenterGardening CenterGardening CenterGardening CenterGardening Center
In the spring of 1978, Seattle Tilthestablished a demonstration garden andeducation center for organic gardening atthe Good Shepherd Center annex. Thisorganization drew creative and innovativegardeners from around the city to partici-pate in a new vision of how to create
sustainable agriculture and landscapes.One of these gardeners was Gil Schieber,who was president of Tilth in 1985-86.
Gil was hired as the Good Shepherd’sgroundskeeper in 1985. His back-ground in horticulture as well as incommercial agriculture gave him theexperience to implement a plan ofsustainability. He brought the focus ofthe organic gardening ethic to the totalmaintenance of the Good ShepherdCenter’s grounds.
Gil aimed to give the grounds a residen-tial welcoming feel to match thebuilding’s philosophy of public engage-ment. Taking ideas from his travels inEurope, Chile, and Japan, he has tried tocreate “room areas” in the garden. Thegarden explorer may find a sunny bedfilled with the deep red of raspberriesleaning over brightly colored perennialflowers in one “room” only to round acorner and find a shade garden of quietgreen respite behind an old brick walltraced with vines. Schieber has tried torecreate the “controlled wildness” hediscovered in the pine and bamboo
The plant collection is extensive and diverse, including some 500species that thrive with minimum water and no pesticides.
Growing Trends
32
gardens of Japan and in his favoriteBritish public gardens.
Diversity in the GardenDiversity in the GardenDiversity in the GardenDiversity in the GardenDiversity in the Garden
The top priorities that allow for chemi-cal-free, low-maintenance landscapemanagement at the Good ShepherdCenter are: developing good soil full oforganic matter that fosters diverse livingorganisms; reducing lawn areas byincreasing perennial beds; putting theright plant in the right place; usingplants with low water needs; and increas-
ing diversity of plant species that in turnencourage more diversity (such as benefi-cial insects, fungi, soil microbes, etc.).
Before Gil took over groundskeeping,the Good Shepherd Center had notestablished a fully developed landscapeto compliment the beautiful building.The minimal traditional landscapefeatures installed by the nuns were stillin place. In total, Gil estimates theproperty had 15-20 species of standardlandscape plantings that were thesubstance of the building’s landscapedesign.
Since 1985, Gil has tried out more than1,500 different species of landscape andedible plants. Today about 500 species aremaintained on the grounds. Through trialand error he has found the plants thatwork with no (or low) water, and nopesticide or fertilizer use.
The goal for the landscape has beengarden diversity not only of plant speciesbut of micro-organisms and insect speciesas well. To this end, for ten years 25-30cubic yards of compost and manure wereapplied each year. In the late 1980s andearly 1990s one could see 50-foot-longelaborately constructed odor-free compostpiles lining unobtrusive edges of thegrounds. Carl Elliot (currently KUOW’sradio gardener), who worked as assistantgroundskeeper during this time, createdthese piles using expertise gained from hisuniversity training in ecological agriculture.
For the Public: CombiningFor the Public: CombiningFor the Public: CombiningFor the Public: CombiningFor the Public: Combining
Edible and OrnamentalEdible and OrnamentalEdible and OrnamentalEdible and OrnamentalEdible and Ornamental
LandscapesLandscapesLandscapesLandscapesLandscapes
Another high priority for Gil was to growfood for the human and animal residentsof the city. Although he does not inten-tionally follow permaculture, the result hasbeen so good an example of permaculturethat permaculture classes regularly use thegarden as a teaching tool. Some of theedible plants one finds scattered through-out the ground’s ornamental garden bedsare: several species of serviceberry, severaltypes of raspberries, strawberries, boysen-berries, wineberries, numerous applespecies, Asian pears, European pears,kiwis, hazelnuts, table and wine grapes,kale, parsley, and various herbs. Browsingin the garden is encouraged and is a goodway to move from “room” to “room” andget to know the garden.
The Good Shepherd Center grounds have many fine old trees. Allleaves are gathered and used as mulch.
Growing Trends
33
With great plant diversity on the grounds,plant identification classes also regularlyvisit the garden. Some of the plant speciesto be identified are a challenge to theprofessor as well as the student. Gil sayshe identifies some plants only by thepublic garden the cuttings or seeds camefrom rather than by the Latin name (e.g.Amelanchier sissinghurst after BritishSissinghurst Gardens).
Professional and amateur photographerscan often be found staging shots forcatalogues or family portraits along thepicturesque cobblestone paths overflowingwith a wide diversity of foliage colors,textures, and shapes. Numerous butter-flies feeding on bright colored flowers andbirds foraging for seeds and insects are anadditional attraction.
Landscape ManagementLandscape ManagementLandscape ManagementLandscape ManagementLandscape Management
for a Sustainable Naturalfor a Sustainable Naturalfor a Sustainable Naturalfor a Sustainable Naturalfor a Sustainable Natural
CycleCycleCycleCycleCycle
In established garden beds Gil no longercontinually applies compost. Rather, heuses the bed’s own plant litter as a sort ofnatural compost. By chopping stems andwoodier material into small pieces andleaving behind leaf, flower, and seedheadsto coat the ground, he has tried to imitatenature. The goal is to establish good soilhealth and permanent plant cover so thatthe bed can reach its own sustainable cycle.
In 1985, the remaining orchard on theeast side of the building was removed tocreate the existing parking lot. Theconstruction of the lot compacted whatwas left of the remaining already poorglacial till soils in terrible condition. Thatfirst year, Gil planted potatoes, clover, andrye as cover crops in heavily compostednew beds in an attempt to enrich and
loosen the soil. Today, the parking lotbeds are a dense stand of ornamentaland food grasses and perennial flowers,partially shaded by gnarled old orchardtrees or the vigorous vines of sweet tablegrapes climbing the electrical utilitypoles. With the shade of the deciduoustrees and dense understory plantings (aswell as the “right” drought tolerantplants), the beds thrive without irriga-tion. Another benefit is that denseplantings need little weeding. Thesebeds make even the parking lot a placeto enjoy the feel of nature and browse atthe same time.
ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion
Today the Good Shepherd Center is afine example of what can be done with apublic garden when there is commit-ment to creative, sustainable manage-ment practices that use what works bestfor both people and the environment.This vision has created a garden thatcombines the sustainability of organicgardening with the urban population’sneed for natural green spaces. Thegrounds reflect the mission of the GoodShepherd Center itself, which is to fostercommunity building and citizen involve-ment. The result is an evolving, diverselandscape that encourages intimatehuman-nature interaction. It has be-come a different sort of place since theSisters of the Good Shepherd left, but itremains a sanctuary in this busy urbansetting.
Gil Schieber, the Good Shepherd gardenerand its closest observer, states, “Thegarden’s constantly changing landscapeover many years has been an ongoingeducation in how nature works. My goalhas been to approach nature’s balance.”
Growing Trends
34
Recommendations
These case studies show that buildingsand landscapes can be successfullymanaged without hazardous pesticides.Moreover, they provide excellent modelsfor all cities, counties, school districts,and other institutions that would like toreduce pesticide use and adopt saferalternatives.
For Schools, Cities, andFor Schools, Cities, andFor Schools, Cities, andFor Schools, Cities, andFor Schools, Cities, and
other Public Institutionsother Public Institutionsother Public Institutionsother Public Institutionsother Public Institutions
To any jurisdiction that is considering aprogram to reduce pesticide use, werecommend the following.
1. Start with a strong policy. The bestprograms are grounded in clear policythat puts forward the principle ofmaking health and the environmentpriorities, and sets clear guidelines forpesticide reduction and elimination.
Policies should have the followingelements:
• Eliminate the use of the most-hazardous pesticides, includingthose linked to cancer, nervoussystem harm, and other healthproblems, as well as those that causewater pollution or harm fish andwildlife.
• Use least-toxic pesticides as a lastresort, and never for solely aestheticpurposes.
• Track pesticide use, report it to thepublic, and provide notification inadvance of pesticide applications.
2. Devote resources to make theprogram successful. An early invest-
ment in strong coordination of a programand staff training has excellent long-termpayoffs. Using alternatives to pesticidesoften necessitates a deeper understandingof how to create a healthy landscape andhow to address specific problems whenthey occur. Designating funds during thetransition period to develop guidelinesand to train staff will have benefits formany years to come.
3. Notify and involve the public. Forpublic institutions, it is the communitythat provides the support necessary forpesticide reduction to be successful.Institutions can maintain that support bynotifying the public whenever pesticidesare used and meaningfully obtaining inputon proposed practices.
4. Establish contacts with other success-ful programs. Now that a number ofprograms have successfully switched frompesticides to safer practices, a wealth ofinformation is available. Institutionslooking for new solutions should contactother programs for information exchange,problem solving, and mutual support.
In the appendices we have provided twomodel policies — one for school districtsand one for cities and counties — that canbe adopted or tailored to any jurisdiction’sneeds. Washington Toxics Coalition staffmembers are available to help developpolicies and identify other resources thatcan smooth the transition.
For Members of the PublicFor Members of the PublicFor Members of the PublicFor Members of the PublicFor Members of the Public
Anyone can act to make his or her ownlandscape healthier and to convince publicagencies to reduce pesticide use.
Growing Trends
35
We recommend that members of thepublic do the following:
1. Stop using pesticides at home.Healthy, sustainable solutions abound forpest problems in the home and garden.Many resources are available to learnabout these solutions, including theWashington Toxics Coalition’s ToxicsHotline, the Natural Lawn and GardenHotline, and others. If you hire profes-sionals for maintaining your lawn andgarden or to address pest problems, youcan hire pest control companies that useleast-toxic methods.
2. Work for change in your community.With the growing number of school
districts, cities, counties, and otheragencies that have turned from pesticidesto safer pest management practices, it isnow easier than ever before to show thatyour local agencies can reduce pesticideuse. You can find out what pesticides areused in your local schools, parks, andother pubic spaces, and work to pass apolicy to reduce their use. The Wash-ington Toxics Coalition has PesticideAction Kits available for school districtsas well as for cities and counties, and ourstaff is available to help you plan andexecute a campaign to win a local policy.Contact us at 206-632-1545 [email protected], or see our website atwww.watoxics.org.
The Seattle Tilth demonstration garden, a highlight of the grounds of the Good Shepherd Center, ismaintained with volunteer labor. See Chapter 10 for more about the Good Shepherd Center’spesticide-free groundskeeping.
Growing Trends
36
Appendices
Appendix A: SchoolsAppendix A: SchoolsAppendix A: SchoolsAppendix A: SchoolsAppendix A: Schools
Passing Policies
To assist parents and other communitymembers in reducing pesticide use inschools, the Washington Toxics Coali-tion has created a Healthy SchoolsPesticide Action Kit. It contains factsheets, reference tables, and resource liststo help pass strong policies in your localdistrict. Copies are available fromWashington Toxics by calling 800-844-SAFE or as downloadable PDF files atwww.watoxics.org.
For further information about schoolpesticide use, or for assistance in passinga local pesticide reduction policy, contactthe Washington Toxics Coalition.
Why a pesticide policy?
Pesticides can harm children’s health.With the amount of time children spendin school, pesticide use at school poses aparticular threat. Because children’sbodies are still developing, they are moresusceptible to the risks from pesticideexposure. Scientific studies link pesti-cides to cancer, birth defects, nervoussystem disorders, reproductive problems,endocrine (hormone) disruption, andimmune deficiency.
Decreasing pesticide use is key to pro-tecting human health and the environ-ment, but despite good intentions tosimply reduce pesticides, experienceshows that adopted policies are necessaryto ensure best practices in the long run.Adopted policies outline specific steps to
solving pest problems, ensure completeimplementation, and guarantee thatpesticides will not be used even whenchanges in the staff occur.
Schools policies in Washington
A growing number of Washington schooldistricts are implementing effective, least-toxic pest-management programs thateliminate or minimize toxic pesticide use.Districts with strong school policies inplace include:
1. Bainbridge Island School DistrictContact: Jack Evans, Maintenance
Department, 206-842-4117Background: Passed originally in 1997,
and then revised to include a ban onhigh-hazard pesticides in 2001, BISDhas a strong dedication to least-toxicpest management. The policy includesan IPM committee and a 24-hourhotline with information about anypesticide use on school grounds. Seeprofile on page 15.
2. Sedro-Woolley School DistrictContact: Mike Riddle, Maintenance
Department, 360-855-3505Background: Sedro-Woolley’s policy is
one of the strongest in the state, witha comprehensive ban on high-hazardpesticides, IPM committee, anddedication to least-toxic pest manage-ment. The policy does not allowcalendar-based applications, fertilizeruse when children are present, orpesticide use for aesthetic reasons.
3. Vancouver School DistrictContact: George Bryant, Facilities
Department, 360-313-4777Background: The Vancouver School
Board unanimously passed theirpolicy in the spring of 2002. Thepolicy requires written notification ofall parents and staff members 48
Growing Trends
37
hours before any pesticide applica-tion. It also includes a high-hazardban, IPM committee, and primaryuse of least-toxic pest-managementpractices.
4. Oak Harbor School DistrictContact: Bruce Worley, Operations
Department, 360-279-5007Background: Oak Harbor’s policy bans
the use of high-hazard pesticides andcalendar-based applications. It in-cludes creation of an IPM committeeand dedication to least-toxic pestmanagement.
5. Mercer Island School DistrictContact: Tom Otto, Maintenance
Department, 206-230-6388Background: Spearheaded by Mainte-
nance Director Tom Otto, MercerIsland passed their policy in spring2002. The policy includes a high-hazard ban and a dedication to least-toxic pest management.
6. South Whidbey School DistrictContact: John Turner, Facilities Depart-
ment, 360-221-1897Background: Based in strong commu-
nity support for least-toxic pestmanagement, South Whidbeyadopted a policy that bans the use ofall high-hazard pesticides and indi-cates their dedication to least-toxicmethods.
Model Schools Policy
The following policy captures the mainelements of a successful, least-toxic pestmanagement for schools. These include:
• Ban the use of high-hazard pesticideson school grounds, including pesti-cides linked to cancer, nervous-systemdamage, endocrine (hormone) disrup-tion, or reproductive damage.
• Establish least-toxic pest managementas official district policy, and ensure
that pesticides will not be used forpurely aesthetic purposes.
• Notify all parents, teachers, and staffmembers prior to any pesticide useon school grounds.
• Establish a pest-managementcommittee consisting of parents,teachers, school staff, and public-health organizations to overseepolicy implementation.
Model IPM Policy forModel IPM Policy forModel IPM Policy forModel IPM Policy forModel IPM Policy for
Schools:Schools:Schools:Schools:Schools:
POLICY ______: Least-Toxic Integrated PestManagement (IPM) and Pesticide Use Minimi-zation
Because the health and safety of students andstaff is our first priority, and a prerequisite tolearning, the ___________ School Districtmanages vegetation and pests using a minimumof least-toxic pesticides. The district utilizesphysical, mechanical, cultural, biological andeducational tactics as primary controls. Least-toxic chemical controls are used as a last resort.
Pesticide Use and Selection
Pesticides will only be used if necessary for thehealth and safety of students and staff. No high-hazard pesticides will be used. To ensure that nohigh-hazard pesticides are used, any pesticideused by the school district must meet thefollowing criteria:
a. Pesticide is not classified as highly acutelytoxic (Hazard Category I or II) by the Environ-mental Protection Agency (signal word forHazard Category I products = DANGER; signalword for Hazard Category II products =WARNING);
b. Pesticide is not a restricted use pesticide (useof the product is restricted to certified pesticideapplicators);
c. Ingredients in product have been evaluated bythe U.S. EPA and found to include no possible,probable, known or likely carcinogens;
Growing Trends
38
d. Ingredients in product include no reproduc-tive toxicants (CA Prop 65 list);
e. Ingredients in product not listed by IllinoisEPA as known, probable or suspected endocrinedisruptors;
f. Ingredients in product include no nervoussystem toxicants (i.e. ingredients that arecholinesterase inhibitors and/or are listed asneurotoxic by the Toxics Release Inventory);
g. Ingredients have soil half-life of 30 days orless;
h. Ingredients have extremely low or very lowmobility in soil, according to GroundwaterUbiquity Score (GUS) index;
i. Product is not labeled as toxic to fish, birds,bees, wildlife, or domestic animals.
No pesticide will be used if the school districtdoes not have information on all pesticideingredients.
No routinely scheduled (e.g. seasonal, monthly,or weekly) pesticide applications will be made.No pesticide fogging or space spraying will bedone. Insecticides will be used only in contain-erized baits, or for spot treatments targeted toinsect nests or problem areas where a minimalamount of material will be used. Pesticides willnot be used solely for aesthetic purposes. Costand staffing are not sufficient justification for useof a pesticide.
Notification and Timing
Pesticide notification signs shall be posted at thetreatment site, at a prominent place in the mainoffice, and at primary entrypoints to the site ofapplication prior to any pesticide application.Signs shall remain in place for one week afterpesticide application, or a longer period of timeif specified by the pesticide label.
In addition, written notice shall be provided tostudents, parents, guardians and employees 48hours in advance of any pesticide application.
Posted notices shall begin with a header contain-ing the words “NOTICE: Pesticide Application;THIS AREA (or “LANDSCAPE” for outdoorapplications) HAS BEEN RECENTLY
SPRAYED OR TREATED WITH PESTICIDESBYYOUR SCHOOL.”
Notices shall be at least 8-1/2 by 11 inches, andshall include the following information: the signalword from the pesticide label, alongside theproduct name (e.g. “DANGER: Confront”); thepesticide’s active ingredient; the intended date andtime of application; the location and area to whichthe pesticide is to be applied; the rate of applica-tion; the pest to be controlled; the name andphone number of the responsible party where thepesticide label and material safety data sheets maybe obtained; a footer including “FOR MOREINFORMATION PLEASE CALL” and name andphone number of the contact person for theapplication; and a boxed-off warning stating:“CAUTION: Individuals taking medication,pregnant women, infants, children, and individualswith respiratory or heart disease, chemical sensitivi-ties, or weakened immune systems may beparticularly susceptible to adverse health effectsdue to pesticide exposure.”
Notification signs shall be printed in colorscontrasting to the background.
Any pesticide application will be timed formaximum protection of human health andbeneficial organisms. Any pest control activitieswill be conducted in consideration of effects onclassroom activities.
Recordkeeping
The school district will maintain records of allpesticides used and their active ingredients,amounts and locations of treatments, and targetpests. Alternative pest control measures will alsobe documented. Pesticide use and pest controlrecords, pesticide Material Safety Data Sheets(MSDS), pesticide product labels, and manufac-turer information about all pesticide ingredientswill be on file at each school as well as at schooldistrict headquarters.
School staff, parents and students will have accessto all records upon request, including an annualsummary of pesticide use records for each schooland for the district as a whole.
Pest Management Committee
Any proposals for pesticide use must be approvedby a Pest Management Committee or other
Growing Trends
39
committee consisting of parents, staff, andcommunity members.
The Pest Management Committee will be respon-sible for the progress review described below, andcarry out other activities as needed to oversee theimplementation of the least-toxic IPM policy.
Progress Review
At the beginning of each school year, the districtwill provide written information to staff, students,and parents regarding pest control activities withinthe school district. This information will includethe names of all compounds that may be used, anda description of the district’s pest control policiesand methods, including all posting and notifica-tion policies.
The district will annually review its pest manage-ment program to evaluate how well its pestprevention and control objectives are being met,and to identify areas where improvement isneeded. The district will prepare a report contain-ing the following information:
a. Quantities of each pesticide applied duringthe previous year;
b. Target pest for each pesticide used;
c. Non-chemical pest prevention and controlmeasures used;
d. Pest management plan for the coming year.
The report will be provided to members of theschool board of directors, all district parents, andmade available to the public upon request.
Note: These reporting specifications satisfy theannual notification and reporting requirements ofthe Children’s Pesticide Right-to-Know Act (SB5533), including the required annual summary ofpesticide use, and the required notice of pestcontrol policies and methods.
Right to Appeal
Parents, staff, and neighbors may appeal pesticideuse plans to the Pest Management Committee.Notification of this right will be provided at thebeginning of the school year, as well as with anyadditional notification of a particular planned use
of pesticides during the school year. The PestManagement Committee will consider allappeals received up to three days prior to theplanned pesticide application. Appeals receivedwithin three days prior to the application will beconsidered by the superintendent.
Identification and Notification of
Sensitive Individuals
The district will maintain a registry of chemi-cally-sensitive students, staff, or others requestingspecial consideration in the event of the use ofpesticides. The district will provide personalnotification to these individuals two weeks priorto any planned pesticide use, and will make aneffort to address their concerns and special needsrelative to such pesticide applications.
Appendix B: Cities,Appendix B: Cities,Appendix B: Cities,Appendix B: Cities,Appendix B: Cities,
Counties, and RoadsidesCounties, and RoadsidesCounties, and RoadsidesCounties, and RoadsidesCounties, and Roadsides
Passing a policy
For community members interested inreducing pesticides in their municipality,the Washington Toxics Coalition and theNorthwest Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides have created a Pesticide ActionKit. The kit was developed as a part ofthe local work in our Clean Water forSalmon campaign. It contains factsheets, reference tables, and resource liststo help pass a strong policy in your cityor county. Copies are available fromWashington Toxics Coalition by calling800-844-SAFE or as downloadable PDFfiles at www.watoxics.org.
For further information about municipalpesticide use, or for assistance in passinga local pesticide-reduction policy, con-tact the Washington Toxics Coalition.
Why a policy?
In order to thrive, salmon need cleanwater. The use of pesticides in both rural
Growing Trends
40
and urban areas pollutes our streams andrivers, posing a serious threat to thehealth of salmon runs as well as commu-nities. Pesticides can kill salmon directly,or perhaps more commonly, cause subtledamage that reduces their chance ofsurvival. Cities and counties shouldmake pesticide-use reduction a coreelement of salmon recovery. Localjurisdictions can serve as models ofsalmon-friendly pest management byadopting strong policies to phase outpesticide use in parks and on municipalland.
Adopted policies are necessary to ensurebest practices in the long run. Theyoutline specific steps to solving pestproblems, ensure complete implementa-tion, and guarantee that pesticides willnot be used even when changes in thestaff occur.
Strong policies and programs in
Washington
Cities and counties around Washingtonhave adopted policies that implementeffective, least-toxic pest-managementprograms that eliminate or minimizetoxic pesticide use.
CITY policies1. Seattle
Contact: Tracy Dieckhoner, Office ofSustainability and Environment,206-386-4595, www.cityofseattle.
net/environment/Pesticides.htmBackground: Seattle’s policy elimi-
nated the use of the most hazardousherbicides and insecticides on cityproperty, and set a goal of reducingoverall pesticide use by 30% by2002. Seattle also has 14 pesticide-free parks, where landscapes aremaintained using no toxic chemicals
at all, and alternatives are beingutilized. See profile on page 8.
2. LynnwoodContact: Craig Larsen, Parks and
Recreation, 425-744-6475Background: Passed in summer 2002,
Lynnwood’s city policy eliminates theuse of the most hazardous pesticides,requires 24-hour prior posting of allapplication sites, and creates a pesti-cide-free park program.
COUNTY policies3. Thurston
Contact: Mark Swartout, NaturalResources Program, 360-709-3079
Background: Thurston County’s Pestand Vegetation Management Policyrequires use of non-toxic pest andvegetation controls by all countydepartments, and eliminates the useof high-hazard pesticides on countyproperty. The policy also establishesrecord-keeping, requires IPM “pre-scriptions” for any problem, requiresIPM plans for aquatically sensitiveareas, and calls for public education.See profile on page 5.
4. KingContact: Ann Peacock, Local Hazard-
ous Waste Management Program,206-263-3088
Background: King County’s policyeliminates the use of the most-hazardous pesticide and focuses onleast-toxic pest management. Thecounty reports a decrease in herbicideuse of 65% and a decrease in insecti-cide use of nearly 90% in the first twoyears of the policy.
COUNTY ROADSIDE no-spray pro-grams5. Jefferson
Contact: Mark Lopeman, PublicWorks, 360-385-0890
Growing Trends
41
Background: Twenty-three years ago,Jefferson County implemented a “no-spray” policy for controlling roadsidevegetation. They use a combinationof preventive measures, such asmowing and brushing practices, aswell as encouraging low-growingnative plants, to keep roadsides wellmaintained. See profile on page 28.
6. SnohomishContact: Steve Pratt, Road Mainte-
nance Department, 360-862-7501Background: For 10 years, Snohomish
County has maintained their road-sides without the use of pesticides.With more than 1650 miles of countyroads, they use a combination ofmowing and grading in order to keeptheir roadsides clear and ditchesgrowing and green.
7. IslandContact: Bill Oakes, Public Works
Department, 360-321-5111Background: Community support
caused the Island County commis-sioners to commit the county road-side program to pesticide-free man-agement in early 2002.
8. ClallamContact: Public Works Department,
360-417-2319Background: Clallam County has
maintained county roads without theuse of pesticides for more than adecade. Road maintenance crewsmow the shoulders of the roads, cutbrush, grade gravel roads, and cleanditches.
9. San JuanContact: Russ Harvey, Roadsides
Maintenance Department, 360-378-2114
Background: For more than 20 years,San Juan County has used mowing asits means of roadside vegetationcontrol. The roads are on a 7-year
cycle for sealing, which includesgrading them for sod removal toprevent vegetation encroachmentand pooling of water.
Model city/county policy
The following policy captures the mainelements of a successful, least-toxic pest-control program for cities and counties.This includes:
1. High-hazard pesticides — those thatare documented to threaten humanand environmental health, posehazards to the health of salmon, orcontaminate water — should bephased out.
2. Pesticides should not be used forpurely aesthetic purposes, or withoutdocumentation of an existing pestproblem.
3. Overall pesticide use should bereduced, and alternatives to pesticidesshould be used unless none areavailable.
4. Safeguards should be put in place tokeep pesticides out of water.
5. Use of pesticides by or for the city/county should be reported to acentral office and the data released tothe public.
6. Notification signs should be posted atleast 72 hours prior to any pesticideapplication. Signs shall remain inplace for at least one week afterpesticide application.
Model IPM Policy for
Cities and Counties:
Section I: Purpose
The City/County of ________ is committed tousing its operations and authority to protectwater quality and human health. The City/
Growing Trends
42
County recognizes that using integrated pestmanagement practices that reduce pesticide usecan result in improved salmon habitat andsurvival rate, reduced levels of toxic chemicalsentering the water, and benefit human andenvironmental health. Pesticides pollute waterand can threaten salmon survival via lethal andsublethal effects as well as harm to their foodsupply and habitat. Pesticides are linked toadverse human health effects including cancer,neurological harm, birth defects, reproductiveharm, endocrine disruption, and acute poison-ing.
The City/County of ________ hereby adoptsthe Pest Management Policy for Salmon andHuman Health as its official pest managementpolicy. Prevention is the primary tool for solvingall pest management problems on city/countyproperty including, but not limited to, landscap-ing and building maintenance. When pestproblems occur, mechanical, physical, biological,and other alternative methods are the preferredcontrol methods. Use of pesticide products willbe decreased or eliminated as prevention andalternative controls are increased.
This policy concerns all pest managementpractices on property owned and/or maintainedby the City/County of ________ whetherpractices are carried out by the City/County orby its contractors. This policy does not concernpest management practices on property that isnot owned or maintained by the City/County.
Section II: Pest Management
Program
II.a. Pest PreventionPrevention creates conditions that encouragedesired plants, animals, and other organisms anddiscourage unwanted vegetation, insects, andother organisms.
The City/County of ________ will:• Design and construct indoor and outdoor
areas to reduce potential for pest habitats.• Use management practices, including waste
management and food storage, to reducepotential for excessive development of pestpopulations.
• Plant pest-resistant plants (native whereappropriate) in newly landscaped and re-landscaped areas.
• Maintain plant health through use of
compost, and appropriate irrigation andtiming of planting.
• Establish new plantings using proper plantselection, soil preparation, planting tech-niques, plant density, irrigation practices,mulch application, monitoring, and follow-up maintenance.
• Use mulch to enhance soil fertility, inhibitweed growth, and reduce erosion.
• Maintain healthy turf through appropriatemowing, fertilization, and irrigation practices.
• Modify existing landscapes to reduce potentialfor pest habitats.
• Match cultural and environmental require-ments of plants with site conditions.
• Eliminate planting of non-native invasivespecies.
II.b. Biological, Mechanical, Physical, and OtherAlternative Pest Control MethodsTo evaluate and address existing pest problems orproblems that may develop in spite of preventiontechniques, all City/County departments shallfollow the approach outlined below.
• Routinely monitor sites for optimal health andsanitation conditions.
• Routinely monitor populations of potentialpests and their natural enemies to determineif and when control is needed.
• Establish threshold levels of pests below whichthe population does not require control.
• Use physical, mechanical, biological, andother alternative methods to keep pestnumbers low enough to prevent intolerabledamage or annoyance.
II.c. Use of Pesticide Products1. In order to use a pesticide product the City/
County will document its need to address aspecific pest problem considering preventionand alternatives to pesticides first. This docu-mentation will be made available to the public.Pesticide products may only be used if noeconomically feasible or effective alternative isavailable. The result of this process will be alimited-use list that details currently allowedpesticide uses in a specific problem area.
2. The City/County will conduct an annual reviewof the limited-use list. This list is included inthe annual use of pesticide products by theCity/County and therefore is also subject toreduction goals.
3. Within one year of passage of this policy theCity/County of ________ will have reducedpesticide use by at least 35%. In the second
Growing Trends
43
year, use will be reduced an additional 25%; inthe three years following, use will be reduced anadditional 15, 10, and 5% respectively.Pesticide use will be measured by quantity ofthe ready-to-use pesticide product.
4. Upon passage of this ordinance:a. All aesthetic uses of pesticides will end
immediately.b. All calendar-based pesticide product applica-
tions will end immediately.c. No pesticides will be applied within at least
100 feet (ground applications) and 200 feet(aerial applications) of a lake, stream, wetland,groundwater recharge area, or storm drain.
5. Within six months after passage of this act, theCity/County of ________ will end all uses ofknown high-hazard pesticides listed in Appen-dix A. Pesticide application timing and amountwill be determined according to the efficacy ofthe product and impact to the surroundingenvironment. Considerations will include pestbiology, weather, seasonal changes in wildlifeuse, and local conditions.
Generally, all pest management techniques mustavoid disrupting natural pest controls present andaim to suppress the pest population, not eliminateit. In many cases a portion of the pest populationmust remain to sustain natural enemies.
Section III: Training, Education, and
Research
III.a. Training and EducationCity/County permanent and seasonal staff shall betrained in prevention and the other pest manage-ment techniques outlined in this policy if appro-priate to their area of work. Trainings should occuron topics such as: sanitation in the office space,food storage for kitchens, pest biologies, landscap-ing and re-vegetation with pest resistant and nativeplants, using compost tea, mechanical and othernew pest control strategies applicable to the pestproblems in existence, and toxicology of pesticides.Training of landscape and maintenance staff shalloccur at least once a year. All other city staff shallreceive education about prevention of pestproblems in the workplace.
III.b. Research ProjectEach year the City/County will establish a researchproject with the goal of developing and imple-menting new alternative strategies to prevent/control pest problems. A research project will beundertaken if there is a problem for which all
prevention and alternative controls have provedineffective or too costly and pesticide productsare being used. Priority of project selection willgo to the reduction of pesticides that have majoruses as indicated by amount used, number ofapplications, or cost of product.
Section IV: Public Notification and
Involvement
IV.a. NotificationWithin 120 days of the effective date of thisordinance, any City/County department thatuses a pesticide shall comply with the followingnotification procedures:
Notification signs shall be posted at least 72hours prior to any pesticide application. Signsshall remain in place for at least seven days afterpesticide application. Signs shall be posted (i) atthe treatment site, at a central area in thebuilding, and at every entry point if the pesticideis applied in an enclosed area, and (ii) in highlyvisible locations around the perimeter of theapplication area if the pesticide is applied in anopen area. If the application is to a linearlandscape, such as along a path or roadside, signsshall be posted at 100-foot intervals.
Notices shall begin with a header containing thesignal word from the pesticide label alongside thewords “Pesticide Application.” For example,“WARNING: PESTICIDE APPLICATION.”Notices shall be at least 8-1/2 by 11 inches, andshall include the following information: thepesticide’s active ingredient; the date and time ofpesticide application; the area treated; the rate ofapplication; the name and phone number of thecontact person for the application; the name andphone number of the responsible party where thepesticide label and material safety data sheetsmay be obtained; and a boxed-off warningstating: “CAUTION: Individuals takingmedication, pregnant women, infants, children,and individuals with respiratory or heart disease,chemical sensitivities, or weakened immunesystems may be particularly susceptible toadverse health effects due to pesticide exposure.”
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), pesticideproduct labels, and manufacturer informationabout all pesticide ingredients used on City/County property will be readily accessible to thepublic.
Growing Trends
44
The City/County shall notify the public prior toany aerial pesticide application via notices inwidely read newspapers and postings, thecontent of which meets the above requirements.Notices shall be posted throughout the areaaffected by the aerial application. If an immedi-ate pesticide application of any kind is necessaryfor the protection of public health, signs meetingthe requirements of this section shall be posted.
The City/County should further educate thepublic by designing and implementing publiceducation about changing landscaping and pestmanagement practices. Education may alsoinclude signs in public places explaining thebenefits of the city’s pest management practicesfor salmon restoration and protection of humanhealth.
IV.b. Public InvolvementThe Pest Management Coordinator will ensure aformal process to obtain public input whendetermining:1. Selection of research projects,2. Creation and updating of the limited-use list,3. Achievement of goals for pesticide reduction,4. Format of data in the annual report.
Section V: City and Departmental
Pest Management Coordinators
V.a. City/County Pest Management Coordina-torEffective 120 days after the passage of this Act,the City/County council shall appoint a PestManagement Coordinator dedicated to promo-tion of prevention and alternative pest controls.The Pest Management Coordinator is chargedwith implementing this policy, including:1. Ensuring appropriate steps are taken to direct
the City/County towards pest prevention andalternative controls.
2. Ensuring annual landscape and maintenancestaff trainings occur.
3. Ensuring education occurs for all other City/County staff.
4. Ensuring the unified database that compilesinformation provided by each departmenthas inter-departmental consistency and iskept up to date.
5. Ensuring that all departments are achievingthe yearly goals of this ordinance.
6. Ensuring the end-of-the-year report is written.7. S/he leads the pest management coordinators.
8. Ensuring that questions by both departmentsand by the citizens of ________ receiveprompt responses.
V.b. Departmental Pest Management Coordina-torsEffective 180 days after the passage of this Act,each department with pest management responsi-bilities, together with the City/County PestManagement Coordinator, shall identify adepartmental Pest Management Coordinator. Thisperson is responsible for:1. Educating department staff about the policy.2. Ensuring that her/his department is achieving
the goals set forth by the Committee to complywith this policy.
3. Assuring tracking of all pest managementactivities conducted or contracted by thedepartment.
4. Actively participate in the review of the limited-use list.
Effective 180 days after the passage of this Act, allPest Management Coordinators shall form acommittee to oversee implementation of thispolicy.
Section VI: Record Keeping
The City/County of ________ will maintainpublicly accessible information with records ofpesticides used by all departments. The informa-tion will be maintained in a database that willinclude records of each pesticide applicationincluding the EPA registration number of thepesticide, amount of each ready-to-use pesticideproduct used, exact locations of each treatment,and the target pest. The City/County shall alsorecord and report the quantity of the pesticideproduct used (pre mixing).
The City/County will also maintain records ofprevention and control methods utilized, rationalefor their use, their effectiveness, the presence andextent of pest problems, and the populations ofnatural enemies.
Data on prevention or treatment techniques will beadded to the database within 30 days of the action.Data on pesticide applications will be recordedwithin five working days of the application.
Section VII: Program Evaluation
On a yearly basis, the City/County of ________
Growing Trends
45
will review its pest management program toevaluate how well its pest prevention and controlobjectives are being met, and to identify areaswhere improvement is needed. Evaluation of thefollowing is required:a. Alternative pest prevention and control
measures used; efficacy of control measures;rational for their use or discontinuation.
b. Pest management plan for the coming yearalong with the plan for achieving the next year’sgoals.
c. Results of research and demonstration projectsof the previous year.
d. Research and demonstration projects for thecoming year.
e. Quantities of each ready-to-use pesticideproduct applied during the previous year.
f. An assessment of the city’s compliance with thispolicy.
g. An assessment of the limited-use list as well asthe criteria list for the known high-hazards.
A report will be prepared that includes all of theabove information. The report will be madeavailable to the public upon request, through theInternet, and notices to interested parties will besent out prior to release. Additionally, the informa-tion in the report will be presented to the citycouncil or county commissioner at a publicmeeting in which the public has an opportunity tocomment.
Definitions
Aesthetic use – pesticide applications made solelyfor cosmetic reasons rather than for public safetyor improved plant health.
Calendar based – applications of pesticides thatare made on a monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterlybasis rather than when a need is demonstrated andas a last-resort measure.
Known high-hazard –The following list of resources shall be used todetermine if a pesticide is a known high-hazardpesticide. If any active ingredients or otheringredients in a product meet one of these criteria,then the product is a known high-hazard pesticide.
This list of criteria is subject to change with theavailability of additional resources. Therefore, thislist shall be reviewed annually to determinewhether new resources should be used.
1. Acutely toxic to humans❖ Classified as Toxicity Category I or II by the
United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Danger or Warning will belisted on the label.
2. Acutely toxic to aquatic insects, fish, aquaticand semi-aquatic plants, wildlife, or domesticanimals
❖ The Environmental Hazards Section of thelabel will state toxic, highly toxic, orextremely toxic.
❖ The U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide ProgramsReregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs,IREDs, and TREDs) states that the level ofconcern is exceeded or the risk quotient isgreater than one.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htmU.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.Tolerance Reassessment & Reregistration.“Pesticide reregistration status.” [REDs,IREDs, and TREDs]
3. May cause cancer in humans❖ Classified as a known, likely, probable, or
possible carcinogen by the U.S. EPA.http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/carlistU.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.“List of Chemicals Evaluated forCarcinogenic Potential”• To request hard copy, call or write
❖ Classified as a known, likely, probable, orpossible carcinogen by the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
http://193.51.164.11/monoeval/grlist.htmlIARC“Lists of IARC Evaluations”• Click on ‘List of all agents, mixtures
and exposures evaluated to date’ for analphabetic list of chemical names, CASnumbers, and volume number.
• Click on ‘Complete List of all Mono-graphs and Supplements published todate’ for complete text
❖ Classified as known or reasonably antici-pated to be human carcinogen by NationalToxicology Program; listed by State ofCalifornia.
http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.htmlCalifornia. Office of EnvironmentalHealth Hazard Assessment.“Proposition 65”
Growing Trends
46
• Scroll down to: ‘Download the (monthday, year) list in PDF format.’
• Document is titled: “Chemicals knownto the State to cause cancer or reproduc-tive toxicity.”
4. Nervous system toxicant in humans❖ Cholinesterase inhibitor
http://www.pesticideinfo.org• Search for chemical, then click More
for more information, then scroll downto Toxicity Information. A skull andcrossbones under cholinesteraseinhibitor indicates it is a cholinesteraseinhibitor.
❖ Listed as neurotoxic in U.S. EPA ToxicsRelease Inventory.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/chemical/index.htm
5. Reproductive toxicant in humans❖ Classified as known or reasonably
anticipated to be reproductive toxicant byNational Toxicology Program; listed by Stateof California.
http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.htmlCalifornia. Office of EnvironmentalHealth Hazard Assessment.“Proposition 65”• Scroll down to: ‘Download the (month
day, year) list in PDF format.’• Document is titled: “Chemicals known
to the State to cause cancer or reproduc-tive toxicity.”
6. Disrupts hormonal systems❖ Listed by Illinois EPA as a chemical
associated with endocrine system effects.http://www.nihs.go.jp/hse/environ/illiepatable.htm“Illinois EPA endocrine disruptorsstrategy. Table 1 Preliminary List ofChemicals Associated With EndocrineSystem Effects in Animals and Humans(*) or In Vitro (+)”
7. Persists in the environment❖ Soil half-life of 100 days or greater as listed
by Agricultural Research Service.http://wizard.arsusda.gov/acsl/ppdb1.htmlAgricultural Research Service“U.S. Department of AgriculturePesticide Properties Database”
❖ Soil half-life of 100 days or greater as listed byOSU Extension Pesticide Properties Database.
http://ace.orst.edu/info/npic/ppdmove.htmVogue, PA, Kerle, EA, and Jenkins, JJ“OSU Extension Pesticide PropertiesDatabase”
8. High or very high mobility in soils❖ Groundwater Ubiquity Score of 3.0 or as
listed by Oregon State University ExtensionPesticide Properties Database.
http://ace.orst.edu/info/npic/ppdmove.htmVogue, PA, Kerle, EA, and Jenkins, JJ“OSU Extension Pesticide PropertiesDatabase”
❖ The Environmental Hazards Section of thelabel warns about leachability or detections.
9. Detected in salmon waters at an amounthazardous to aquatic species
❖ Using the most recent pesticide detection datafrom salmon habitat determine if at levels thatexceed U.S. EPA or Canadian aquatic lifecriteria.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteriaU.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria.• Click on ‘Aquatic Life’ AND ‘Criteria
Table’
Appendix C: ResourcesAppendix C: ResourcesAppendix C: ResourcesAppendix C: ResourcesAppendix C: Resources
I. Organizations
A.Washington Toxics Coalition4649 Sunnyside Ave N, Suite 540Seattle, WA 98103Phone: 206-632-1545Email: [email protected]: www.watoxics.orgThe Washington Toxics Coalition
works to protect public health andthe environment by preventingpollution in industry, agriculture,schools, public places, and thehome. Its website and hotline (seebelow) have information on pesti-cides, least-toxic products, andalternative solutions.
Growing Trends
47
B.Northwest Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides (NCAP)PO Box 1393Eugene, OR 97440Phone: 541-344-5044Email: [email protected]: www.pesticide.orgNCAP works to protect people and the
environment by advancing healthysolutions to pest problems. NCAP hasa wealth of information on pesticidesand least-toxic alternatives, includingcomprehensive fact sheets on specificpesticides and pests.
C. Washington Sustainable Food andFarming NetworkPO Box 6054Bellingham, WA 98227Phone: 360-527-9426Email: [email protected] promotes community envi-
ronmental, social, and economic well-being by joining together and mobi-lizing residents and organizations ofWashington in creating a sustainablefood and farming network.
D.Green Gardening Program, KingCountyc/o Joanne Jewell, Seattle Tilth4649 Sunnyside Avenue North, Rm 1Seattle, WA 98103Phone: 206-547-7561Website: http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/proipm/default.htmThe Green Gardening Program is a
collaborative effort of Seattle Tilth,WSU Cooperative Extension KingCounty, and Washington ToxicsCoalition, promoting environmen-tally sensitive landscaping. Theprogram provides training andresources for homeowners, profes-sional landscapers, nursery staff, andgarden tours. Green Gardening is
managed by Seattle Public Utilitiesand is funded by the Local Hazard-ous Waste Management Program inKing County.
E. Seattle Tilth4649 Sunnyside Avenue North, Rm 1Seattle, WA 98103Phone: 206-633-0451Email: [email protected]: www.seattletilth.orgSeattle Tilth provides hands-on
education about organic gardening,supports local farms, and works toexplore more sustainable ways ofusing the world’s resources. SeattleTilth runs a hotline (see below) forthe City of Seattle to answer garden-ing questions.
F. Washington Tilth Association3830 S 530 EGreenbank, WA 98253Email: Chris Greendale, President,[email protected]: http://www.tilthproducers.org/wta.htmThe Washington Tilth Association
comprises the five Tilth organiza-tions in the state: Seattle Tilth,Washington Tilth Producers, Spo-kane Tilth, South Whidbey TilthAssociation, and the Vashon IslandGrowers Association.
G. Pesticide Action Network NorthAmerica (PANNA)49 Powell Street, Suite 500San Francisco, CA 94102Phone: 415-981-1771Email: [email protected]: www.panna.orgPANNA works to replace pesticide
use with ecologically sound andsocially just alternatives. As one offive PAN Regional Centers world-
Growing Trends
48
wide, PANNA links local andinternational consumer, labor,health, environment, and agriculturegroups into an international citizens’action network.
H.Beyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides(NCAMP)701 E Street SEWashington, DC 20003Phone: 202-543-5450Email: [email protected]: www.beyondpesticides.orgBeyond Pesticides is a national
pesticide-activist network thatpromotes pesticide safety andadoption of pest-control alternativesto reduce or eliminate dependencyon toxic chemicals. It providesuseful information on pesticides andalternative pest management,including fact sheets on pesticides,pesticide policy, and least-toxicalternatives.
I. Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)PO Box 7414Berkeley, CA 94707Phone: 510-524-2567Email: [email protected]: www.birc.orgBIRC specializes in finding non-toxic
and least-toxic Integrated PestManagement solutions to urban andagricultural pest problems. Theirstaff has a sophisticated knowledgeof least-toxic programs for homeand garden, and consults withinstitutions and the public for asmall fee.
II. IPM Consultants
• Integrated SolutionsE. J. Hook
• Ciscoe [email protected]
• Green Gardening Program,King Countyc/o Joanne Jewell, Seattle [email protected]
III. Hotline Help
Washington Toxics Coalition Hotline:800-844-SAFE ext. 7(Information on pesticides and alterna-tives for the home and garden)
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides: 541-344-5044(Information on pesticides and alterna-tives for the home and garden)
Natural Lawn and Garden Hotline:206-633-0224(IPM expertise, composting, and plantpathology)
IV. Websites
Washington Toxics Coalitionhttp://www.watoxics.orgThis website provides access to HomeSafe Home fact sheets about safersolutions for common household pestproblems as well as information onother household toxics issues.
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides (NCAP)http://www.pesticide.orgNCAP’s website has many detailed factsheets on the hazards of specific pesti-
Growing Trends
49
cides as well as on safer pest-manage-ment practices.
Green Gardening Program ProIPM FactSheetshttp://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/proipmGreen Gardening’s ProIPM fact sheetsprovide professional-level managementsolutions for common landscapeproblems ranging from annual weedsto tent caterpillars.
University of California Integrated PestManagement onlinehttp://www.ipm.ucdavis.eduThis website is primarily directed atagricultural pests, but is a good re-source for descriptions of pathogens,diseases, and weeds (with photos foridentification).
King County Local Hazardous WasteManagement Program: Keys to Inte-grated Pest Managementhttp://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/house/garden/index.htmKing County’s website has excellent,user-friendly information on non-chemical controls of home and gardenpests from aphids to whiteflies.
Pesticide Action Network of NorthAmerica Pesticide Information Data-basehttp://www.pesticideinfo.orgPANNA’s Pesticide Information Data-base is an easy-to-use, searchabledatabase with extensive information onthe hazards of pesticides.
ExToxNethttp://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnetThis website has somewhat detailedinformation on the hazards of a broadrange of pesticides.
V. Publications
1. Common Sense Pest Control: Least-Toxic Solutions for Your Home, Gar-den, Pets, and Community. 1991.Olkowski, William, et al., Newtown,CT, The Taunton Press.
2. Ecologically Sound Lawn Care for thePacific Northwest: Findings from thescientific literature and recommenda-tions from turf professionals. 1997.McDonald, David. Seattle PublicUtilities. http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/lawncare/LawnReport.htm
3. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterlyand The IPM Practitioner, bothpublished by the Bio-Integral Re-source Center (BIRC).
4. Building Blocks for School IPM: ALeast-toxic Structural Pest ManagementManual. 2002. Beyond Pesticides.
5. IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual.1997. Darr, Sheila, et al. Environ-mental Protection Agency.
6. ProIPM fact sheets. Green GardeningProgram, available at: http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/proipm/.
7. Poisoned Waters: Pesticide Contamina-tion of Waters and Solutions to ProtectPacific Salmon. 2002. Lind,Pollyanna. Northwest Coalition forAlternatives to Pesticides.
8. Grow Smart, Grow Safe: A ConsumerGuide to Lawn and Garden Products.2002. Dickey, Philip. Local Hazard-ous Waste Management Program inKing County.
4649 Sunn yside A ve. N. Suit e 5 40Seattle, W A 98103
206-632-1545info@wat oxics.or gwww .wat oxics.or g