HomeMy WebLinkAboutOES 05-08
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 05-08
Date: March 17, 2698
01
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject:
Pesticide Use By-law
- File: A-1440
Recommendations:
1. That Report DES 05-08 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services be
received; and
2. That the attached draft by-law be reviewed, received and approved; and
3. That City staff expand outreach and public education programs pertaining to
healthy lawns, gardens and pesticide restrictions; and
4. That City staff prepare a pesticide use by-law enforcement strategy that itemizes
the required tools, training and support services.
Executive Summary: On February 19, 2007 the City of Pickering Council passed
a Notice of Motion called "Healthy Community, Healthy Lawns and Gardens". The
Notice of Motion directed staff to do a number of things, one of which was to draft a
Pesticide Use By-law. This draft By-law was completed and on November 19, 2007 the
City of Pickering Council approved staff going forth for public and stakeholder
consultation and comment.
The City retained the services of MMM Group to facilitate the public consultation
process. Significant resources were used to engage the community in the review
process. MMM Group collected and analysed the input from stakeholders and the
general public about the draft Pesticide Use By-law. The MMM Group report "Pesticide
Use By-law Report" is attached.
The draft Pesticide Use By-law has been revised based on the feedback we received
during public consultation, insight from other municipalities who have developed and or
~~,
~1
Ii
., Tn
ll"," ~
.,,_.;;,;
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
02
Page 2
are revising their by-laws, as well as from City staff. The City of Pickering "draft
Pesticide Use By-law" is attached.
The first important component to successfully implement a Pesticide Use By-law is to
develop awareness within the community about the By-law and to educate residents
about proper cultural practices for healthy lawns and gardens and alternative products.
According to the consultants' analysis, "48 percent of homeowner respondents were
very likely to use alternative products or methods of weed removal". Equally important
is the ability to work with the local retailers. "93 percent of all respondents agree that
stores and service companies should be asked to provide more information to
consumers about alternative products and offer alternative products for sale".
Planning is underway for spring 2008, however, time is required to prepare and
produce materials for a "pesticide free" campaign and brand if the By-law is approved.
The second important component to successfully implement a Pesticide Use By-law is
enforcement. An effective strategy to enforce the By-law in Pickering needs to be
determined. The enforcement officers require training, the required tools need to be
purchased and support services contacted. Enforcement was identified by both
stakeholders and the general public as a challenge. The strategy needs to be as
simple as possible for complaints to be made and officers to respond. Since there is an
exemption in the By-law for insect infestations, a simple, easy to use system also needs
to be in place for these authorized properties to be able to quickly treat their problems.
Between January 18, 2008 and February 17, 2008 the Province of Ontario's
Environmental Registry collected comments regarding their intent to introduce
legislation that would ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. Depending on the outcome
of this process, legislation may be introduced in spring 2008 with a 3-year phased
implementation period. This legislation may have an impact on municipal Pesticide
Use By-laws, including but not limited to the ability for the Province to regulate or ban
the sale of cosmetic pesticides.
In general, according to the consultants' report, when respondents were asked about
pesticide use in public spaces, "62 percent of all business and resident survey
respondents believed that the City should implement the draft by-law to legally restrict
most outdoor uses of pesticides on commercial property". "61 percent want the draft
by-law to legally restrict most outdoor uses on City property". This increased to "70
t075 percent when the areas were qualified to include a pesticide ban near parks,
hospitals or properties that children frequent". . In contrast, "72 percent of industry
respondents opposed the City reducing the use of pesticides outdoors".
For private spaces the results differed. According to the report, "54 percent said the
restriction should apply to residents". Interestingly, "46 percent of homeowners
indicated they applied pesticides themselves at some point during 2005, 2006 or 2007
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 3
and 35 percent had hired a lawn care company to apply pesticides at some point during
2005, 2006 or 2007".
03
Financial Implications:
Recommendation #1: There are no financial implications.
Recommendation #2: There are no financial implications.
Recommendation #3: Funding was proposed within the 2008 budget to expand the
healthy lawn and garden education program. Resources will also be used to create a
Pickering "pesticide free" campaign and brand if the By-law is approved. Future
budgets would need to support the delivery of a "pesticide free" campaign.
Recommendation #4: In order to enforce a Pesticide Use By-law, funds will need to be
allocated within future budgets based on the strategy results for training, tools and
services.
Sustainability Implications:
Pesticide restriction remains a contentious issue for many reasons, one of which is
because the information pertaining to the environmental and health effects can vary
depending on the source. However, as with any chemical, when misused pesticides
can be a problem for both the environment and human health. With regard to the
economy, by restricting pesticide use on public and private property we are reducing
the amount of pesticide based products that will be purchased from retailers and
eliminating the ability of lawn care service providers to offer pesticide dependent
services. At the same time, there will be an increased demand for alternative pest
control products and for lawn care service providers that offer non-pesticide reliant
services. As a municipality, a Pesticide Use By-law would reduce our already limited
purchase of pesticide products; the by-law would increase the need to use alternative
products, as well as for resources to expand the current cultural practices.
Background: As directed by Council in November 2007, City staff implemented a
public consultation plan to solicit stakeholder and public feedback on the draft
Pesticide Use By-law. The process to retain an outside consultant to facilitate this
process began immediately and MMM Group was retained on December 14, 2007. In
the meantime, staff put significant resources into communicating with stakeholders and
the public about the importance of their involvement in this process.
The following methods were used to engage the community in between November
2007 and January 2008:
. information in numerous spots on the City's website posted November 21
. 200 letters issued on November 22, 2007 to stakeholders including: lawn and
garden care service providers in Toronto, Region of Durham and York Region,
,,"j-'
~" f' . ' "
" ',"'i' ~'-iii;i.(j':ii:' '-T ", t
OES 05-08
March 17,2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 4
04
lawn care product retailers, wholesalers and garden centres in Pickering, golf
courses/driving ranges in Pickering, delegations that spoke at Council to the
Notice of Motion "Healthy Community, Healthy Lawns & Gardens" in February
2007, sport field user groups, utilities, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority,
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Durham District School Board,
Durham Catholic District School Board and Region of Durham.
. emailed residents who since 2004 had expressed interest in this issue on
November 30 and December 13. Emailed various community groups on
December 20
. media release issued December 17
. eight Community Page notices appeared between November 28 and January 23
. 200 follow up letters issued on December 17 to above indicated stakeholders
. 200 final RSVP reminder letters issued on January 7 to above indicated
stakeholders
. community LED Board message from December 13 to January 24
. surveys available online and in hard copy from January 4 to January 31
. articles in Ajax Pickering Board of Trade e-bulletin on January 9 and January 16
. surveys distributed at screening of "Garbage, the revolution starts at home" on
January 15 and to various community groups on demand
. paid advertisements in Pickering News Advertiser on January 6, January 13 and
January 20 and in SNAP Pickering's January edition
. articles or editorials in Pickering News Advertiser on November 14, November
27 (online), December 5, December 19, January 6, January 11, January 16,
January 18 (online) and February 6. Durham Daytime television interview on
January 10
Members of the community could provide the City with their input by completing a
surveyor by attending a consultation meeting. The survey was available for
submission for the month of January. Hard copies were distributed on demand along
with self-addressed postage paid envelopes. Surveys were also accessible online, to
be downloaded and emailed or faxed to City staff. The City hosted one stakeholder
consultation meeting on January 16 and one general public meeting on January 24.
MMM Group's analysis of the results of the survey and both meetings are within their
attached report "Pesticide Use By-law - Report".
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 5
05
The draft By-law that was presented to Council in November has been revised.
Revisions were based on the results of the consultation process, discussion with other
municipalities and input from City staff. The revised draft Pesticide By-law is attached.
The four main changes include:
1. Inclusion of an exemption for lawn bowl greens (Part II, Section 15)
2. Clarification of utility exemption for site in Ontario Power Generation - Pickering
property (Part II, Section 18)
3. Revision of the by-law implementation dates to January 1, 2009 (Part IV, Section
27) for everyone
4. Inclusion of an exemption for spot spraying on warning tracks, hard surfaces and
on City managed sports fields if 30 percent threshold of non-qualified sports turf
is identified (Part II, Section 16 and17)
Rational for Revision 1: Lawn bowling greens have the same type of unique
monoculture of grass that is used on golf course greens and tees. As a result, the
Pickering Lawn Bowling Club inquired as to why they were treated differently and
requested the same exemption as a golf course whereby, pesticides can be applied
provided it is done by a professional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) certified
applicator. Based on this information, City staff revised the draft By-law.
Rational for Revision 2: City staff was contacted by Ontario Power Generation (OPG).
OPG has previously used herbicides to control the growth of vegetation on both sides
of the Pickering site fence line. This was done at the request of the Security staff to
maintain compliance with a provision of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act that
requires that clear site lines be maintained along station fence lines. Site facilities staff
agreed to discontinue pesticide use along all the fence lines and will instead manually
remove vegetation, except for one area. They contacted the City to confirm that under
the Utility Exemption they could still use pesticides beneath the power lines that exit the
Powerhouse. To ensure clarity, City staff revised this portion of the draft By-law to
include this site.
Rational for Revision 3: It was conveyed that the March 25, 2008 effective date for
commercial applicators was insufficient notice. Applicators already have some
customer contracts in place for 2008 and would not have time to revise programs and
product orders. Residents indicated they need additional information about
alternatives.
From municipal staff's perspective, the initial timeframe does not give enforcement
officers time or resources to have the necessary systems in place to enforce the By-
law. This process was undertaken in late 2007 therefore, funds were not requested
<j J
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 6
06
within the 2008 proposed budget for enforcement. If the By-law is approved staff will
prepare a strategy outlining the required tools, training and support services. Based on
the strategy an appropriate amount of funds will be requested within the 2009 budget.
Budgets are historically approved in the spring which is too late for staff to take the
necessary training, purchase tools and arrange support services for implementation of
penalty based enforcement for that season. For this reason enforcement needs to be
phased in two stages. Providing the By-law is approved, enforcement staff can
implement Education-based Enforcement starting January 1, 2009 and Penalty-based
Enforcement in January 1, 2010.
Education-based enforcement essentially means enforcement officers respond to
complaints about suspected pesticide use, provide educational materials and issue a
caution letter to those in violation of the By-law. Penalty-based enforcement will start
the following year when enforcement staff are able to respond to complaints about
suspected pesticide use, take soil samples, photographs and issue charges under the
Provincial Offences Act. This phased approach will also assist Municipal Law
Enforcement Services to gauge the volume of calls and necessary staff resources that
need to be directed to the initiative prior to Penalty-based Enforcement.
From a marketing standpoint, time and resources will be required to produce By-law
related promotional literature as well as educational materials to teach the public about
alternatives. The importance of a "level playing field" was reiterated during the public
consultation sessions. The lawn care providers indicated that residents who may not
be knowledgeable about pesticides should not be able to use them when licensed
commercial applicators cannot. For all these reasons, City staff revised the draft By-
law to reflect a January 1, 2009 effective date for all persons.
Rational for Revision 4: In discussion with City staff, it was communicated that failing
to remove weeds from warning tracks poses a safety concern. In addition, failing to
treat weeds along hard surfaces can damage the infrastructure such as walkways and
result in increased repair and replacement costs. The City has a very large area of
hard surfaces to maintain and do not have the resources at this time to be able to treat
the weeds using alternative methods. For example, it is quite common for residents to
treat weeds coming up through their driveway or patio stones with boiling water
however, the large space the City is required maintain does not lend itself to well to
some of these alternatives. City staff indicated that they will eliminate their already
limited use of cosmetic pesticides on parks, boulevards and medians. However,
specifically for sports fields, staff recommend that the spot application of pesticides
remain a usable tool. Spot application is only necessary if the presence of non-
qualified sports turf exceeds 30 percent. The rational for an application is not cosmetic;
it is strictly for safety reasons. Failing to remove weeds increases the risk factor and
liability for athletes. In addition, cost and sport field uses are factors. If a weed
population in a sports field is greater than 50 percent, for safety reasons, a complete
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 7
07
rehabilitation of all the turf on that field will be required. Depending on the
rehabilitation option a field may need to be closed for up to two seasons for reseeding
or two months for resodding. Spot applications will only be used as a last resort and
not in place of cultural practices. For these reasons, City staff revised the By-law to
allow for spot spraying in limited circumstances.
To date, significant effort has gone into promoting proper lawn and garden care
techniques and alternatives to pesticides using a variety of means including
educational workshops, information on the City's website and within the Green Pages
section of the City's Leisure Guide, Municipal Matters, and through Environmental
displays. These initiatives will continue but will need to expand to engage more
residents. One of the new avenues to accomplish this will be the use of the "door-
knocker flyer" tool. The tool will help us request that residents voluntarily start to
reduce pesticide use before the By-law comes into effect and direct them to helpful
resources. If the draft Pesticide Use By-law is implemented, staff will prepare and
produce a "pesticide free" geared campaign and brand. Since it is not illegal to sell
pesticides, the City will need to take steps to encourage retailers and service providers
to provide readily available alternatives to consumers. Alternative products should be
well advertised and displayed in prominent locations within the store, their staff should
be knowledgeable about the products and if possible literature should be available for
the user to take home. Residents also requested for City staff prepare a list of
acceptable products that may be used. Staff will also closely monitor the results of the
Provincial legislation regarding the regulation or ban of cosmetic use of pesticides. For
many reasons, the outcome will have an impact on the effectiveness of any municipal
pesticide use by-law, including the Provinces' ability to restrict pesticide sales.
It is pertinent that the City of Pickering leads by example and also become IPM
Accredited by the IPM/PHC (Plant Health Care) Council of Canada through the
municipal program. The City has already taken an integrated approach to managing
municipal properties; this however, will not only need to continue but expand with the
implementation of a By-law. In some circumstances though, pesticides are a useful
tool and will need to be applied. These situations are outlined through the exemptions
component of the draft Pesticide Use By-law.
Further clarification was requested regarding the Utilities Exemption for hydro corridors.
Staff has confirmed with John Bowen, Programs Officer for Hydro One that they do not
spray all corridors and that corridors in residential areas are mown. Rural corridors
may be sprayed once every 6 years using a highly selective pesticide and is only
applied to the stems of individual species that may pose a safety issue.
Enforcement of a Pesticide By-law is not impossible. It is, however, extremely
onerous, and will require a substantial investment in staff training, and a significant
rfi"
.~..
-' '.~ t .,,"'.....~~~.~
OES 05-08
March 17 I 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
08
Page 8
amount of staff time. Also for consideration is the cost of providing the enforcement
measured against the fines the courts may impose upon conviction.
As with all by-law contraventions, Municipal Law Enforcement Services would respond
to any report of a contravention by visiting the property to inform the property owner of
the alleged contravention, provide a copy of the by-law, and request compliance in
future. Should the contravention continue, a written warning would be issued, and
finally a charge for contravening the by-law. Commercial pesticide services could be
charged upon the first offence, as they have received written notification regarding the
by-law. However, again, the courts may not impose a significant fine. The initial fine
for a first offence by-law contravention generally ranges from $100 - $250.
At an information session attended by Municipal Law Enforcement staff in January, the
following enforcement issues were brought forward:
. Part I tickets are not recommended, as the officer must have all evidence to
support a conviction prior to issuing the ticket. The timeframe for issuance of a
Part I Certificate of Offence is 30 days from the offence date. Therefore, all
charges would be laid using a Part III Information, requiring a full trial for each
offence, unless the defendant pleads guilty.
. In all cases, a soil sample must be taken to confirm a prohibited substance has
been applied. Unless the Officer is aware of the type of pesticide applied, the
cost for testing for each family of pesticides is $100.00. Since there are three
main families, the standard testing cost would be $300.00. Issues were raised
regarding the accreditation of testing facilities and the requirement to ensure
continuity of evidence. It was indicated that to obtain a conviction, the officer
must prove the evidence remains untampered with from the time the sample was
taken and the tools used to obtain the sample were cleaned using proper
methods prior to obtaining the sample. The officer must also provide some
indication of the training he or she has received to ensure the process is
completed in accordance with recognized standards.
. Costs for soil sampling will include the initial sampling by the Officer, the
transportation of the sample to Guelph, the lab testing costs, and the costs of the
soil sampling tools and corresponding cleaning fluid. This base cost, when
calculating staff time in the total, is estimated at $450 - $500 initially. Any costs
incurred at the trial (should the testing laboratory be required to send their
technician as an expert witness) would be the responsibility of the prosecution's.
(the City). Again, obtaining a fine of $500 against a residential property owner
for a first conviction to offset these costs would be extremely unlikely.
OES 05-08
March 17, 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 9
09
· While the City of Toronto has one conviction and two additional charges pending
against commercial lawn care services, it has responded to over 3000
complaints.
· It was also recommended that infestation thresholds be set to determine
exemption status. These would include coverage per square foot, or percentage
of lawn affected.
Enforcement of a pesticide by-law is possible. However, consideration should be
given to including provisions for staff training and purchasing necessary equipment, the
amount of staff time required enforcing the by-law, and the costs incurred to enforce as
compared to the recovery through fines. In Toronto, a phased in approach was used
whereby allowing for education to take place and time and funds to be allocated for
staff training. This would increase chances for successful enforcement in the future.
Attachments:
1. MMM Group - Pesticide Use By-law - Report
2. Draft Pesticide Use By-law
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
-,-.-. . 'I
:?-T~ /i
~"r .. "//
~ L'/, (/ Y.'/"
.,.-, .' :'
---- -1 ;;'/
Everett Bun sma
Director
Operations & Emergency Services
s~
1"-'
^ tv' ._~'j1--- - ]
OES 05-08
March 17 I 2008
Subject: Pesticide Use By-law
Page 10
," '10
(\ . "~'\:=:i d ~...
j""a4} (; I t A...nO .~..~
Chantal Whitaker
Coordinator, Environmental Awareness
Programs
fCW
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering Cit~~u . /'
/</
,/'
,.I
if-
I II " '1 '1
;;<:>'.
Citlj (,# Jj
J.' .,.~<''\'c~f'''t., .'
....1~~~ 1~_..!fII,,~ .,--t.~,;;,;.t ,
PICKERIlSlG
","'-~
r------ 'I<: ~- ~
'I
---'j",i!'1j'"
,,-" T\CH MENT # --1-- TO R.EPOP.T#L~:,~- c,5- c it
'f'"
A..,;r~;.;~t:,;~,:;;:
r PI(=KERIN('
1 2 ___Hm___u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
1.2 HISTORY OF BY-LAWS IN CANADA
1.3 THE DRAFT BY-LAW
1.4 STAKEHOLDERS
2.0 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
3.0 ANALYSIS
3.1 PUBLIC REALM
3.2 PRlV ATE REALM
4.0 SUMMARY
1
1
1
3
4
6
7
7
7
9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
MEETING ADVERTISEMENTS
MEETING PRESENT A TIONS AND MEMORANDA
QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 0
i._.dJ! "~l "
f",,:r.:B~j~"!'t.l~"-~
PICKERINC
1 3
1. INTRODUCTION
This report serves to summarize the results of one public forum, one stakeholder forum and
a questionnaire/survey of stakeholders and homeowners in the City of Pickering.
1.1. METHODOLOGY
In December 2007, MMM Group Limited was engaged to:
. Help the City Council to understand the needs of the community for pesticide use;
. Prepare a questionnaire/survey of the stakeholders that use pesticides and of the
general public; and,
. Facilitate discussion about a pesticide by-law.
Accordingly, the following elements of a work program were initiated.
Questionnaire
A copy of the questionnaire, stakeholder addressees and results is included in Appendix
C. In addition, letters were received from Toronto Region Conservation Authority,
ClubLink Corporation, Ontario Power Generation and Weedman Inc. Notes were
provided by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).
Stakeholders Meeting - January 16, 2008 was held:
. To engage stakeholders including lawn care service providers, product retailers,
golf courses, garden centres and utilities;
. To understand the impact of pesticide reduction on the environment and commerce;
. To solicit feedback for a by-law to enforce the reduction of pesticide use in
Pickering; and,
. To build awareness of pesticide use and its impacts.
Copies of the meeting announcement and reports are included in Appendices A and B
Public Meeting - January 24, 2008 was held:
. To recognize the public's understanding of pesticide reduction on the environment
and on commerce;
. To solicit feedback for a by-law to enforce the reduction of pesticide use in
Pickering; and,
. To build awareness of pesticide use and its impacts.
1.2. HISTORY OF BY-LAWS IN CANADA
Pesticide use can be legally and effectively regulated by a three tier regime. In
accordance with a Supreme Court ruling:
_ Federal legislation regulates what pesticides can be used
_ Provincial legislation regulates who can use pesticides and how to use
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 1
..,,~:jl
"]'......'..1/ili
'ii]';'i"'--))L.1!
1-' -"1
, ,
~~~Jir~"SsrF~
'1 4 l'IC:KERINC
- Open to ffiilllicipalities to enact by-laws dealing with where and when
pesticides can be applied.
The use of municipal by-laws is recent. The earliest in Canada are: Hudson, Quebec
(1993); and Halifax, NS (2000); and in Ontario: Waterloo (2001), and Nepean (2001).
Integrated Pest Management (lPM) certification is encouraged and taught by Landscape
Ontario (LO). Over 100 municipalities and public sector businesses are certified in
Ontario. LO has initiated Healthy Lawns and Gardens workshops for homeowners.
Pesticide By-laws vary. Now 130 municipalities in Canada have by-laws. Single
pesticide applications are regulated by such by-laws. Municipal pesticide use guidelines
may differ from private property guidelines.
The Province of Ontario has agricultural practices guidelines. By 2009, there will be a
decision on pesticide use legislation in accordance with a press release dated January
24, 2008. Currently, the pesticides are guided by the following table:
Pesticide Schedules in Ontario
Pesticide Characteristics ill
Schedule
Who Can Use It
1
. licensed applicator
. certified grower
only with approved permit
5
very toxic
very persistent
highly mobile
very toxic
. very persistent
highly mobile
less toxic or less persistent
not available
licensed applicator
. certified grower
. assistant agriculturist under supervision
2
licensed applicator
certified grower
. trainee or technician under supervision
restrictions apply)
. assistant agriculturist under supervision
3
4
. any person
6
any person
. toxic
persistent
. moderately mobile
moderately toxic
. moderately persistent
. slightly mobile
. low toxicity
non-persistent
non-mobile
. containers < 1 kg or < 1 L
. low toxicity
. non-persistent
. non-mobile
. containers> 1 kg or> I L
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 2
'~'~',~(:~f.""}~~
Pl(~KJ~IllN-._
1 5
1.3 THE DRAFT BY-LAW
The by-law presented to the public in 2007 is draft and includes:
· Use - No person shall apply or cause or permit the application of any pesticide
within the City
· Exemptions -
- Agriculture,
- pest control in buildings,
- insect infestation,
- public health,
- noxious weeds,
- conservation authorities,
- golf courses / driving ranges,
- utilities,
- water disinfectants, purification,
- wood preservative, inj ection into trees, stumps or wooden poles,
- insect repellant
. Enforcement - Officers allowed to enter upon land for inspection and may
- Require documents related
- Inspect
- Require information from any person
- Make examinations, take tests, samples, photographs
· Penalties - according to Provincial Offences Act
· Other Legislation -
- Pest Control Products Act, Canada
- Ontario Pesticides Act
· Effective Date
- March 25,2008, Commercial applicators
- January 1,2009, All persons
Schedule A which includes the following suggested alternatives to pesticides:
a) Soap
b) Mineral oil
c) Silicon dioxide
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 3
r -,
~ ",
- '~"i'--~---i~tiili it r"~-' ' i
C,,-':J{j,\! ~
&'i~~::~:~':::.~:;.:~~~,
PI(](ERINL
I " 1 6
d) Biological pesticides
e) Borax
f) Ferric phosphate
g) Acetic acid
h) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins
i) Fatty acids
j) Sulphur
k) Com gluten meal
1.4. STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders are those who are affected by or use pesticides within the boundaries of
Pickering. The following separates stakeholders into private and public realms and
descri bes their relationship to or reasons for the use of pesticides.
The private realm includes:
. Sports and recreation facilities whose pesticide use is affected by:
- Golf greens and tees that have highest need, but only 10-15 percent of golf
course land area;
- Audubon requirements for the reduction of pesticide use;
- Cost of spraying that keeps owners mindful of overuse;
- The need to maintain a level and uniform grass surface such as for lawn
bowling;
- Need to market to the public; and,
- Civic Pride.
· Homeowners who will:
- Use pesticides for lawn maintenance;
- Use pesticides for pride of ownership of a weed free property;
- Use pesticides for tree spraying;
- Self-applicate or hire a maintenance company;
- Frequently not know what questions to ask of a maintenance company; and,
- Frequently not know where and how to get information.
· Commercial properties \ViII use pesticides for:
- Improved street presence;
- Marketing to the public;
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 4
;~:~~1;r:t;~~~
PI(~KERIN(~
1 7
- Civic Pride; and,
- Involvement in Communities In Bloom
The Public Realm -What was discovered from input during public meetings and
observations of public lands:
· Pickering has intensively used sport facilities;
· Pickering has strong turf in neighbourhood parks;
· Street boulevards take the abuse of salt damage and maintenance of utilities;
· Health issues are paramount;
· Timing for weaning off pesticides will be an issue;
· Implementing and enforcement will be a challenge; and,
· There is a need to educate the public about lawn and garden care practices.
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 5
'f"n
"1 ",:"'C<
1']"11,';-;;",
L'.( ~
I!~~.~:'F'~":~~ 'l.,.~,.~
;"""c~,~ud ."~~,:. i,~,~~~
1 8PICKERIN(~
2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW OF PESTICIDE USE BY-LAW
The goal for this project is to solicit the public's comment on the possible implementation
of a pesticide control by-law, a draft of which has been made public. The following
objectives for this project are reflective of each of the City Council, stakeholders,
consultants and staff of the City of Pickering.
City Council
· Was requested by citizens to consider a pesticide by-law for health and
environmental reasons;
· Responded to the request with a draft by-law;
· Determined exemptions with advice of the Officer of Health and City staff; and,
· Directed staff to solicit stakeholder and public input to a draft by-law.
Stakeholders
· Includes lawn care service providers, product retailers, golf courses, garden centres,
conservation authority and utilities;
· Should individually understand the impact of pesticide reduction on the
environment and commerce;
· Need to provide feedback and express their concerns or support of a by-law to
enforce the reduction of pesticide use in Pickering; and,
· Individuals need to understand the impacts of pesticide use.
The Consultants' tasks an~ to:
· Understand the needs of the community for pesticide use;
· Prepare a questionnaire/survey of the stakeholders involved to some degree in the
pesticide business and of the general public who mayor may not use pesticides;
and,
· Facilitate discussion about a pesticide by-law.
City staff have already started reducing by:
· Understanding and training in IPM;
· Naturalizing open space and park areas;
· Creating no spray zones;
· Adapting drought tolerant species of grass;
· Using natural fertilizers;
· Experimenting with alternatives;
· Implementing proper cultural practices;
· Using chemical treatment as last resort; and,
3/312008
MMM Group Limited
Page 6
"""'_~'_,;_",;w,...,;~_"",_",",,><,.,.,,,,,~.",~,_...,"_,,,",,_~'"'-""'"'__#~"''''''>~>O:.!~'''''~~'''''''''i;<>.~'""~_"_""""'~""""_"_~,,,,,,,,,___,,,_"
-'t ....:.;.
~~-~j~:';;:~~:~.:~.:~~~
I'I' "'['/f~r)I'Ni('
. . C, '.1'.1 '_
1 9
· Using pest selective pesticides.
3. At~AL YSIS
This analysis serves to consolidate the information received from the stakeholders meeting,
public meeting and questionnaire results. Sixty-two completed questionnaires were
returned to the City. Forty-four came from homeo'V\-ners and fourteen from businesses
while [our came from respondents who declared both business and resident status. A
summary of the results is in Appendix C. Four letters were received regarding the Pesticide
Use By-law from Ontario Power Generation - Pickering Nuclear, Weedman Inc. (Chris
Lemcke, Manager, sent two letters) and ClubLink Corporation. Both Weedman and
ClubLink were represented at the stakeholders meeting. The information from the public
forums and questionnaire results is categorized into public realm and private realm.
3.1. PUBLIC REALM
City staff must address:
· Intensively used sport facilities;
· Turf maintenance and safety in neighbourhood parks;
· Street boulevards that take the abuse of salt damage and maintenance of utilities;
and,
· Health and safety issues.
As described in section 2, City staffhave already started reducing environmental
impacts of their work. The public at the January 24, 2008 meeting seemed satisfied
with the direction o[the City's maintenance practices. There were two survey
comments about the proliferation of weeds in the street boulevards. There were 29
percent ofhomeo'V\-TIers opposed to further reductions of pesticide use by the City on
public properties..
The industry stakeholders at the January 16,2008 meeting said they may not be
impacted by the City's maintenance practices and did not comment, other than to
compliment the City for its actions. However, 72 percent of the l8 industry respondents
on the survey opposed the City reducing the use of pesticides outdoors.
62 percent o[ all business and resident survey respondents believed that the City should
implement the draft by-law to legally restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides on
commercial property. 61 percent want the draft by-law to legally restrict most outdoor
uses of pesticides on City property. When the question was qualified to include a
pesticide ban to legally restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides on commercial property
near parks, hospitals or properties that children frequent, the survey results increased to
between 70 and 75 percent. 54 percent said that the restriction should be applied to
residents. From these results we interpret that, the higher the impact on the public
realm, the more important is the need for the pesticide reduction.
3.2 PRIVATE REALM
Homeo'V\-TIers and commercial operators use pesticides to enhance their properties'
appearance. In the survey of 48 homeo'V\-TIers, 46 percent applied pesticides themselves
3/312008
MMM Group Limited
Page 7
,,*,c:;Y-!ii!-~..'<:w' -,
t'
~.iT i
'~';fr1.~~t;:;;+~~
2 0 Pl(](El<INC
, II
and 35 percent had hired a company to use pesticides in the past three years. At the
public meeting, the homeowners were split between the desire to retain the use of
pesticides for control of infestations and to eliminate the use of pesticides for health and
environmental reasons. Common concerns were evident:
· Education is needed for the public about lawn and garden care practices;
· Health issues are paramount;
· Timing for weaning off pesticides will be an issue; and,
· Implementing and enforcement will be a challenge.
Impacts Oil Stakeholders:
Some proponents of a natural approach to pest control felt intimidated by the pesticide
industry representatives at the public meeting. Some homeowners appear confused
about the benefits of alternatives. For example, although proper watering is
recommended to improve turf, how do homeowners balance the summer water
shortages with good turf maintenance? Can pesticides be used less frequently to
achieve improved health and environment? 48 percent of the homeowner respondents
to the survey were very likely to use alternati ve products or methods of weed removal
and 21 % said that they were very unlikely to do so. 93 percent of all respondents agree
that stores and service companies should be asked to provide more information to
consumers about alternative products and offer alternative products for sale. 54 percent
of all respondents answered that pesticides should be restricted on residential property.
Exemptiolls:
Lawn bowling and golf courses require pesticides to maintain their greens. The
Pickering Lawn Bowling Club stated they could not exist without the continual use of
pesticides by professional IPM certified lawn maintenance service. In those locations,
pesticide use is high. But away from tees and greens on a golf course, operators are
making an effort to reduce the need for pesticides through cultural practices. The golf
courses club operators seem satisfied that they will be exempt according to the draft by-
law. The Lawn Bowling Club is requesting an exemption because they have the same
type of mono culture of grass as a golf course green or tee, so therefore should not be
treated differently. Comments were conveyed that farmers have exemptions from the
draft by-law and yet they are the heaviest users of pesticides according to the survey
and meeting results. Should they be controlled by municipal governance? Farmers are
regulated by senior governments. Utilities have an exemption in Pickering, however,
there are hydro corridors that are used for public recreation. There was discussion about
limiting utilities to pesticide use in non-public accessible areas. Ontario Power
Generation has requested in their letter that, for security, they be exempt from such a
by-law for spraying at the security fences on their Pickering Nuclear perimeter. They
are willing to discontinue pesticide use elsewhere on their property.
Timeframe:
Timing of the Pesticide Use By-law implementation should be reviewed. This was the
response from all three methods of public input. Commercial lawn care maintenance
3/3/2008
MMM Group Limited
Page 8
C'~"Jf ..if ~
j.;A,iJ;'~~.~.l::~'j;.~;-
{)ICKEHINC
21
companies have established contracts with clients for 2008. Homeowners feel that they
need education about alternatives and about the impact of the by-law on their own
properties. With pending provincial legislation, members of the public questioned why
Pickering was not waiting for the outcome/process of the provincial guidelines. The
Quebec provincial legislation created a level playing field for commercial applicators
that did not exist with just municipal by-laws, which could not control retails sales of
pesticides. Presented at the public meeting was the evolution of the Toronto by-law, It
was implemented over three years, having been introduced to the public in 2004 and
enacted in 2007. This allowed for a public education process and time for the lawn
maintenance industry to adapt. It was also commented that the implementation
timeframe that applies to commercial applicators should apply to everyone else.
4. SUMMARY
The results of the public input is presented to staff of the City of Pickering for them to
make informed recommendations to Council about timing, content and impacts of the
proposed Pesticide Use By-law. This report is supported by the memoranda from the
stakeholder meeting and public meeting held in January 2008 and by the questionnaire
results all copied in the appendices to this report. Clarifications may be sought from
the consultant, MMM Group Limited.
Respectfully submitted,
MMM Group Limited
.'~ {.
Mark Inglis, MBA, CSLA
Partner
LVOBSILANDSCAPE\2007\14-07441-00 l-LAl_ City of Pickering - Consulting ScrvicesIReportlAnalysis report March 3 08 rev #6
rni.doc
3/3/2008
MMM GrOUp Limited
Page 9
v
V
\'~
\..)
f'\,
\J ~
i.Jl
,j
I
":)
?i.. I
U.l. '- .. 'j
:~ '\.j
',,,
I
, .0
H
;;j: '1
"-
'2
LW
~~
C-J
C'J
ti
ill
I
ami
Mark your calendars. Your input is important.
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION MEETING
(lawn care service providers, product retailers, golf courses, garden centres, utilities, etc.)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
6:30 pm - 9:30 pm Pickering Recreation Complex, 1867 Valley Farm Rd.
Use arena entrance at rear of the building. O'Brien Meeting Room A & B
(Snow Date: Thursday, January 17 at Petticoat Creek Community Centre - 470 Kingston Rd. West)
/
"'\
GENERAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETING
Thursday, January 24, 2008
6:30 pm - 9:30 pm
Pickering Recreation Complex, 1867 Valley Farm Rd.
Use arena entrance at rear of the building. O'Brien Meeting Room A & B
(Snow Date: Tuesday, January 29 at Petticoat Creek Community Centre - 470 Kingston Rd. West)
\"
)
City staff have prepared a draft Pesticide Use By-law. Public and stakeholder
involvement is important. Attend a consultation meeting and/or complete
the online questionnaire. The questionnaire is accessible from the City's website
at cityofpickering.com. Upon request questionnaires can be mailed out to
accommodate those without internet access. Questionnaires must be completed
and returned by January 31,2008.
.I~
f,q1l f\/l f\/1 G P: (j U P
<' /-li,::-C(..ZJ
,[~-t'~:-Meeting Memo
_.L2.,. ../C2t
Date:
To:
From:
Project Number:
Subject:
February 12,2008
Chantal Whitaker
Mark Inglis, MEA, CSLA
14.0744LOOLLA1
Pesticide By-law
Stakeholder Meeting
January 16, 2008
Cc:
Bob Kennedy
23
The meeting was attended by thirty stakeholders from a broad spectrum of the community
including: lawn care companies, landscapers; golf courses; lawn bowling club, other
municipalities, Canadian Physicians for the Environment, Hydro One, Durham Region
Health Department, City staff and five Members of City Council.
The meeting was initiated with an introduction of staff and councillors in attendance. Mark
Inglis presented a PowerPoint presentation that outlined some of the terminology and the by-
law drafted to date. During the presentation, a representative of Weedman, concerned that the
work that he performs will be curtailed, expressed his views on several occasions before the
presentation was completed. The attendees were divided into three breakout groups. Each
was given the task of answering three questions about the potential implementation of the
pesticide by-law.
What is the impact of the pesticide by-law on stakeholders?
What timeframe should be considered to implement the by-law ?
What will be the enforcement issues?
Although each of the groups was given the questions, each group responded in their own
manner, not necessarily following the order or exact implication of the question. The answers
from the groups are the following:
1. Group 1 Presentation
· The timeline seems unrealistic to implement by March 2008
· Why are we implementing a pesticide by-law - if it is a health issue, then
Has City done research?
What has changed in other municipalities since the pesticide by-law was implemented?
Has health improved because the by-law was put in place? What are the short term, long
term health and other benefits?
To whom and where should the by-law apply?
o We need to identify the biggest users / rates of pesticide use
o Where / what products are applied, who applies and how are they applied?
What are the Exemptions?
o Fairness should be considered i.e. lawn versus agriculture; pool versus lawn
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately,
r!
/NA
Item
24
"'- .r
, j~"fr $f ,~
\
I'-/."/f:'{
a-'j(Ch-Ct,
Page 2
Details
Action
The City staff should visit areas that employ Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or
cultural practices such as: Whitevale Golf Course and compare that with the
homeowner who is not trained, and not equipped
Should there be a toxicity measurement?
o Identify the level of toxicity
o How do products now compare to products used in the past
What are the thresholds
o Wait until I threshold is reached or apply spot treatment. This would be similar to the
Markham approach
o The community needs to be pro-active
Should education be part of the solution?
o Licensed applicators~
o Equipment /" vs homeowner who knows little about the products
o Approved products
o Need more information disseminated to the community before banning outright
2. Group 2 Presentation
. Timeframe seems rushed. The March timeframe to train by-law enforcement officers will be
challenging
. Impacts of the Pesticide By-law
First couple of years, businesses in pesticide applications will be most affected
Does the application of pesticides also apply to trees?
. Concerns
Safety -+ The City should not allow applications by the homeowner if the trained
applicator is denied
Financial -+ unregulated business practices or cheating may ensue
-+ homeowners would not be charged
Consumer information from Health Canada - their toxicologist information is better
researched than the municipalities who do not have scientists
. Enforcement
Why exemptions -+ Exemptions are time consuming to negotiate.
-+ Who makes list of product exemptions?
Timelines -+ the inspector may not show up until few days later after which the pesticide
has dissipated
Do we allow organic pesticides versus non-organic?
Signage on lawns can be confusing. Applicators may be using organics but are still
obligated to sign that they are spraying
. Suggestions
The municipality should make the ban even for everyone. Eliminate pesticide product
from out of store shelves so that homeowners have the same limited access to product as
commercial applicators.
Encourage public education through qualified institutions such as Landscape Ontario
Pesticide sales personnel should be trained/qualified/regulated
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
ItA
!"it,
,}
"
.-L:~H.:J; .Jei."
icX:?-.e,i'j .-()(
Page 3
25
Item
Details
Action
No exceptions/exemption should be given for a particular type of property
· Further / Additional Points
City is going from controlled environment to uncontrolled i.e. homeowners are taking the
political route to ban pesticides rather than educating the public about proper use
In Quebec they ban sales in the following manner:
o In the first stage of regulation, pesticides were under lock & key
o In the second stage of regulation, pesticides were taken off store shelves
o Retailers may only sell pesticides that are on exemption list
Homeowners do not know the science. Homeowners may try to illegally apply pesticides
at night.
3. Group 3 Presentation
. Timeframe
It is unrealistic to implement in March 2008. The transition time was insufficient for
private operators to prepare for the change in the by-law. Each of the panelists agreed
that the City should wait until the Province decides on the issue in 2009, as was proposed
during the election of October 2007.
- Retraining within 3 months will be difficult without products and training in IPM or
alternatives use
· Exemptions to consider
Hydro One is exempt under the draft by-law, but their lands are used for recreation,
there could be a health issue
Retail sale of pesticides could lead to improper use by unqualified persons. Should there
be a removal of product from store shelves?
Safety of children should be considered in all exemptions
· Alternatives
Do alternatives such as nematodes, work?
o Specific conditions need to be followed for effective use
· Concerns
Injury to pets from pesticides may be "systemic"
Financial
o Impacts to small independent companies could be greatest. Small independents may
need to change their service delivery
o Retrain employees ifmoving from pesticide use to IPM
o Organic products are much more costly
Homeowner
o Can residents make a proper application?
o Are they reading instruction/labels?
Financial and environmental costs to reconstruct lawns if we cannot control vegetation
growth such as on roads could be greater without pesticides.
Enforcement
o Will the City depend on residents to report other residents?
o Products exempt from the by-law then should be exempt from posting signage since
there is a perception by the public that a signed lawn has hazardous materials
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
/NA
Item
26
CE-:.TC)S-C~,
Page 4
,.L4;',. ..
J (;:t
Details
Action
Education
o Cultural/organic alternatives are costly! Ensure publication of what products actually
do work
o Look at research for the impacts of pesticide types before banning
o Who decides what and who can spray and who can not? The City needs to be fair and
consistent. The panel agreed that the spraying of pesticides by the Agricultural
industry within the City's urban boundary is not controlled/inspected and that farmers
should come under the same by-law restrictions as those in the private sector (within
the City's urban boundaries). This would help to level the playing field.
o City staff and residents need to know about pesticide products. For example Killex is
a synthetic version of what exists in plant and breaks down to natural chemicals (it is
a growth product that increases plant stress.
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
ItA
\
_.L::L. .1f:L
Ct.~,CL-)- eft,
Item
Details
Summary
Consistent comments came out of the three group presentations. The following are general
summary observations from the group presentations.
What is the impact of the pesticide by-law on stakeholders?
· Small applicator companies will be most affected by the by-law ban because they have
established clients who expect their lawns to be instantly repaired.
· Each group questioned whether residents were knowledgeable enough to properly apply
pesticides.
· City staff and residents need to know more about pesticide products.
· Applicator companies will be impacted adversely, unless there is a similar ban of the
retail sales of the products that they apply
· When considering the ban, health related issues seem to be the common thread.
· Pesticide sales personnel should be trained/qualified/regulated.
· The groups questioned who should be subject to the bylaw. Agricultural practices seem
to use pesticides the most, while homeowners seem to be the least knowledgeable about
applications of pesticides. Lawn bowling and golf courses require pesticides to
maintain their monocultural greens.
What timeframe should be considered to implement the by-law?
· Each group suggested that the timeframe would be tight for implementation, training
enforcement officers, and education of the public.
· No specific timelines were proposed by the groups.
· Consider awaiting provincial legislation due in 2009.
What will be the enforcement issues?
· Snitching will be a method to catch by-law violators.
· By-law officers will have to be brought up to speed quickly if the draft by-law timelines
are implemented.
· There is likely to be cheating by companies if no enforcement is consistent.
· Residents may do applications during hours when neighbours are not looking.
· Education is needed to define organic products versus non-organic pesticides.
Mark Inglis, M.B.A, O.A.L.A.
Manager
Landscape Architecture & Urban Design
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
Page 5
27
Action
~"".
~""-
~ik"J.i\"-n.(f,'-lC~iJi:
2B
\
..t~l'
Iii,.
ct:;cS-Meeting Memo
i\;~ {i:.~l r~ll (1 F: {J U p'
Date:
To:
From:
Project Number:
Subject:
February 12,2008
Chantal Whitaker
Mark Inglis, l\1BA, CSLA
14.07441.001.LAl
Pesticide By-law
General Public Meeting
January 24,2008
Cc:
Bob Kennedy
The meeting was attended by 18 members of the public, City staff and four Members of City
Council.
The meeting was initiated with an introduction of staff and councillors in attendance. Mark
Inglis presented a PowerPoint presentation that outlined some of the terminology and the by-
law drafted to date. During that day, there had been a News Release by the Province of
Ontario that pesticide control legislation was being considered. Following the presentation
the public was invited to offer their opinion of the draft by-law and the future of a proposed
pesticide ban.
Using the questions from the stakeholder meeting as an organizing tool, the following are the
comments and questions from the public.
Summary of Questions and Comments
What is the impact of the pesticide by-law on stakeholders?
· Is there any city that has statistics to validate the implementation of the pesticide
control by-law? There is no information available from municipalities showing baseline
data versus health improvements following a pesticide control by-law.
· Only 15% of golf course land uses pesticides heavily including greens and tees. Should
the golf courses be exempt or is their application too small to consider? Golf courses
are perceived to be more responsible with pesticide use because they will try to limit
their costs of maintenance. They also have IPM certifications. Golf courses are
generally regulated by the Province.
· Ministry of Environment (MaE) audits weed sprayers.
· One resident asked ifbed bugs were a pest whose control would be altered by this by-
law. Since bed bugs do not emerge from the ground they would not be.
· A Pesticide by-law has existed in Toronto since 2007, however, pesticide applications
are still allowed under certain circumstances. Toronto informed the public of the by-
law in 2004, then enforced it in 2007.
· Information on pesticides can be obtained from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Rural Mfairs (OMAFRA) and University of Guelph
· Inexperienced applicators overspray and are often not familiar with the product they are
using. More experienced and educated applicators are not as careless and are more
informed than residents. There must be education as to the health risks of application of
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
/NA
" ct,ci:c.:- ;r::)_ C, 't
i"IE!\r;'
-t:'L,,:;rjQL
Item
Details
pesticides, especially since it affects those who are already sensitive and have existing
health problems
. Concern was expressed about lawn care companies that do not apply properly or apply
too much pesticide,
. Residents should be treated the same as commercial pesticide users/applicators
. Without pesticides, how does one deal with infestation of weeds such as Creeping
Charlie without removing all the green and roots? Would the environmental costs be
greater to remove and replace rather than use a pesticide?
. What information is available about how to address issues with ants, grubs and chinch
bugs in an environmentally friendly manner?
What timeframe should be considered to implement the by-law?
. The Province of Quebec has pesticide control legislation which provides a level playing
field for applicators and homeowners. Ontario should consider this
. Operators need time to adjust their service provision
. There needs to be a longer period of education prior to implementation of the by-law
. Homeowners should have the same timeframe as lawn care companies. Since
homeowners are less knowledgeable and do not sign their properties after an
application.
What will be the enforcement issues?
. Residents should be allowed to do spot applications. Weed and Feed is used freely by
residents. Will those applications be possible under the new by-law?
. Is granular application more acceptable than liquid applications? Granular pesticide can
drain into the sewer system while liquids can be absorbed by plants more quickly.
. An accreditation system needs to be implemented for all users of pesticides.
. The City cannot be draconian in their enforcement of the by-law.
. More education is needed than enforcement.
. Signage is difficult to control. Because some substances used in pest control are
organic, why do they need to be signed?
. There was a suggestion that the frequency of application needs to be enforced but that
pesticides should not be banned entirely.
. There was a suggestion that a pennit system should exist with a cost associated with
pesticide use.
. In Toronto enforcement officer response is on a complaint basis
. There is a need for a list of banned pesticides using their retail names
. The City needs to work with retailers.
. Infestations of weeds should also be considered, not just infestations of insects. The
By-law should have exemptions for when herbicides can be applied to a address
infestations.
.
Miscellaneous comments:
. The draft by-law is Draft
. Who will detennine what should or should not be included in the by-law?
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
Page 2
29
Action
~~":' ."~
T'lI'.'1
~- .'~
,.'''',
j~1i
ItA
30
N,j
gJ,Q._,.. '.J: .lPI_
LE</('5~c'i Page 3
Item
Details
Action
· Health of the community is the purpose for considering the by-law
· Confusion reigns. For example, horticultural vinegar is a natural pesticide, but it is also
dangerous to health
· The by-law needs to be simple, flexible and workable
· The public is open to using alternative products if the public knew which ones worked
(retail names)
· Consider having the City run seminars on pesticide use and alternatives to pesticides
· Hydro corridors have exemptions, yet residents use the corridors for recreation. The
utility company is given the exemption for removal of weeds on the basis of safety.
They can also spray the grass. In Markham, they are examining tighter regulation of
utilities.
· Residents want to be able to do something to their properties, they need to know about
proper cultural practices as well
· Concern was expressed about the impact of pesticides on song birds and insects like
butterflies
· Questions were raised as to why the conservation authority requires an exemption
Mark Inglis, M.B.A, O.A.L.A.
Manager
Landscape Architecture & Urban Design
Any omissions or errors in these notes should be forwarded to the author immediately.
I
I .;-_
I 1'0
'eN
\,..J
I
'J"\
jP,,", :
'"
\ \ .
~
l-
e:::
g..~"
0::-,>
"-',
'--'
:---
--I,.
lq)
tt
..-.
Z
L.l.J
r.""
L.
~.i..
~ 'ir
~
-"":)
'J:
:::bC\i..,\(:).>;-~ \ C{' , ()cQ
C;,c)\.'E;;LL\.. -\0..:'\"\:";;-'
vce'-~' ,{\.+c-::~c,t\
~ "0
,
· History of Pesticide Bylaws
· Work Program
· Other Municipal Examples
· Stakeholders
· Workshop
· Next Steps
"'1\.."\.."\.. MMM GROUP
,J::?
'",.j
(
iJl'
l.J
:"i
,~
\~
j
::'-1
\,1,1
'1
o
.
-'dJ
>- q
Z
UJ
:E
I
U
4:
~".",.
c-::
>:"-.t
0J
l'0
· Hudson, Quebec (1993); Halifax, NS (2000)
· Waterloo (2001), Nepean (2001), in Ontario
· IPM Certification - Landscape Ontario
- Over 100 municipalities are certified
· Pesticide Bylaws vary
- Now 125 municipalities in Ontario have bylaws
- One off pesticide applications
- Municipal use guidelines
- Private property guidelines
· LO has initiated Healthy Lawns and Gardens workshops
for homeowners
· Province of Ontario
- Agricultural practices guided
- In 2009, decision on pesticide use
',', -
" '-, '-. ,.-.>::"->:-,,..::~{. ::..';:; .-'.; "";':':(: ~(
.; .. ; ,..... ",.' ,::: :, . ~ "')
.~~., .-, . .
'. ','., 0"-":
.',' <....-._... ," t-
'- .>-. -- . "',: ;" ..:',,; ;1:
.. ~-;;-~:' '~j' >;"::>1',:::':'- ',~:i-;.;_::..~.;_::: ,:_<:,.~.:t:,<" '::':;~:~'.',::: ~f": .>.
.i-j_X;' ,. .
i'0
f'0
/"". ,'i\
L.tilf L'''~ ;'.i:)
,'~ ~~
"~.l'--A. :.':"'::'.<::"7_'.'.. _. "_~_;. _........""'. .'
.8JR"---)~..'~~
(.l?-ICKElMtL~
-J...
~
~ Stakeholders
.~
-_c
r="'-'
;~;:
{)
0... (j
t..U
...., !",
1.',- \....
,I
I
'b
-To engage stakeholders including lawn care
service providers, product retailers, golf
courses, garden centres and utilities
-To understand the impact of pesticide
reduction on the environment and commerce
I
,..-... i v01
,+ ~
.......,
'l-,~~
Z
I..U
...-
J:_
;
-To solicit feedback for a by-law to enforce the
reduction of pesticide use in Pickering
-To build awareness of pesticide use and its
impacts
'v
~-i.
\~I
Ul
iJ:-
.Understand the needs of the community
for pesticide use
.Prepare a questionnaire/survey of the
stakeholders that use pesticides and of the
general public
· Facilitate discussion about a pesticide
bylaw
I
'-l
(~
~
~
(j
-i~
~
t'./")
Lf)
1'0
rv~
\J
\
\"
.J
lj,
,t'j
~
-+
Cli
,
,
I
,"i5
i\J
"9
· Cultural Practices - Mowing, watering,
fertilizing, and aerification combined to reduce
weed, insect, and disease problems and to produce
turf of high quality
· IPM, Integrated Pest Management is "Integrating
practical and cultural tasks to minimize the
deterioration of healthy turf."
· PHe, Plant Health Care - minimizing the use of
potentially harmful pest control products
I'~' "'-
\.-tlll (,II ill.
I 'f ;;.&.;
~f!~'cC-"~
\ ).". p'" " ~'lLC'Z.IL'.""~I'f ..k.
v""' ~. CKE--' -~~-~~~
, ...-,_ _, ","0,,,"7>,(
IJ . -,..>~~:,~!~~.-
(.-.-. --.
'So .... ~~-
......
~,
\;'1
'.V
"\ .'
Iji
at
~
j
(j
1
~
C?f)
- Intensively used sport facilities
-Strong turf in neighbourhood parks
-Street boulevards take the abuse of salt damage
and maintenance of utilities
-Health issues
-Timing for weaning off pesticides will be at issue
- Implementing and enforcement will be a
challenge
-Educate the public about lawn and garden care
practices
'i"',.';"':,,,-:' . '<._'. 'n . ;r,
AfA".....M, MM",G..,,-R.,,,..O,..........:.u,.p ;;;;': .i" ...,...... . ",F<
'\.()
r--0
, -
.' -- '-. /..l:-=. -{.t.,
..---;/.....,2 L' .
. "": ~:PO~~.T#.~"",' .~" J
\.. \-1....
'ACHMENT#._. '~"-'""".'. ii' (
".,,",! /" l..-/
Al I. ~Ol_'__....,,_.
,...,
3 I
:""'r'~'-""n
""n~
n"'j
38
~"I E N T F;__~~
"VL: J (J
.......~._. 0: _..L_._:....L
:.'I~:;t.;2J.:fJ(Ct)
.r. ........ r: C. ~." .,C' C.-, ~ c'e<'
~~~ ::. ""~~_~ \ _ .r ./
, ,
y""
j'j
r~
...
....
..::::
,~,,-~,. ""1 ,"" t ....,"
~~4'>,ltiil1_'_I-t'-
n
1(i'Ii):""I""
'- -"i"Y! "'1>T-
-r-"'N'-""'n
40
"J
?:j' (";(,
{;{
/~!L.". C' .L.......
..;--
~
~~
~
II"'
'" \
~
,,:
\.J '\
\j
.Ai 'r;1
')~~:
' 5
"-'
'---, '
\~
""",
Utilities repairs -
no topsoil used
Salt Damage
Intensive Use
Tree root
competition with
turf
v~
W
I
\:'
"
t~
.
"
'.J i
'v
\:
\Y
.
-; (/j
.,' eCl
~
Ciill 01 ..A
~,cfcf;7'TC':.l.'..m.'~~'
. ,,' ......... .'IL:..L i.,,--,,.. ',.J.. L~. JUl. ""'.--"'.~. '. I
PICKERtf1(~_
'-.,;,
'\,'
'-oJ;
'""""-
,
Reduce Weeds and/or Clover on sports fields because:
· Failing to remove weeds increases the 'risk factor and
liability when young athletes are playing soccer at a high
level; and
· The sports fields, depending on the percentage of the weed
population, may need to be closed in order to
accommodate the complete sod or seed renovation of the
sports field
*No pesticides for aesthetic purposes in parks or boulevards
C'-l
~
tN
I..)
r
u'"
(,,J
\,\
\ ! J
'+J,
OJ
,
.
- "'~
.....'" ~
~i
1'-')
-q-
PROPOSED WEED POPULATION THRESHOLDS
~
-..J:
-......;
PARKS
PARKETTES
BLVDS
MEDIANS
LEVEL ONE
CULTURAL PRACTICES
PROGRAM WOULD MATCH THE
PILOT PROGRAM WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE ENHANCE
GRASS CUTTING
LEVEL TWO
> 50%
LEVEL THREE
COMPLETE REHABILITATION OF
ALL TURF
SEED IF BARE I SEED IF BARE I SEED IF BARE
OF TURF OF TURF OF TURF
AND/OR WEEDS AND/OR WEEDS AND/OR WEEDS
N1A
REHABILITATION OPTIONS
1. RESEEDING
2. RESODDING
3. HERBICIDE SPRAY
NORMAL REHABIUTA TION PROCEDURES INCLUDE
INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE TiLE WHERE
REQUIRED, APPLlCA TiON OF 100 mm TOPSOIL,
AND FINE GRADING PRIOR TO SODDING OR
,:....--.,.'
IA'-'- IVIMM GROUP"
'..,.._'. .._.l
:;. :::', ..:'i. " . :-:' :,', ~:"
C\J
\Y
f
~)
V
I
V\'
\-U
\J,
'--1
f ,"
~
"i-.
{
Capital construction projects:
· Soil conditions
-' 1t · Drainage
. \"'i'-;
· Turf species
· Maturing time
· School Board buy-in
· Irrigation
".j
~
fJ
\0
I
I,
\J'
\~
j,
\.i~
\-D
V,
,-
"n
~
'2~,C_
Ln
~
-....i.-
:.j'
'-;.
· Provides water during drought conditions,
extending playability
· Increases/maintains root structure, and
therefore sustainability
· Cost: $15,000-$25,000 per field
· Staff Requirement: Monitoring for damages
through season, start up in spring; purging
in fall
1/;':;
\)
}
Ie'
\J
W
'"I
~
U
, " ---.:
'", '
"
~
(\i
· Soil conditions
· Drainage
· Maturing time - Field closure
· Partners buy-in
· Irrigation
\D
"<:j-
[~"
7
,:<I
\;J
ti
~
):-+
~ Policies are not just pesticide reduction
!~ · Wet Field and Season Length Policy
· Monitoring/enforcement of wet field and
season length policy
· Transient use of fields
· Partnerships with user organizations and
school boards
"x.;
"" \
(.,;
I
""'
J
G
"
'J
\..0
lJ
()
,
-. l
!~
'" '" 1
~. !
· Five year program
· Total Capital Costs: $1,000,000
· Total Operating Costs $542,000 - all fields, parks,
medians per year
· Timing: Five years to complete program
· 2007 Year 1 program:
- operating budget impact - $90,000 est.
- capital budget impact - $200,000 est.
co
<:::r
)0
u
,\
'j~
l.d
~
\,;\
\J
U
· Homeowners
· Commercial properties
· Sports and recreation
facilities
'-.i
f-:J ~
.'-:
j
-}'~i
, '-' ;
, r<'\
vxJ
, I
'.V
I
Ii"";
J
i
'V'
\V
~.
-"';;,J)
~
~J
,~
"-.ll
~
· Breakout groups
- Spokesperson
- Stenographer
· Topics:
- Impact of pesticide by-law on stakeholders (30
minutes)
- Input on timeframe to implement (30 minutes)
- How to enforce (30 minutes)
,.--'--...
'---"
U)
~
U)
'/".j
G)
I
1'"\
'IF
V
The City of Pickering is considering a pesticide by-law to restrict pesticide use"
Please indicate whether you think these options should be included in the
proposed by -law:
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pesticides on c(inunercialpropeJ'~V, that is, businesses and retail centres
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestl" cOdes "').'9 ff- Y'!Ilf7iK'n ;-t1r !~;' '1;:' 0 :f: ",ol(;, ,(f/.; !~Of"'j)'I,. ,~
1 (.,tti"...I~\.., ;j;"tY .f 1$,~)i ,,--_r}.. [t.t-if tt.t.Y,f' d !f...-! t- ~~.!' \1 ~d'.~ f_~.rt\l!;~l ~-1~",J 'h.'I,} _'7 ~,,:.
\,j
\,J
V;
;;j
~
~
--'
~.i
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestl"cI"des on r';'ih' of' !..."l;r'f{Or';'H" n""!lrk(,> ,(';l~l
~~_I:~.:l...'f" '" F-} )J ii'.f_.!', -t.J i-ff~:l5 l/-~~V "..'~' ,>"ifJ< ""t~~
.
Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
Pesticides on fiar;<~\.
,.1~' !I.....tt.".'-_"
Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
" "d ,'p . . .
PestlcI es on f."t}/j (Irtp'J.ff)~r
t.~ ~ _
Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestl"cI"des on t{!lH~H ....
~. ~:,* j- ';<"' ~: :;;"
Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestl"cI"des on ff;Jiilhhi
'",'"",, ":-"",,, !"tt~r
Imp~e~enting a ~y-Ia'Y that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestIcIdes on r.n,." tl' 'P/,W1h t~ I ...., M.." n.,.,. E""' ';
"t;I-'J't-v.~..;.~ ~,,~,€,~?,tll- fif ~Jej~R -f, .~/
-1*. ""- ..
.
.
.
.
IA"" MMM GROUP
. "
ell,! (11 &\
~
m. '~"fq-;;f'CC/i'./ll.'~.""..,~~
, f~,L,,"" "I~.. '=:., ". ,~,,""",'".l
\j PIA-TT5nn-..&f1
I' ._.L~L,"lt~.(_
\i'
,"1 What programs do you think could be useful to
make a by-law of this nature more effective?
Asking stores to provide more information to
consumers about alternative products and
methods
Asking stores to offer more alternative
products for sale to the public
Asking the lawn care industry to increase the
number and type of alternative products and
services they offer
Other ideas?
~
;::-....:
.'....::,.
"-':
-di
..~
0J
u')
iA'-'- MMM GROUP
f'-I~)
L1J
;~
,J
''-!'
';y
I,
,;1
'liJ
101
tt"
;;::
i,)
::s >-\.
eX; -..J
",
\
Cl
I
"Ii
.:rl
r~ I
Z
L~..~
:;::
:-\... . "'__ _ ; Ll - 5;.;
,..)0." \l..A..o..~ '::)3 -, . "LCCc~
CJcf'J-su.\ -k~~\.-\S
~?r:(' Sk\:tk;t:~-(o,t
· History of Pesticide Bylaws and IPM
· Work Program
· Public Comparators
· Private Stakeholders
· Survey
· Meeting F onnat
· Next Steps
j~
IV
\
~~~
,~
,
..:rt
':,'. .r;
,
>-l.
\Ji
1
\.'
. ,...
eillf (1~ &
~, ~. ._~
;\~cf"-'~'""','.','..;'''O"P!~:,','''J,.. . _..
1~..i~'I~."'~~ ,-
PICKE" . .. ,.
,"------------- _.-,,-_.,."_....-..~--=
· Pesticide use can be legally and effectively regulated
by a three tier regime - Supreme Court ruling
- Federal legislation regulates what pesticides can be used
- Provincial legislation regulates who can use pesticides and
how to use
- Open to municipalities to enact by-laws dealing with
vvhere and when pesticides can be applied
· Hudson, Quebec (1993); Halifax, NS (2000)
Waterloo (2001), Nepean (2001), in Ontario
· IPM Certification - Landscape Ontario
- Over 100 municipalities are certified
· LO has initiated Healthy Lawns and Gardens
workshops for homeowners
~
u)
~A"'"' M" ";'M~"";I M' '~':G':' "R""Q':'u' 'p"'!.: <iff ..... .:!j/. ;'i.ij.;;,,<ji~~~
.-..:",,:..,' .... .' -.,....., -,.,'i,., ,.',,' ,. '.
"'.:. <:.:'"..:.,i:i/" ',:;' . ,::.;.,; ',>,,'r.:,)}, >/>:0\::"[
1':<:,
~j
,~
I..;, ,
r,
\)
"
..;0
u'
::";'~
, ~
-I '\\1
:~ 1 .:ri
!
i.F)
W)
()
· Pesticide Bylaws vary
- Now 130 municipalities in Canada (six
provinces) have bylaws
- One off pesticide applications
- Municipal use guidelines
- Private property guidelines
· Province of Ontario
- Agricultural practices guided
- In 2009, decision on pesticide use
i,N
\J
I
,r.
'j ,
V
Jl
~
,
j
1~
'~
,
"-~
'~;
~"
Pesticide Schedules in Ontario
Schedule Who Can Use It Pesticide Characteristics
. licensed applicator . very toxic
1 . certified grower . very persistent
. only with approved permit . highly mobile
. very toxic
. licensed applicator . very persistent
5 . certified grower . highly mobile
. assistant agriculturist under supervision . less toxic or less persistent alternative not
available
. licensed applicator
. certified grower . toxic
2 . trainee or technician under supervision . pe rsistent
(some restrictions apply) . moderately mobile
. assistant agriculturist under supervision
. moderately toxic
3 . any person . moderately persistent
. slightly mobile
. low toxicity
4 . any person . non-persistent
. non-mobile
. containers < 1 kg or < 1 L
. low toxicity
6 . any person . non-persistent
. non-mobile
. containers> 1 kg or > I L
\.[)
LJ)
c""
U)
\;;,J
\..i
;['
U
()
, I.,
j.;J
z,)
Council
- Was requested by citizens to consider a
pesticide bylaw for health and environmental
reasons
'-+
( 1
.'~i
~
,
J~ -Responded to the request with a draft bylaw
- Determined exemptions with advice of the
Officer of Health
-Directed staff to solicit stakeholder and public
input to a draft by law
. .~
CitJl (,I ~
,- ~
~:-1~....'-.;...'.~.rP'~..i..'.').... .
~~i~:~~~.c
:f;; PI~/T':f
u _.___L~_~_~_
,
'Ji
Stakeholders Meeting Jaollary16;lf\"i
-To engage stakeholders includinglawnc?
service providers, product retailers,go!~{j;2i:<
courses, garden centres and utili~i~s'.;{>C('Yi"
~1;:JJ~.t~~tj:%:::JJ~}~:
-To understand the impact ofp
reduction on their commerce
Photo: Ron Pietroniro/Metroland PICKERING
-To solicit feedback on enforcement and timing
for a by-law to enforce the reduction of
pesticide use in Pickering
-To build awareness of pesticide use and its
impacts
~
'"
'vi
\--01
W
>t
'<J>
~
,,~
.~;
co
u;
lA">;'" . "M";; M" ':,'M' ";;:""G"" 'R";": o";'~":;u'" "p"";, ". .....,.. ...... 'it:'.'i
, " -' ".~-:. :,.,
. ,__ ' C' .'-.-', :..' .....' .. ...... -', .:,',_>'. ';':.,"-';i '.<:,
'<"'::,-,.-;;~~ ' ";-.:':,'j',:,:~:,:;:, :.: . - ;~\-<,; .:,.\. .:',t: '~~.;:/.{'.:/ .'. <-;::\;~/.:. ":':"'.:~.~.).[:-:--_.;,~-,:};,.:~~ ,:.-." ,;,:;'_:::)'-!i:~' ,.,~:
Q\
U;.~ ~
LillI o.{i ill
...,.. ~ ...JLh
f;.i;JL"""" __l'I";;i"""'" ~""
:",;:~~- .,.>-:<;.;tf":::~~-' :7~ ,"..i"'-'> i~ ~y '~
.... .:-... .~.~j),'c,01
rICKERr1S]"~'
Public Meeting - January 24
-To recognize the public's understanding of
pesticide reduction on the environment and
on commerce
N
"~
'V
\~k.,;
I - ...... .. .. · ... -:. I
.. - .. I! ...... :..-.-..~ I. -_I -.. II
r - .. II"" -- .. III 11 · ..-
'I.JJt ... :.; -f nlll 11..- i..
-. I.... II II..... . _ II , II ...
...
y
~.
" ,i
i\)
(,):
'-
CJ
-,
. -~~
G
!
-iei
51
I
I
-To solicit feedback for a by-law to enforce
the reduction of pesticide use in Pickering
-To build awareness of pesticide use and its
impacts
IA"" MMMGROUP
. ,I ~ II
" ,I
~
~':
".,
t"':!::
c'-...,
C:.. C'. t
W-c' ~ j
CJ:: ,~.
v:
\('.~
'---'
'~c...)
'-.D
...--
\.0
,'2
'0
,J,,,\
U
(v
· Cultural Practices - Mowing, watering,
fertilizing, and aerification combined to reduce
'd weed, insect, and disease problems and to produce
J turf of high quality
....... (
-...l
'c 1/'/-'~"" IPM, Integrated Pest Management is "Integrating
L IPM practical and cultural tasks to minimize the
(:(::"::=::~/ deterioration of healthy turf."
· PRC, Plant Health Care - minimizing the use of
potentially harmful pest control products
I t\;
\JJ
~"
;
. I:
i
:~'~ rj
! u, ~.
_I"'"" nl t~t';"::::
'/]I\\\~".l'.' HI;"",,,,,, ~"f[:':~ ~
./ " '1 I,. ,hJ,.' ">'" j';-\'
t~t', r ( " },._,.""', =. '::>"" ilp~:-:- __'-""~',,,
:", ; ~, ", ,/! 1 ~l';" ''I ' ,,'fi" ", '" )...-"'''~ ", 'l,; i,3l , ~',:,~'"
. '..; \ \" (ljH:;'<".f''''''~ tj ;.' 1 ~..~."'." .., "
\ '.. , " · 4k,,,., f "i",.! ".
., !. .. , 1",,- "'1
f" ',' L :<1'1 ')"j'1F, ~'II' 'i]',..' ; t'" ,,' I,~);i' 17
n'! '~' ~,~!,: ; ,i " '-J "rr .
o .. "'Ie." "k '.'
" · .~~i;il '; ,~ ' ')':
Illll~;g)j;;' '
II': I Q
iI, i' , ~
l :, ' ~
,~,'" 'l ",lIp, ;~~ 5: 1
" "" ',' ""I, .. i '"r ''ii'
I li;it; [-1' ~l'
r~t i 7j j~:
~1 1.1! ',,"~Jj..
ilJ:u ~
0., ,1 {""'\ f ~) "
~IHI Uj~
,'" . 'f....'j. ..~.-...._~_.., ,-"
- n
61.
.' }})-'f~l
"f -~ -r -
._,.,s~_~_
,- "
Cf:: :2' C s -- ({,
S~::).,
/0/
;;,J;',;..~,.
I ; III
1 ! ~ll il!
' \:1;'
" :'!:jL.
,; ",i iJjE .,
:""t''''-''';..-
f;;
,
f
~ -, - -,'\h
:"~,i11:ln,,,'
';.0"";' ~_.", .
,"1...".",.
<.;
r'"
;0 f
;"'<-,,_f
';;,.:;'"
l j
j
",!~
;:/i
~r~;;:ri'
-" ~l -"F. \~!, f; r
Ii Illii t<. j' 'Ii
I-jll tl
.1:1' Ii I
~ ;1.. .i' '"t
; ~ Ll i '. ~ l
!:f ;, ' Il'l
" ~ - ,
il ~
r'0
\.0
,-"
Lit'! ;."Ji !i~
'I' ;.:L;
lv' ~--_."~~-
,roo' ,"-- "".i.,,,,-____J<'.a\.'-
"(', ,,' ,m "'-:oi:J]T~"" :'.,-__!,'" .l.A.h
V PD'-- I ""~."'~"
, _ _" , lilt:, ,'.-"w.,- .,,-
I ~ 7"""fT71:~-' ~~
\)-_.~J:'I...C_ ~"".
:r\
IJl
i1 I
';,j.J
lJ
\'1\
N
~;
Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System
· 13% of households had no lawn or garden
· 66% had a lawn or garden which they cared
for themselves
· 20% hire a lawn care company
· 48% apply pesticides themselves
· 74% that hire a lawn care company, have
them apply pesticides
· 62% used pesticides in 2003
"'-'
(J ':
'"
'"
Citlf ,,~ ~
IN ~__~~~~r~."
U ;~~;;-- ';,\'~Y:}1~~7''-' ~:_",>::_:, -: :;"
\ -~'~iI!'mr't:C:J.d.c.''!..~;'f''o
~iPl---'- (
~ ____CKE_____
\fi
~ ~i
: \'
q
V
U
-;
G\
""
,
-,
· Use - No person shall apply or cause or permit the
application of any pesticide within the City
· Exemptions-
Agriculture,
pest control in buildings,
insect infestation,
public health,
- noxious weeds,
conservation authorities,
golf courses / driving ranges,
utilities,
water disinfectants, purification,
wood preservative, injection into trees, stumps or wooden poles,
insect repellant
i
i~
....J ,
/\;
\\ I
I
~
\.0
r,.j
,fJ
\.J
ir.
J
s
J '
\~
\J
Ln
\.D..,. t:\
/ '. .Jl <.,
L.tfl{ OIl' ~
~ ~ . a".
~'~'"9",.,,).,.o;:~"'~J:'''''''''~'''
..'. ....,',.i" 'T:~<"';:~''i>'' .
,- '. "'~I~.~':':~"fF''':'.J_
ErCKE.___~u_.__ (~~
~~
~;
'(J.
· Enforcement - Officers allowed to enter upon land for
inspection and may
Require documents related
- Inspect
Require information from any person
- Make examinations, take tests, samples, photographs
· Penalties - according to Provincial Offences Act
· Other Legislation -
- Pest Control Products Act, Canada
- Ontario Pesticides Act
· Effective Date
- March 25, 2008, Commercial applicators
- January 1, 2009, All persons
.--. s
\rl
,.N
~i
\A
\J
, \
,'"\
",
\)
J"\
\~
I'
'V
;
"'-'
r~
..........
Schedule A
a) Soap
b) Mineral oil
c) Silicon dioxide
d) Biological pesticides
e) Borax
f) Ferric phosphate
g) Acetic acid
h) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins
i) Fatty acids
j) Sulphur
k) Com gluten meal
J
\1"-';
~
'-0
\.0
~,.
".0
Public Realm
c~ - Intensively used sport facilities
l~ -Strong turf in neighbourhood parks
->l: \q,
-Street boulevards take the abuse of salt
damage and maintenance of utilities
-Health and safety issues
-Grounds Staff have already started reducing
:.,><;;
~
i
:\1''''
iJ
~./"\
u
u
'-......,
\",.)
"-
Grounds Staff have already started reducing
-IPM
-Naturalization of areas
-No spray zones
- Drought tolerant species of grass
- Natural fertilizers
-Experimented with alternatives: eg, vinegar
- Practice cultural practices
-Chemical treatment is last resort
-Use pest selective pesticides
\~
i"J)
co
'-0
C\
'--0
N
'.:~....,
V
If'
, ,
\J
....;
,
~'\
W
"
"-";
Private Realm
- Education needed for the public about lawn
and garden care practices
· Health issues
-Timing for weaning off pesticides will be at
.
Issue
· Implementing and enforcement will be a
challenge
~
~
-..~
Q'
",.::-
~.. .~
~
'.'.....i>i.,
I ct~ (/ --rc i'S /' Ot,
l"
"Qt.) . ,i,'f"
I "
70
~'.,'~ ~' L'~- rff::--[;,
/. . ".-' '.~' - L/' ? ,
J...(~~., .."-
7 '1
;'''';'i~~"'
~, rJ
..... \...,j.~, :::;:
.S'~'~~
t,~~
./.. ...~.~. -?\ .)1'
.'. ....~~~. ,.,r'
'.,. ff;;J:Jt-
.'--". :~r~ '1~
...~;..... :i.m! r
. ,"to:: ~~'
'~<.f J
r"
..,~;(;
'It.~~
'!....J."'".:;;:'~
.{~;}
~if..,:.:...",
,
",,~
.
~o~,..~' 'f:
fr",,~~,.,....
(1'
'i~ :n:i{'\'f#-t'-~
~. ".~ 1'-- jr' .,
1~l;W'l'~ '1-"<Wv..wK
'A / .'-I.'!?
72
l
..1(/7::..
,-,.[ ~ ~'.
"-::'~~_;,l" CC-.::-ro"()
r{
_.l~<_.
I~
I,~
'c..,J
\
"
o
iJ
,,"'1
\~)
<,1
~_i
:-.--r
-j I
j 'f'j
Dt
pr)
r-----
Utilities repairs -
no topsoil used
Salt Damage
Intensive Use
Tree root
competition with
turf
v'\J
()
\
v
1"\
V
\
\,1)
o
U
Reduce Weeds and/or Clover on sports fields because:
'"-'
~ · Failing to remove weeds increases the risk factor and
liability when young athletes are playing soccer at a high
.j "
~ level; and
· The sports fields, depending on the percentage of the weed
population, may need to be closed in order to
accommodate the complete sod or seed renovation of the
sports field
*No pesticides for aesthetic purposes in parks or boulevards
"<::J-
t'---.
.....,....,'.'",..-... '
'(":'.' " ,:,. ,; ..~t,". '.
, ~: '
;4, ~. ':':,::",~
"'. ',',
i . 'i!:
. ".,'c. i;, :". .,', :,<,;.:.;:"p";'.'.::
:N
o
.i
v:
'\J
\U
~J;
u)
~
PROPOSED WEED POPULATION THRESHOLDS
N
~i
,
PARKS
PARKETTES
BLVDS
MEDIANS
LEVEL ONE ..
CULTURAL PRACTICES
PROGRAM WOULD MATCH THE
PILOT PROGRAM WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE ENHANCE
GRASS CUTTING
\^\ I LEVEL TWO
5;):
NIA
NlA
LEVEL THREE
COMPLETE REHABILITATION OF
ALL TURF
SEED IF BARE I SEED IF BARE I SEED IF BARE
OF TURF OF TURF OF TURF
ANDIOR WEEDS AND/OR WEEDS ANDIOR WEEDS
REHABILITATION OPTIONS
1. RESEEDING
2. RESODDI NG
3. HERBICIDE SPRAY
NORMAL REHA BILl TA TlON PROCEDURES INCLUDE
INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE TILE WHERE
REQUIRED, APPLlCA TlON OF 100 mm TOPSOIL,
AND FINE GRADING PRIOR TO SODDING OR
',~
\,,;
j
:[
~
I
"
\)\
\U
\,J
.........
\J
"
If50% Weeds
· Evaluate Soil Conditions
· Evaluate Drainage
· Understand Maturing Time - Field Closure
· Attain Partners Buy-in
· Review Irrigation
I
9-
~
~
r--.....
c-.-
r--
N
"-J
,
\r
v
'...J
,
\J\
\~
,J(
Policies are not just pesticide reduction
· Wet Field and Season Length Policy
· Monitoring/enforcement of wet field and
season length policy
· Transient use of fields
· Partnerships with user organizations and
school boards
>-;.
\'}
,
~
~
!~
\N
~
I
\.;",
\~
1\
\0
"
'~
~
\.J
.""
· Five year program
· Total Capital Costs: $1,000,000
· Total Operating Costs $542,000 - all fields, parks,
medians per year
· Timing: Five years to complete program
· 2007 Year 1 program:
- operating budget impact - $90,000 est.
- capital budget impact - $200,000 est.
;
\!~
~
!
co
r---
\~
I.J
\
\
'-I
~
~)
~~
-.,j,
c'
C'----
....:
(\ :
'"j :
"
.=.. '\..;-r
~
Pho!o Ctedit Jaok Currie
· Sports and recreation
facilities
- Golf greens and tees
have highest need, but
only 10% of land area
- Audubon requirements
- Cost of spraying keeps
owners mindful of
overuse
- Marketing to the public
- Civic Pride
JA" MMMGROUP
v~
\
\~
\
,.\
\.J
I
\;"\
v
~
.....-..
~
~
\":.l
"
CJ
\~
· Homeowners:
- Lawn maintenance
- Pride of ownership
- Tree Spraying
- Self-application or hire
a maintenance
company
- What questions to ask
of a maintenance
company
- Where and how can
homeowners get
information?
co
,~
\:>
\[',
\~
\\
\i\
\--0
-,
\J
..-
co
~
",j
~
· Commercial properties
- Street presence
- Marketing to the public
- Civic Pride
- Communities In Bloom
--.;
\'-
Photo Credit Jack CUffic
CfJ
Q
\
vJ
~J
,\
\.i
\.'
/5
'-..
",,)
"
The City of Pickering is considering a pesticide by-law to restrict pesticide use,
Please indicate whether you think these options should be included in the
proposed by-law:
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pesticides on cOlnrnercialproper(F, that is, businesses and retail centres
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
t' 'd r:!/. '. {JJ 4-1': /;'>~tf-"-'-,1j'-ll!~,.r ~y,!..., ,_',~qr ,ril"l~". rl<t,,~,....... V-~"<\\'~f..Ir'!.1, J~-.r'''' ---~-'Qci:J~'~' ,-l~""i1; - fl, q, ,(,"~ifJ;.._~.J
pes ICI es \.lOS<;;:.- ilf.l to"l-,llti.e'\, ,)~fflv("f[,,~ iH,J'Ct,L. C'i-', if"'d, $;tihl<i:.-,>.jvr .l1ft. Mbt.l~
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
, 'd ~.< J'1';};' if ' "
pestlcI es on Cj~v (~t T ICiferulg a/Hi
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pestl'cI'des on (....:!'!!" t.jJV:" 4';: ,'l,t<.
~.lt'""~/ i._:.1 t f.~~ tf',,:'.~
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
Pesticides on 2,01/,n cours'es and or drivinf!
",-,,'t "" '\...,11'
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
Pesticides on faun bowlin!! 1!l'eenS
t_:O ~~..J'1
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
pesticides on utility pN~fJerties
· Implementing a by-law that would legally restrict most outdoor uses of
t' 'd :r~ r:ft~,;: ~-;f:; "','? f:;-_/~!t
pes ICI es on 3 Ld'i!,f!.if(.;'i;.1[,.iU
Q.
~.
. 1
("J
co
lA" MMMGftOUP
f"')
co
i~
I,J
\
V'.
(
~
,
c i\
\) .
\v
w
'-...
\:,.)
'"
What programs do you think could be useful to make
a by-law of this nature more effective?
Asking stores to provide more information to
consumers about alternative products and methods
Asking stores to offer more alternative products
for sale to the public
Asking the lawn care industry to increase the
number and type of alternative products and
services they offer
Other ideas?
-'^"
. 1:"1'-,
84
1,"i
, '1' -1'i'-j''::-~''1'iY- '-, '''0-
~
i~ /0/
/
~
(t)
r:n
~
~
r-+-
r:n
~
~.
~
~
r::;)
(t)
o
o
~
~
(t)
o
r-+-
(t)
0-
r::;)
~
~
PJ
t:j
~
~
W
~
-..
N
o
o
00
\i"---~ 1
,lfu..~';;:J,;,-"--r,'t"I-)-::,n-l:-'--,.,-,'w..;.'
c-.jC-, <'" C'C.. <~
"--~_~/ C., j ICl'
.IN
'J
. ~~
iIi
\J
,\
\1,\
'~
\j
L1)
00
~
,-,
',.,j
:"
Topics to consider:
- Impact of pesticide by-law on you
- Your input on timeframe to implement
- Your suggestions on how to enforce
Format:
~ Approach Microphone
~State Name and Address
~ Make statement or ask question
~ Information will be recorded to become part of or
appendix to report to Council
~ Written comments may be provided
\j"',
'""1
'1
ej"1
)It
Ii....){t..~ ,~.._. .....--;;-."'..-~AA,;"_."''''.,,
'f....""'...(ij.-~_.<_.j
~1.l-f<n-iiII)l...-.;rj'
86
I
._9~)
cV:: C-c~t:~' -r[)V,
_.\.c- .../) c
riil
tl.!l ..
· The use should be used as an option in addition to altemative methods. Alternative
methods used as a primary before pesticide use.
· If altemative methods are okay for homeowners, why aren't they good enough for golf
courses? I have tried "altemative" methods in the past and have found them to be much
more costly and ineffective. I ended up having to pay twice to get something that finally
worked (chemical). One environmentally-friendly treatment for chinch bug is over-
watering your lawn daily, as chinch bugs don't like water, however with our yearly
summer water restrictions, this is not a viable method! I would be breaking one by-law
to accommodate another. I think taking control away from licensed applicators and
I allowing homeowners to do it when they don't know what they're doing will have a
reverse effect to what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps Pickering could offer a by-
law focused on reduction of pesticides rather than an all-out ban. What about those
responsible homeowners who do not abuse pesticides but would still like to have a
healthy lawn - are they now going to be criminals? See attached shect* for benefits of a
healthy lawn. Also, my children suffer from allergies (hay fever, ragweed) and there has
been a noticeable increase in their suffering since the boulevards and parks of Pickering
have become a sea of yellow. The pollen produced from dandelions has had a negative
effect on them. "Dandelion pollen causes severe allergic reactions in people who are
sensitive to other pollens such as ragweed." I have questioned before whether the studies
being looked at are Canadian studies versus American - what products? American year-
round use vs. Canada's spring and faIl? Please read the attached sheet regarding the
licensing and testing of products used in Canada. Also, has there been any studies done
in Quebec to show if there has been any improvements in residents' health since their
pesticide ban?
· We have tried organic products in the past and have not received results from them and
therefore have wasted a lot of money. We are seniors that rely on a lawn care company
to treat our property. We only have it treated when necessary. We also have interlocking
brick that has weeds that come up which we are unable to pull by hand, would this mean
we cannot use a pesticide to kill those weeds? We have had a chinch bug problem the
past 2 years and have been fortunate to catch it early enough and have it treated that it did
not do too much damage. I am unaware of any effective alternative methods to control
insects. I would hesitate to experiment with these and not get results and then lose my
lawn in the meantime.
· The city has been very vague about what the alternatives to pesticides are. Do the
altematives work as well as pesticides, how much do they cost, where I can buy them,
what do I do if! have White grub problems. The City recommends proper watering,
what about water restriction.
· It's not about being able to do what you want on your personal propel1y. It's about
affecting others when you do it (spray). Let the children play w.ith freedom, and breathe
air without hannful chemicals! Let's implement the by-law!
I
_ ,_~ll ,-ILL
" 'E .: '. c . .'~
.' L:::._>r C'r iC't:,
r~ 7
t I
Com men ts\suggestions:
. Most people are allergic to weeds and my family is one of them, for me not to be using
pesticides would cause my family to be constantly sick in the spring and summer seasons.
. Enforcement is necessary.
I
! . I think that with all the gathering evidence of danlage caused by pesticides, the City
should look at the stI1ctest possible ban on their use.
. This is a joke. ... The Town of Pickering is ALWAYS full of dandelions. THEY DO
NOT CARE what our town looks LIKE .... IT IS HORRIBLE DISGRACEFUL and I
phone the works office EVERY year for the past 3 or 4 years to get it looked after and
NOTHING happens but they finally come and cut down the SEEDED dandelions. We
pay our hard earned money to look after our properties and the CITY lets their land look
disgraceful.. PS LETS just BUILD MORE TOWN HOUSES that is what our MAYOR
SUPPORTS...thank you ... Sandi.
. Should the by law be passed, where in accordance, those requiring IPM accreditation
and are licensed by the Province to apply chemicals should be allowed to continue to
apply as long as they are enrolled to receive accreditation within a determined time.
. I STRONGLY recommend to remove Pesticides which include herbicides for weeds,
insecticides for insects, and fungicides for disease from the store shelves completely.
That's why there isn't a choice to consumers/businesses to use these types of
produces/services, this makes it easier to control the usage of these produces once the
pesticide ban is in place. Also, to controllawncare companies who claim that their
products are organic and then apply pesticides when homeowners aren't home or
chemically change products, to give the perception of a healthy organic lawn.
Homeowners thinking it was organic not knowing any differently. These typcs of
companies are poisoning their customers for a quick buck not thinking of the long term
effects it may have especially if they have vegetable gardens cause now they are
ingesting the chemicals. A significant fine needs to be implemented especially towards
lawncare companies to make them think about it twice i.e. $6,000 fine or more and
homeowners another amount. As the fines are not significant enough as the penalty to a
lawncare company would be the price of] customer which isn't enough. They laugh as
they are getting ofT. :-1
. We feel that while pesticide companies are probably more vocal than residents over
this issue, people's health should not be put in hann's way for cosmetic lawn care - we .
want to ensure that resident's voices are heard. Also, we do not feel that golf courses
should be given a free pass to spray as much pesticides as they wish - there are several
organizations involved in natural golf sustainability such as
http://'vVww.golfenvironmenteurope.org/ or http:www.usga.org/turf/index/html - Thank
you.
,,~c:' :-'
:'c ',r' '"~
88
· Implementing a by-law that would restrict most
outdoor uses of pesticides on golf courses and
or driving ranges
· Implementing a by-law that would restrict most
outdoor uses of pesticides on lawn bowling
greens
· Implementing a by-law that would restrict most
outdoor uses of pesticides on utility properties
· Implementing a by-law that would restrict most
outdoor uses of pesticides on residential
property
What programs do you think could be useful to
make a by-law of this nature more effective?
· Asking stores to provide more information to
consumers about alternative products and
methods
· Asking stores to offer more alternative
products for sale to the public
· Asking the lawn care industry to increase the
number and type of alternative products and
services the offer
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
c;(: ~7L CrtC>t:,
jDt
~Lti1; .1:' ."'HILl!
15
34
28
*
33
28
*
*
35
18
*
28
24
*
55
4
*
55
4
*
53
5
*
Homeowner: 44 *
Business: 14
Homeowner I Business: 4
* survey results that had been added on Feb 29, 08.
In the future, if you needed to remove weeds or
bugs that were outside, how likely are you to use
an alternative product or method?
The City of Pickering is exploring ways to reduce
the outdoor use of pesticides in the City. Are you in
favour or opposed to the City reducing the use of
pesticides outdoors?
t
,.:2't,. ,.Let
U Topdressing with topsoil
U Naturalization
U Fertilization (compost or manure)
U Overseeding
U Hand pulled weeds
U Used alternatives for insect control
U Mulch gardens/tree pits
U Other
J Very likely
J Somewhat likely
J Somewhat unlikely
J Very unlikely
U In favour
U Opposed
U Neither in favour or opposed
U Depends on what they do
U Do not know
t;-t:r- L 5-rtf2-
89
15
4
7
14
15
14
4
9
7
2
3
13
2
Section #3
Pesticide Bv-law and Implementation
The City of Pickering is considering a pesticide
by-law to restrict pesticide use. Please indicate
whether you think these options should be
included in the proposed by-law:
. Implementing a by-law that would legally
restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides on
commercial property, that is, businesses and
retail centres
. Implementing a by-law that would legally
restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides close to
hospitals, schools, daycares, and homes for the
aged
. Implementing a by-law that would legally
restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides on City
of Pickering parks and greenspaces
. Implementing a by-law that would legally
restrict most outdoor uses of pesticides on City
of Pickering sports fields
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
J No
J Yes
32
20
"
*
39
14
"
37
24
"
"
37
*
r--:;r -,
90
In the future, if you needed to remove weeds or
bugs that were outside, how likely are you to use
an alternative product or method?
The City of Pickering is exploring ways to reduce
the outdoor use of pesticides in the City. Are you in
favour or opposed to the City reducing the use of
pesticides outdoors?
-WIT
2)
,c.E5qc <-;--'DC
/
'" ~trc;)
/~z
9
32
32
40
16
23
5
*
*
*
*
U Naturalization
U Fertilization (compost or manure)
U Overseeding
U Hand pulled weeds
U Used alternatives for insect control
U Mulch gardens/tree pits
U Other
J Very likely
J Somewhat likely
J Somewhat unlikely
J Very unlikely
U In favour
U Opposed
U Neither in favour or opposed
U Depends on what they do
U Do not know
23
7
9
10
*
*
25
14
1
10
*
*
Section #2
Businesses
Please indicate your location and what type of
business you operate?
In the past 3 years, (2005, 2006, 2007) did you or
someone else in your business use pesticides
outdoors on your property?
In the past 3 years, did you or someone else in
your business hire a company or pay a landscaper
to maintain your lawn or garden that included the
outdoor use of pesticides?
In the past 3 years, did you or someone else in
your business use alternative products or methods
on your lawn, gardens, trees, or potted plants?
U Retail/Wholesale
U Manufacturing
U Service
U Operate a business related to lawn and garden cc
U Operate a business in Pickering
U Operate a business outside Pickering
J Yes
J No
U Do not know
J Yes
J No
U Do not know
U Lawn aeration
U Proper watering / irrigation
2
13
4
3
3
16
1
13
4
15
16
PC';? - rLy:;>-.:e"2
.'iJ ..
L{)(
91
Section #1 Number
Homeowner of People
How long have you lived in Pickering? J 1-5 years resident 6
J 6-10 years resident 5
J 11 + years resident 35 *
J Operate a business in Pickering 1
J Do not live in Pickering 3
What is your age group? J Under 20
J 21-35
J 36-50 17 *
J 51+ 31 *
Gender J Male 21 *
J Female 27 .
What is your primary residence? U Detached single family home 39 *
U Townhouse 3
U Se mi-detached 5
U Apartment within house
U Apartment/Condominium
Do you have a lawn? J Yes 45 *
J No 3
Do you have a garden and/or trees? J Yes 48 *
J No
If you live in an apartment, do you have a garden
on your balcony or rooftop? J Yes 1 ,
J No
In the past 3 years, (2005, 2006, 2007) did you or
someone else in your household use pesticides
outdoors on your property? J Yes 22 *
J No 25
U Do not know 1
In the past 3 years, did you or someone else in
your household hire a company or pay a
landscaper to maintain your lawn or garden that
included the outdoor use of pesticides? J Yes 17 .
J No 30
U Do not know 1
In the past 3 years, did you or someone else in
your household use alternative products or
methods on your lawn, gardens, trees, or potted
plants? U Lawn aeration 32
U Proper watering / irrigation 39 .
U Topdressing with topsoil 26 .
-';'-j':-'i
92
I
_':l!;>-
1.;E,"'/'c-CJ--:", - lei-,
. -/. .--'
;cY
I .T YOUR SURVEY QUESTIONS ARE ~KEWE~ IN FAVOUR ?F A BAN. IT IS
i NOT A TRUE SURVEY! Further, I belIeve sectlon 19 & 20 relatmg to entry and search
and seizure exceed the City's powers without a warrant.
· I think the price of alternative products will be a huge factor in making this program
successfhl. I presume that stores will not be banned from selling pesticides, so if there is
a less expensive product to choose, then the consumer will likely purchase that one. As
long as the prices are comparable, then the consumer will likely choose the
environmentally friendly product. It's all about money!
· The retail sector is in business to make money. Suggesting to them to make changes is
not the way to go. We must bring in a low to end the sale of these poisonous products.
Most alternate products provided by the nurseries are not "friendly" to the environment.
Also a very obvious omission is the banning or in some way reducing the use of
herbicides. Are you not considering a reduction/elimination of these products? Good
luck bringing in this very welcomed by-law. I may finally be able to walk the area
without crossing back and forth to eliminate the pesticideslherbicides used on lawns and
maybe, just maybe, we can start the process of cleaning up our waterways and lakes.
· Children should be educated in schools and at home not to use pesticides - this will
help our future generations.
· Wait for the provincial government to introduce their pesticide legislation so the entire
province is dealing with the pesticide usage issue the same way.
· I think the law bowling greens are very similar to the greens on a golf course. Weare
both using the same products to protect the greens from the snow. Natural organic
fertilizer, fungicide to control dollar spot etc.
· Alternatives must be "registered" for control of the target pest. I strongly believe there
should be a threshold for weed cover that would allow a I-off exemption one time only!
The reason at state that is because having to replace your lawn is not sustainable i.e.: high
water usage - power equipment used to replace lawn produces C02.
· Phrase "restrict most O!) outdoor uses...." is weak. The word "Asking....." has no
teeth.
· Ban lawn care service spraying liquids. I never llse liquid spray - only granular pellets
every 4-5 years. But I would like to be able to use it when I consider it necessary. I
suggest 18 months to implement the Pesticide Use By-Law. To enforce this By-law, use
a tag system - 2 tags per year for no liquid - just pellets, and restrict the lawn service
companies. There should be a complete ban on liquid sprays. Driving ranges should not
be exempt. Golf courses should use pellets only - no liquid spray. They should not
automatically be exempt.
· Save the environment. Enjoy move, I am a green person.
rc.:/ECr-c:, 5- ~.fi;
j'{;/
93
· Compellawncare/landscaping contractors to end the use of liquid pesticide spraying.
We put a great deal of time and effort into maintaining an attractive property, using many
methods of weed and insect control. Same neighbors are not so diligent! So let them use
their preferred method to keep dandelions and ragweed (to which I am terribly allergic!)
under control- as long as it is not sprayed liquid! To be fair to all parties concerned the
City needs to apply an 18-36 month time frame for implement Pesticide Use By-Law.
Start by "policing" the lawn care/landscaping contractors to enforce this By-Law. Fools
Rush In .... Please do not do anything in haste - it creates more problems than it solves!
I _
. To maintain a lawn bowling green you need to use pesticides.
--
· It would be impossible to maintain a bowling green in playable condition without the
use of pesticides.
· The by-law as now proposed would ban homeowners from using controls even in small
spot while golf courses (mostly adjacent to streams and creeks) could continue use
thereby contaminating these water courses by run-off. The By-Law as it is now proposed
is wrong headed. Ifweed and/or insect infestation becomes severe then "professionals"
would have to be brought in for major treatment thereby defeating the original interest.
Private properties could become unsightly and infested while golf courses continue to use
pesticides in high volume. Defer the timeframe to implement this by-law for as long as it
takes to complete scientific based study would possible effects. As with many things
enforcement for By-law will be almost impossible. Education as to correct use and
methods of control can be more effective. Prudent use of controls can be effective; e.g.
fertilize to keep grass thick and weed resistant, - dandelions, etc. are easy to spot and pull
or dig, - other weeds such as chickweed, creeping char lee, can be spot sprayed. If kept
in check this way full spraying of entire area would not be required. If left unchecked
until completely infested then high volume treatment becomes necessary. Under the
proposed by-law the use of small amounts for spot treatment would be illegal.
· I really hate to see obnoxious weeds everywhere i.e. thistle, mullion. They choke
everything growing. What is the answer? I don't know.
· The Pickering Lawn Bowling could not exist without the continual use of pesticides
professional lawn maintenance service.
· Impossible to keep a lawn bowling green in playable condition without pesticides.
. It would be impossible to keep bowling green in playable condition without pesticides.
eProvide more education from the City on pest control. It would ne~~lybe impossible to
keep a lawn bowling green in playing condition.
· For those residents and businesses with lawns that are out of control, the pesticide by-
law should take effect in 2009. TI1is would at least give them time to get their lawns
I
Illnder control. I Jive across from a conservation area where nothing has/will be done to
,;,....~"'"
," ITf"'U",
c.....~~j~...'........'1.1
1l!-.'\i~"","'-l;'C'Y':.'17 ii"l?"- ..,,'
94
t
",ilLt.
C.:r;; 5;;-- -c L.~~ ,C, 0~
JCY
control a noxious weed problem. The two closest neighbors have done little to control
weeds in their yards. These two factors contribute to weed problems in my lawn. As
such, I am opposed to a complete pesticide ban until such time as alternative methods are
made available that work equally as well as the pesticides I currently use.
. Do it soon. I
· I am totally opposed to the City regulating the use of legal pesticides on any private
property. If the by-law is restricted to municipal property only I could support the
proposal but certainly not in its present form.
-.-....---
. Follow the Peterborough pesticide by-law.
· Define "Most outdoor Uses" and legislation is not the answer. Common sense ~.
· Providing there are proven alternative environmentally safe and effective products
available to control weeds and pests, I would fully support the by-law.
. Make a law - no pesticide (they cause cancer).
. Total ban of pesticides.
· Would be nearly impossible to maintain a lawn bowling green in playable condition
without the use of pesticides. What is Pickering using instead of pesticides to keep our
green areas attractive.
· Ask lawn care companies to provide more information to consumers on alternatives
. and products.
. The sooner the better for reduction.
. Ban aU pesticides from all uses with exception of invasive species control.
· Individuals should have the right to decide for themselves whether they should use
pesticides but in public areas, including golf courses, it should be restricted. But
individuals should be educated in the use of pesticides. *
-
*.C()fuh1erttthatll~bG()11~dded..()n.FeB29.26b8.
I
l' ./
'- t)
'-. '. -Y'-"..-,,"
C)E~f~rz, ..~:.:; - ,cr8
9 :J
/{I_
FW Information from Statistics canada
From: o'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
sent: January 24, 2008 11:48 AM
To: whitaker, chantal
subject: FW: Information from Statistics canada
Attachments: image002.jpg
Jennifer O'Connell
city councillor, ward One
city of pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
1. 866.683.2760
Fax: 905.420.6064
joconnell@city.pickering.on.ca
www.cityofpickering.com
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
-----original Message-----
From: Chris Lemcke (mailto:clemcke@aol.com]
sent: Fri1/18/2008 11:53 AM
To: pickles, David, councillor
Cc: Mayor Web Email; Littley, Bonnie. councillor; Mclean, Bill, councillor;
Johnson. Rick. councillor; Dickerson. Doug. councillor; o'connell. Jennifer.
counci 11 0 r
subject: Re: Information from statistics canada
Honourable Councillor pickles;
I wanted to forward the information I talked about the other night at the
Stake Holder Meeting regardin~ the'small change in pesticide use in the rest
of canada versus Quebec. The 1nformation I was referring to came from
statistics canada's report on the Lawn and the Environment. Below is the
particular point that I talked about in the report:
pesticide use dipped slightly at the national level, Quebec pesticide use cut
i n half
In spite of increased efforts to build awareness of the potential health
threats of pesticides, there has been little change in canadian households'
use of pesticides on their lawns and gardens. The proportion of households
that used pesticides slipped only marginally from 31% in 1994 to 29% in 2005
(Table <http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-002-XIE/2007002/200700210336-
en.ht
m#table1> 1). In spite of this national trend, the proportion of households
using pesticides was reduced by half in Quebec, with only 15% of households
applying pesticides to their lawn or garden in 2005. The only other provinces
to experience a decline in the proportion of households applying these
substances were New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia. In contrast,
the proportion of households using pesticides more than doubled in
Newfoundland and Labrador and increased by almost half in Manitoba.
I hope that this helps you understand the information that I was speaking
about and how retail sales affects our business. Until the province bans
rage 1
Ii$-'ii
"-~-U"a "
HIi?-' '-,
96
,
,-?//.
".,."t:'>,~_
CJC[i rL,t.;-C>L,
lOt.
FW Information from statistics canada
pesticides at the retail level you will only drive the use into the home
owner's hands and if you are truly concerne~ over the possible Health effects
of pesticides how can you allow homeowners not trained or wearing protective
equipment to continue to apply. Having a business in Montreal we know by-laws
will influence the use of pesticides and lower its use but the real difference
in Quebec came after they took it of the store shelves. we were able as a
business to compete and provide organic solutions but the article below still
shows that it does not completely stop its use entirely it onl~ creates a
black market use of pesticides where untrained home owners do lt themselves
and councillors are unwilling to "harass people for pesticide use".
Locals defy ban, lawns still awash in pesticides
'We don't go out harassing people' for pesticide use, city councillor says
~~r~~~~~c~~:ns~~~i'W~:k~ed in Quebec but legal in ontario, is applied t~~,~
Locals defy ban, lawns still awash in pesticides
'We don't go out harassing people' for pesticide use, city councillor says
BY ANDY BLATCHFORD
The chronicle
At the dawn of Quebec's era of pesticide prohibition, a cluster of neighbours
in Kirkland have turned to cross-border shopping for their weed and insect
killer fix.
Quebec's new pesticide law, which came,into effect in April, prohibits the
sale and application of most domestic~lly-applied chemical lawn products.
But the regulation is ignored on a sleepy street in Kirkland, where residents
risk fines to grow the perfect lawn.
when "stephane" - who asked not to have his real name printed - first moved
into his house a couple of r,ears ago, the property was covered in weeds. He
applied the "chemical stuff' and he was happily surprised when the lawn became
a monoculture of grass, in only a few days.
"It was scrapped. Terrible. Awful," said the self-proclaimed "neat freak,"
describing the state of his lawn when he bought the home.
Each summer stephane sprays his grass with pesticides three to five times,
making sure to follow safety instructions on the bottle. "You pay almost
S400,000 for a hornet you're not going to let it go," he told The chronicle.
"It'S the presentatlon of the hous e too. If you go to se 11 the house, it's
nice if there's no weeds."
From the lush, weedless state of the grass on his property, the liquid
pesticides, which cost about $16 per bottle, appear to be effective. The
he uses contains the banned herbicides 2, 4 D and Mecoprop.
He tried organic weed killers, which are still legal, but said they are
useless.
"
brand
stephane goes out of his way to tell neighbours that he sprays his lawn and
Page 2
e)(;.~' c- ~,;~-cfi:-
97
/[{
./"
AN Information from Statistics canada
estimates that close to half the homeowners on the street - a dozen houses -
use chemicals.
one neighbour, who applies weed killer at night so it dries by morning,
doesn't understand wh~ Quebec's ban ;s so strict. "It's par for the course,"
he said of using pest,cides to maintain a weedless lawn. "what do you think
we're all doing?"
Another resident, who doesn't use chemicals, is not bothered by his
nei ghbours' 1 awn care habi ts. "It doesn't bother me," he sai d, admi tti ng he is
tempted to try some of the chemicals on his own property.
Quebec's environment ministry says exposure to pesticides is linked to health
problems in animals and humans, especially children, according to its website.
The chemicals also contaminate the soil and the air.
The sale of most chemical lawn products is banished in Quebec, so stephane
gets what he needs outside the province. sometimes he picks up extra bottles
for fri ends.
In Ontario, where the sale of many pesticides ;s still legal, garden centres
have rapidly become a smuggling so~rce for lawn-conscious Quebecers.
"1 can see there's more Quebec people coming (this year)," said Diane Legault,
owner of Le~ault Garden Centre in Hawkesbury, ant., of her burgeoning out-of-
province cllentele.
she attributes this year's 20 per cent spike in sales to the swift movement of
grub and weed kill products to her Quebec neighbours.
Yours truly,
chris Lemcke
we'ed Man
Technical coordinator
11 Grand Marshall Dr.
ontario, M1B 5N6
office: 416-269-5754
page 3
/
C:JE<.-/ ~;5-C)'i,
98
"1!Z
-/{:(
FW proposed pesticide BY-law
From: o'connell, Jennifer, councillor
Sent: January 24, 2008 11:47 AM
To: whitaker, chantal
subject: FW: proposed pesticide By-Law
FYI
Jennifer o'connell
City councillor, ward One
city of pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
1. 866.683.2760
Fax: 905.420.6064
joconnell@city.pickering.on.ca
www.cityofpickering.com
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
-----original Message-----
From: chris Lemcke lmailto:clemcke@aol.com]
Sent: Fri 1/18/~008 10:47 AM
To: Mayor web Email; littley, Bonnie, councillor; MClean, Bill, councillor;
Johnson, Rick, councillor: Dickerson, Doug, councillor; o'connell, Jennifer,
councillor; Pickles, David, councillor
Subject: Re: proposed pesticide BY-law
Dear Honourable pickering council:
, I would like to take the time to thank those council members whom I had the
opportunity to have met on wednesday night at the Stakeholder meeting at the
, pickering Recreation Center. I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify for
, those councillors at the meeting and for thbse who were not able to attend
where the weed Man's position is regarding the proposed pesticide Bylaw. Weed
Man is canada's largest organic lawn care service provider and we have been in
business in pickering for over 30 years and have been offering or9anic
services for close to 15 years. We are also the leader in canada 1n helping
develop and bring new organic products to our customers and in educating our
customers in Integrated Pest Management and sustainable lawn care.
r am involved in a number of weed Man business's located throughout canada
and we presently work in a number of municipalities that have pesticide by-
laws. Many of the pesticide by-laws are quite different depending on the
Municipality for example; Windsor allows for pesticide applications but only
when temperatures are lower than 2S degrees celsius and not over more than 20%
of the landscape in a 30 day period. The Municipality of Russell, Ontario does
not allow for exemptions for Golf, caledon, ontario aoes not permit
applications during July and August and you must be IPM Accredited to be
allowed to make applications and cobalt, ontario does not allow for an
Agricultural exemption. The fact is there is a patch work of different
pesticide by-laws through out Ontario that make operating a business difficult
when covering many different municipalities.
If pickering adopts it's own by-law, because we operate in Ajax as well, there
may be confusion by our employees as to why one side of the street you can
make pesticide applications and the other you cannot, not to mention the home
owners.
<
weed Man is currently supporting the liberal Government and their position
Page 1
/
~)f
,e:; ,'~
r- ,,'-r' -G c~::.--r-, ~"
''-..--'' ..._..-./' _,,) (..,---' v
ft:'{
99
FW proposed pesticide By-Law
to bring in a provincial ban on Pesticides. weed Man wants a fair and even
pesticide by-law that will restrict the use of ~esticides everywhere in
ontario and one that will stop the patch work of by-laws.
please see the link that shows that the Liberal Government has already started
this process and is committed to having a provincial ban in place within the
next 18 months.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080115/pesticide_ban-O
80115/20080115?hub=Health Even the Environmentalists that are trying to get
pickering to ban pesticides states in this article that the~ want the ontario
Government to stop the patch work of by-laws "Environmental1sts say ontario
needs to replace a patchwork of local bylaws banning pesticides with province-
wide legislation, along with a public awareness campaign." So why are they
campaigning so hard to get pickering to add to the patch work of by-laws?
Those councillors who truly believe that pesticides are a real health issue
should not follow the direction of the city of Toronto. The City of Toronto
still remains the largest pesticide user in Toronto and councillors who were
quick to call pesticides a health issue still allowed soccer fields and golf
courses to apply pesticides. Both activities of course are very popular with
young children ana the councillors certainly had an opportunity to send a
message that if the health of children really mattered they would have banned
the use of pesticides on their golf courses and sports fields.
The City of Toronto also ~ave homeowners a longer grace period to adopt a
pesticide by-law, making 1t very difficult for lawn care operators to keep
customers from cancelling and going to the store and doing it themselves. If
you allow for a fair transition by lawn care operators and home owners then
you ~ll allow the opportunity for business like Weed Man to educate the
customers on proper cultural practices and organic sustainability with out
losing them because they know they can just go to the store and get a quick
fix. Halifax has had a ban in place for years as well as Toronto and if you
think that the average home owner won't just go to the store and by it because
there is a by-law: then I suggest watching the link below from Market place
that shows what happens when a pesticide By-law is in place and you can still
by the products in the store. .
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/lawn-and-order/
I hope that the pickering council will look at all the information that
they will receive objectively and that they understand the emotion behind this
su~ject and although you have the ability to make a decision on this subject I
aSK1 do you have the expertise, and do you know'with out a doubt that you are
maklng a fair law. Once again this is all that weed Man asks and if you feel
there is no choice other than to pass a pesticide by-law that it be fair for
everyone. This means a grace period at least minimum until the late fall to
allow us to prepare our customers who have already signed up and pre-paid and
are expecting a certain service in the spring. I will be sendinQ some more e-
mails to follow that I feel will benefit everyone in understandlnQ a bit more
some of the issues related to the proposed pesticide by-law and W1ll offer
some insight into the issue. weed Man will not be presenting or asking any of
it's customers to present at the public meeting as we feel that this 1S a
health issue and should not be addressed by the public or industry or
activists that have opposing views on an emotionally charged issue. weed Man
feels that matters of health and pesticides are better left to Toxicologists
and Health canada (pest Management Regulatory Agency) who is the regulating
body and test pesticides for safety. We would ask that before any decision is
made that council invite Health Canada and the PMRA to visit council and allow
them to answer any questions that pertain to this health issue since they are
the regulating body. Asking for public input on a health issue is like asking
your friend to take your appendix out because he read a book on it.
Yours truly,
chris Lemcke
page 2
1 00
weed Man
Technical coordinator
11 Grand Marshall Dr.
ontario, MIB SN6
office: 416-269-5754
~ '::i~"" -" u c' 1~~ .
I
. LTC
~~~~~f-~.'.'f,.1--L:'-['-;,1\1.:'['-4"':i'-'x__':il-'fin:,-~
/D(
FW proposed pesticide By-Law
page 3
E-'E7,e)C~ - :[f~
."C I
(11
i ~.'
c': ..'".SS-C~5 ~<<~:,
1 0 1
led
City of Pickering Meeting on Pestiddes: Jan 16,1008
Gideon Forman's Soeakin2 Notes
Members of council, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
My name is Gideon Fonnan and I'm Ex.ecutive Director of the CllIladian
Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). CAPE represents over 2,000
medical doctors and concerned citizens from across Canada who work: to protect human
health by protecting the environment. We recently won a gold medal at the annual
Canadian Environment Awards --liponsored by Canadian Geographic Magazine and the
Government of Canada -. for our national pesticide education work.
CAPE is here today to speak in favour of a strong pesticide bylaw for Pickering.
As a doctors' organization we are pleased you are already moving in this direction. but
we would like to see the draft bylaw even mQ!] protective of public health.
In particular, we would like to see you remove two of the proposed exemptions.
Firs~ we would like to see the exemption for "insects" removed. With so many effective,
non-toxic products now available, there is simply no need to use poisons on insects.
If the issue is controlling chinch b~, homeowners can aerate their lawn, water
deeply Once pel' week to avoid the dry conditions these bugs prefer, and plant fescues or Iyegrass
which are more resistant to chinch bugs than Kentucky bluegrass. Homeowners can also spread
non-toxic soap t1akes On their lawn.
90/Z0 39\1d
3~lN3J SNOI1\1~3dO
882:SE89g06
6D:S0 800Z/0Z/2:0
p".r..--".;,
, 1 0 2
I
q~
fT. ~su ".-<:-'~~ <:)
L.'f-..---' - (.("....-1_..> ((._'~~j
/[(
2
Ifrhe issue is controlling ~ homeowners can use environmentally-friendly
nematodes - which are microscopic parasites that feed on the grubs but are hannless to
humans.
It's worth noting that the City of Peter borough's pesticide bylaw' - which has
been ill place for almost two years -- has ~ exemption for "insects" and is 'Very effective
and popular.
The ~ exemption that doctors would like to see removed is the one for
utilities. Neither Peterborough nor Toronto have this sort of exemption and it hasn't been
a problem. If pests ever posed a health hazard in a Hydro corridor or gas transmission
station - for example if rats posed a threat to Hydro work crews -- a pesticide could be
used. But that's already allowed under your "Public Health Exemption", There's simply
no need for a further exemption.
Vlhy do doctors support a strong pesticide bylaw? There are a number of reasons
but the first is that the science shows some very disturbing connections between pesticide
use and serious illness. There's a great deal of science in this area but I'm going to
mention just two studies today.
The first is from the Ontario College ofFamilv Physicians - which represents
over 8,000 Ontario doctors.
90/20 39IJd
3~lN30 SNOIIIJ~3dO
8868289905
5p:S0 8006/06/60
90/170 39V'd
I
t:1)
C ~<:.-:' r.;:-".,.-~ - <t"--
{~:~ 7~"_ ", (r. ""
.-'....-- -- (.~-/
1 0 ~
!
/01
3
In April, 2004, the College released a systematic literature review of pesticides
and human health. The most comprehensive study of its kind in Canada, the review
examined hundreds of scientific papers on the issue and drew some very worrying
conclusions. It found, among other things, that:
1) Pesticide exposure is associated with brain cancer, prostate cancer,
kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer.
2) Pesticide exposure is associated with adverse reproductive effects
including birth defects and even the death of the fetus.
3) Children exposed to pesticides - especially insecticides and herbicides
used on lawns, fruit trees and gardens w_ have an increased risk of
leukemia. a form of childhood cancer,
In April, 2006 - two years after the College released its study - another piece of
landmark science came out. This time it was from the journal of The Canadian Paediatric
Society, Canada's foremost authority on children's health. Thejournal published a
scientific paper entitled, "Pesticide Assessment: Protecting Public Health on the Home
Turf" which looked at the health effects of the most common weed killer in Canada, 2,4-
D. The paper's conclusion? [And I quote] ".. .2,4-D can be persuasively linked to
cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems."
3~lN3~ SNOI1~~3dO
aaZ;8E89905
517:80 a0raZ;/0G/Z;ra
. .. .. 1 04
I
1Lf
L~ ~>-q::. <i- c>2;
/{;(
4
So two leading health authorities have p'Ublished research showing links between
pesticide exposure and serious illness, especially in children.
It's important to note these are not the only health authorities that bave expressed
concerns on this issue. Bylaws prohibiting pesticides are supported by numerous medical
organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical AssociatioI1
(Section on Pediatrics), the Registered Nurses' AssociatioIl of Ontario, and the Children's
Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
So when doctors now urge Pickering to pass a. strong pesticide bylaw. they do so
with the backing of the most distinguished medical experts in the province.
I want to conclude by saying I appreciate lawn care operators have some concerns
that a pesticide bylaw may affect their business.l have a background in business myself
and I understand that making it work is not easy. From 1997 10 2004, I was Vice
President of a consulting (trm ~- Strategic Communications me - which was actually
listed on the Profit 100 as one of Canada's fastest growing companies. So [well
understand the challenges that private operato1'6 face.
But I say to the lawn care industry: the future is pesticide-free. With over 120
Canadian municipalities adopting pesticide restrictions - and with major retailers like
Loblaws selling only non-toxic products - smart money is embracing the alternatives.
91a/SIa 39\1d
3~lN38 SNOI1\103dO
882:8E89S1a5
5p:80 8002:/06/60
910/910 39\td
I
n/
li')
(;1;", "f"C - /)[--,-rf6
L~-e:;:- J <- ---> ~--
ICY
105
5
Under a pesticide bylaw, the lawn care sector in Pickering should actually eXDand.
VI'hat's the evidence? Well, it expanded after the City of HaIifax passed a pesticide
bylaw.
Halifax enacted its pesticide law in the year 2000. Ac<:ording to Statistics Canada,
between 2000 and 2005 the number oflandscaping compamesin Halifax grew from 118
to 180. So in the first five years of the bylaw, the number of lawn rums in the city
increased an impressive 53%, Transitioning away from harsh chemicals is not only smart
for the environment, it's also smart for business.
In conclusion, doctors hope Pickering will boost the local economy, protect
drinking water, and safeguard children by passing a strong pesticide bylaw.
1"1 particular, we hope you will model your bylaw on the one passed in
Peterborough. Peter borough I 5 bylaw is protective of human health. easy for residents to
understand, and highly enforceable.
Thank you for listening and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[END]
3~~N3J SNOI1~~3dO
882:BE89S95
5~:89 8902:/06/2:0
-,I
106
/
Lf ~') / c,/
-- <-""'"
([~6 5'-e:~frf/"C,
CLU3LIN{
CORPORATION
] anuary 16, 2008
City of Pickering
Operations and Emergency Services Department
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7
Attention: Everett Buntsma, Director
Operations and Emergency Services
Further to your recent correspondence regarding the draft Pesticide
Use By-Law, we would like to provide written comments for your
consideration. We recognize that a questionnaire has been
developed to obtain comments from stakeholders and the public.
However, given our past, and current level of involvement
regarding pesticide by-Iaws~ we felt it is more appropriate to
provide more detailed input into this process. In addition, a
representative from ClubLink Corporation (Mark Hammond,
Superintendent, Cherry Downs Golf Club) will also be in
attendance at the stakeholder meeting on January 16,2008.
ClubLink Corporation is Canada's largest owner, operator and
developer of golf course properties. We own Cherry Downs Golf
Club, which is a valuable contributor to the local economy. With
approximately 26,000 rounds of golf played in 2007, Cherry
Downs employs 60 people and pays approximately $145,000
annually in municipal taxes.
Over the past several years, Club Link Corporation has participated
in similar consultation processes regarding the regulation of
15675 Duffcrin SucCt, King City, Ontario L7B 1 K5
Tel (905) 841-3730 Fax (905) 841-7033
wcbsirc: www.clubJink.ca
t-1
~. - ~ ",.
I
I
!
I
.---. ~..'- .,.... . _.~.-
"., ""'. I
j ;, ::.~ ("j ~ ,---.
~"'___~ '-_.............~_ .....~_,_. . .......~_._.,..l.,....~~....__'______ .._....._._.~..~...._,~...f':.'..~".....:..;.
...:'1:3 ...
.......~li?. ~jS-e:f; .,..
/?Y 1 0 7
pesticides across Ontario, including Ottawa, Caledon, London,
Seguin, and Oakville. Throughout this process, our message has
remained consistent. A balanced approach must be taken when
developing a by-law to regulate the use of pesticides in a
municipality to ensure that the by-law is cost effective, efficiently
administered, and understood by municipal tax payers.
Golf course operations cannot be directly compared to a
homeowner's front lawn. Not only are growing conditions and
disease pressures completely different, our turf is a functional
playing surface with quality requirements to remain in business.
Our properties have controlled access through the charging of
green fees and the monitoring of our grounds.
However, like a homeowner, a golf course owner has made a
significant investment in the purchase of their property. But, the
return on the investment for a golf course owner is directly
attributable to the playing conditions of the turf. Poor turf
conditions could spell economic ruin for a golf course. It is an
economic isspe, not an issue of aesthetics.
. .
Golf courses 'provide a recreational and social setting for'local
residents and tourists to enjoy the outdoors and get some exercise.
According to the Ontario Allied Golf Association, over 650 golf
courses form an integral part of Ontario's recreational and tourism
sectors with revenues in excess of $1.2' billion annual, employing
over 23,000 people. Furthermore, golf courses directly and
indirectly assist many charitable organizations to raise revenue for
their causes. In fact, charity events held at ClubLink Golf Courses
alone generate millions of dollars a year.
From a regulatory perspective, golf courses operate within a
significantly different environment from a homeowner. Anyone
purchasing, storing or applying a pesticide on a golf course must
comply with the regulatory requirements of the Pesticides Act.
~i~M
j-'
~,
.. -If
-w-;p. _'1" '_~- l'
T -~- -~-
1 08
/
..-......... - .. .
t'>jU
~'-'--'LjI'
;(;~;c:;'2--C~S~ c~z__
. -
-..-- --. --,~,_.. ---'.- ---. -P
je,!
Only Licensed Applicators and technicians apply pesticides on the
golf course and the products are stored in a well-ventilated, secure
area that is posted in accordance with the Pesticides Act. By
comparison, a homeowner can go to the local hardware store, buy
a pesticide off the shelf and the expectation is that the product will
be stored and applied as per the label directions.
Our golf course superintendents are educated in turf management
at a post-secondary level and are licensed and trained to properly
use, store and dispose of pesticides. It is a superintendent's
responsibility to monitor the health of the turf several times
throughout the day during the operating season and make educated
decisions on when a disease or infestation must be treated. These
decisions are based on the best management practices of Integrated
Pest Management.
It is our Corporate Policy that curative applications be made
wherever possible. However, there are fungal organisms, such as
pythiurn blight that can destroy turf overnights and and snow
mould that must be treated before snowfall. In these circumstances,
vulnerable areas must be pre-treated with fungicide to avoid
extensive damage. Unfortunately, there are no other options.
ClubLink operates in an environmentally responsible manner. It is
a requirement of our Corporate Environmental Policy that all golf
courses participate in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary
Program for golf courses. Furthermore, several of our
superintendents have become IPM Accredited through the
Accreditation program offered by the IPM/PHC Council of
Canada.
Ultimately, there are instances where the use of pesticides is
warranted on our golf courses to protect the significant investment
that has been made on the property. There are diseases and
infestations that cannot be managed at this point with cultural or
I
,CjC( If)/
'--c. ...-""
c:c;./r- c/~r'f>6
biological methods and we ml,lst use the federally-approved
products to protect the health of the turf.
If you must move forward with a by-law, please ensure that it is
reasonable to private landowners, is cost effective, efficiently
administered, and easily understood by municipal tax payers.
From ClubLink's perspective, the currently proposed by-law
posted on the City's website is a reasonable approach to the
regulation of pesticides in the municipality, compared to an
outright ban. The proposed by-law recognizes the complexities of
golf course operations and the regulatory environment that already
governs our use of these products. We believe it is reasonable for
the City to request that our superintendent be IPM Accredited and
we will endeavour to fulfill this requirement within the next year.
Si7~)~
r;,s... Wendy B urgess, Manag~r
Corporate Environmenta~ Policy and Operations
1091
;
":''fi'~
~..i(-'f '
-('ft"'~
:r ...~
11 0
/
/(00
f'JC"S -- ~=--'~; --,z;fi;
/l.:)(
Mark Inglis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Whitaker, Chantal [cwhitaker@city.pickering.on.ca]
February 19,20087:24 PM
Mark Inglis
FW: City of Pickering By-Law to Regulate Pesticide Use
Hi Mark,
I was going to place this in the staff report, however, perhaps it should form part of
the discussion in your report where you discuss exemptions. See below email from Ontario
Power Generation. It's a safety issue and they want to make sure they are covered.
Chantal
-----Original Message-----
From: HESTER Bob -NUCLEAR [mailto:robert.hester@opg.com]
Sent: February 7, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Whitaker, Chantal
Subject: City of Pickering By-Law to Regulate pesticide tIse
Chantal:
Pickering Nuclear has, in the past, used contact herbicides to control the growth of
vegetation on both sides of the site fenceline. This has been done at the request of our
Security staff to maintain compliance with a provision of the Nuclear Safety and Control
Act that requires that clear sight lines be maintained along station fencelines.
Our site facilities staff have agreed to discontinue this pesticide use along the
fence line area previously treated with pesticide, with the exception of one area. They
wish to continue to use pesticide along the portion of the fenceline that is beneath the
powerlines that exit the powerhouse. Can this use be considered to be covered by the
utility exemption in the draft by-law that includes" . ..where the pesticide is
discharged within a hydro corridor, or at any hydro substation..."? The vegetation along
the remainder of the fenceline will be removed manually to maintain compliance with the
Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Please let me know if this use will be covered by the current utility exemption.
Thanks,
Bob
THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR
CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or
other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and
delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc.
***k*******************************************************************~*****************
********************************************************************
This electronic message and all contents contain information from which may be
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
to the intended recipient, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of
this message is prohibited.
If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
/
/(o! If)!
Gary Bowen [GBowen@trca.on.ca]
January 16,200811:35 AM
Whitaker, Chantal
graphitti@rogers.com
City of Pickering Pesticide By-Law
oE> "'".::>- ?J<:;-'Pa:~e 1 of 1
1 1 '1
Chantel
I wanted to forward some intial comments from the TRCA regarding the Pickering Pesticide By-Law.
On the basis of commnets received from TRCA staff, I would recommend that you consider modification to the
By-Law,
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
For you information TRCA had (PM Policy and strict criteria before any pesticide are used. The Policy does allow
Pesticide use on Conservation Lands!
Gary Bowen 416-661-6600 ext 5385
Dave Rogalsky, B.Sc.(Agr)
Manager, Resource Management Projects
Restoration Services
I'm concerned that the proposed by-law doesn't specifically address forestry applications - however, Xmas tree
farming/horticultural crops(ie. tree/shrub nurseries) might be exempted under the #9 - Agricultural exemption.
Perhaps a forestry purposes exemption could be added to allow for the use of herbcides to control competing
vegetation during establishment (treatments from post-planting and up to free-to-grow status).
2. #11 - allows for applications of pesticides to address insect infestations but there is an undefined risk level
involving "substantial loss or damage" - how and who decides what these are and when the condition is met?
3. Does this by-law need to address other legislated responsibilities - ie. Ministerial Orders under the
auspices Plant Protection Act - Canadian Food Inspection Agency for pests like ALHB, EAB, etc.?
4. #14 - Conservation Authorities Lands - should we request to have applications in accordance with
approved management plans added - or, just amend this to reflect "vegetation management" including invasive
and competing species? This would allow CA's to use pesticides in combination with BMP's for forestry
purposes.
Mike Goodyear
Conservation Land Planning
From a Conservation Land Planning perspective TRCA staff would want to be sure that we can still employ
efforts to treat invasive vegetation as this plan does. We suggest
amending #14 to include "vegetation management" as rational for pesticide use would be helpful in broadening
possible applications and uses.
file://J:\Operations Centre\C. Whitaker\Property Green Up\Pesticides\Public Consultation... 31/01/2008
fT--r
liTl"I"'--'-~~
i+_c.9..
I _, L.,
_""""""",~.-k' '""i; ,....".......!4".::.:..c.........
11 Vi;: C, C L - ( I <.:
{t~F.;~~,.:;' -''-_J ' {;
11 2
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-lAW NO.
A by-law to regulate pesticide use
WHEREAS pursuant to paragraph 6 of subsection 11 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001,
S.O. 2001, c. 25 municipalities may pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-
being of persons; and
WHEREAS Council deems it necessary to regulate the use of pesticides within the City;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
PART I-INTERPRETATION
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"City" means The Corporation of The City of Pickering or the geographic area of
the City of Pickering, as the context requires;
"IPM accreditation" means accreditation in a recognized integrated pest
management programme from the Integrated Pest Management Plant Health
Care Council of Ontario, the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System of Canada,
or a similar body approved by the City;
"officer" means a municipal by-law enforcement officer appointed by the City;
"person" includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other
legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to
law;
"pest" means any injurious, noxious or troublesome insect or other arthropod,
fungus, bacterial organism, weed, or other plant or animal pest and includes any
injurious, noxious or troublesome organic function of a plant or animal; and
"pesticide" means a product, an organism or substance that is a registered
control product under the federal Pest Control Products Act which is used as a
means for directly or indirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a
pest or for mitigating or preventing its injurious, noxious or troublesome effects,
and for greater certainty only, does not include products listed in Schedule "A".
_!.2,
~-
REPORT#S=f~.~? C::5(C'l:
_~;...__ Page 2
1 1 3
Pesticide Use By-Law No. XXXXl08
References to Legislation
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, regulation or by-law is reference to that Act,
regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time.
Word Usage
3. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context
may require.
4. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding
meaning.
Construction
5. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to sections and schedules
are to sections and schedules in this by-law
Severability
6. Each section of this by-law is an independent section, and the holding of any
section or part of any section of this by-law to be void or ineffective for any
reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other section or parts of
sections of this by-law.
Application
7. This by-law shall apply to all lands and premises within the City, including lands
owned by the City.
PART II - USE OF PESTICIDES
Prohibitions
8. No person shall apply or cause or permit the application of any pesticide within
the City.
Agricultural Exemption
9. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied on agricultural lands
used in furtherance of a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural
operation pursuant to the Farming and Farm Production Protection Act, 1998.
Pest Control in Buildings Exemption
10. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is used for pest control within a
residence or other building.
f-'O-'
'r '* -1 -j" --: -(I TN T-i'
c-::.J
, F -': C. '-c- ,,- _cf<;
~ .;.;.~~__,;> ,,__'-_~ r'~/'c.j
Page 3
Pesticide Use By-Law No. XXXXl08
114
Insect Infestation Exemption
11 . Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is used to diminish or control an
infestation. For purposes of this section, "infestation" means the presence of
pests in numbers or under conditions that involve an immediate or potential risk
of substantial loss or damage to property.
'7
_...:2~.. oiL__._
Public Health Exemption
12. Section 8 does not apply where the application of the pesticide is necessary in
the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health for The Regional Municipality of
Durham to address a health hazard.
Noxious Weeds Exemption
13. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied to destroy noxious weeds
identified in the regulations to the Weed Control Act or any plant that has been
designated as a noxious weed under a City by-law.
Conservation Authorities Lands Exemption
14. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied to control invasive
species on lands owned or managed by a conservation authority established
under the Conservation Authorities Act.
Golf Course, Driving Range and Lawn Bowling Green Exemption
15. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied on a golf course, golf
driving range or a lawn bowling green.
City Sports Fields Exemptions
16. (1) Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied on a sports field
owned or managed by the City containing more than 30% non-qualified
sports turf.
(2) Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied to eliminate weed
growth that may pose a safety concern on a baseball field warning track.
Hard Surface Exemption
17. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied on a City owned hard
surface where a threat to infrastructure has been identified. For purposes of this
section, "hard surface" means asphalt, concrete, interlocking brick or block,
crushed or solid stone, gravel, slag, ground asphalt, wood or any other non-
porous material.
Pesticide Use By-Law No. XXXX/08
,..:0
'1. ,'" I~,
.........."...~ AO-.",-,,~< ',0 ,,..1; .....,.$..-__
"<C lEJ' ."...-_k'y
~ r~......-..:;;..__..,..~..,..,-"". (.__'__) fL._ '()
Page 4
'1 1 r
.J
Utility Exemption
18. Section 8 does not apply where the pesticide is applied within a hydro corridor,
beneath the power lines that exit the powerhouse on Ontario Power Generation
property, or at any hydro substation, gas distribution station or gas transmission
station.
General Exemptions
19. Section 8 does not apply where pesticides are applied,
(a) to disinfect swimming pools, whirlpools, spas or wading pools;
(b) to purify water intended for the use of humans or animals;
(c) as a wood preservative;
(d) for injection into trees, stumps, or wooden poles; or
(e) as an insect repellent for personal use.
Exemption Qualifications
20. No person shall be entitled to the benefit of any exemption under this by-law
unless the pesticide is applied,
(a) by an applicator with an IPM accreditation; and
(b) only to the area specifically identified as requiring the application.
PART III - ENFORCEMENT
Inspections
21. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any land for the purpose of
carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the provisions of this by-
law have been complied with.
22. For purposes of an inspection, an officer may,
(a) require the production for inspection of any document or things relevant to
the inspection;
(b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the
purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the
inspection; and
~-. -~" . ~~-~1
";jlitrliJ 'j
T .....- 'j'_ J1 ~-fli':' ", ""l
,~,
CY
"I"" F <C-C' ,~'--(/'-:-
h~'i>a9~ see
Pesticide Use By-Law No, XXXXl08
___5,_ Ci .,k;;..,-
11 6
(d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert
knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs
necessary for the purposes of the inspection,
23. No person shall obstruct the officer inspecting or withhold, destroy, conceal or
refuse to furnish any information or thing required by the officer.
Penalties
24. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence
and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial
Offences Act.
PART IV - GENERAL
Other Legislation
25. The provisions of this by-law are intended to complement the provisions of the
Pest Control Products Act (Canada) and the Pesticides Act, and shall be
enforced consistent with this intention,
Short Title
26. This by-law may be referred to as the "Pesticide Use By-law".
Effective Date
27. This by-law comes into effect on January 1,2009.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this _ day of
2008.
David Ryan, Mayor
Debi Bentley, City Clerk
V n::'"Or)~" ,.cf ~hC [:-,&
_P~".'~"_ r\/... r' ~\~ I f+ _/--.. _ -'<J L/[;
/] "I/--'
.....~_(,.:.-..._ '.,J, ~.fL....r/~--.
11 7
SCHEDULE "A"
1. A product that uses pheromones to lure pests, sticky media to trap pests or
"quick-kill" traps for vertebrate species considered pests, such as mice and rats.
2. A product that is or contains only the following active ingredients:
(a) a soap;
(b) a mineral oil, also called "dormant or horticultural oil",
(c) silicon dioxide, also called "diatomaceous earth";
(d) biological pesticides, including 8t (bacillus thuringiensis) and nematodes;
(e) borax, also called "boric acid" or "boracic acid";
(f) ferric phosphate;
(g) acetic acid;
(h) pyrethrum or pyrethrins;
(i) fatty acids;
U) sulphur; or
(k) corn gluten meal.