December 2, 1998
To:Economic Development Committee
Works and Utilities Committee
From:Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism
Subject:Turf Management Practices by Former Municipalities and
Pesticide Usage Information
Purpose:
The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has compiled information concerning the turf management
practices by the former municipal Parks and Recreation Departments and their records of pesticide usage in order to report
back to City Council.
Source of Funds:
There are no requirements for funding but there are significant financial implications arising from this report.
Recommendations:
(1)Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and
Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;
(2) Develop standard procedures in distinct program areas in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to
provide regular reports;
(3) A copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;
(4)Participate on the Pesticide Subcommittee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;
(5)That staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and
(6)The appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department was asked to report to City Council on turf management
practices used by the former municipalities, along with a list of pesticides used (including trade names and active
ingredients), both indoors and outdoors, volume of pesticides used, date of pesticide application and reasons for pesticide
application. The report was to include alternatives and costs involved. Attached to this report is a summary of pesticide
usage in the former municipalities by program area.
Comments:
The turf management practices within the Parks and Recreation Departments of the former municipalities varied to some
degree, but all Departments utilized a form of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The former municipalities of North
York, Toronto and Metro provided the leading edge by implementing effective IPM programs and demonstrated a
reduction in pesticide usage by 70-90% since l988.
IPM is a decision-making process wherein pest problems are controlled within the larger ecosystem. The objective of IPM
is not to eradicate but to suppress pest populations to acceptable levels and to maintain the presence of natural enemies in
an overall balanced system. A monitoring system, complete with documentation, determines if and when treatments are
needed according to established threshold levels for various program areas. Physical, cultural and biological control
methods are introduced to keep pest numbers at tolerable levels. As a last resort, chemical controls may be applied with
the least toxic, most effective pesticide selected. These controls are integrated in a systematic manner in order to
maximize their effectiveness. IPM is recognized as an established and effective method of achieving healthy turf with a
minimal reliance on chemicals.
Turfgrass is acknowledged as the best surface for general park areas. The dense intertwined root system is resilient to
wear and tear. The uniform leaf structure can be maintained at a low height and creates a soft and even surface for a
variety of recreational uses from organized sports, to walking and picnicking. Turf is an excellent source of oxygen
generation and helps to prevent soil erosion. Its extensive green leaf surface provides both aesthetic enhancement and
climate amelioration in a dense urban environment.
Physical controls include: aeration of turf to relieve soil compaction; higher mowing heights to develop healthy root
systems and inhibit weed development; and dethatching to provide better absorption of water and nutrients. Cultural
controls include: naturalizing areas in the landscape; routine fertilizing, irrigating and topdressing; and selecting species
that are disease-resistant. Biological controls include organic composting and the addition of topdressing media rich in
micro-organisms to promote vigorous growth and suppress fungus diseases. Chemical controls may involve the
application of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. If monitoring determines that action thresholds are exceeded and all
other strategies have been considered and attempted without success, the application of a pesticide becomes necessary.
Action thresholds differ according to the recreational activity associated with the turf. General parkland areas have a
higher weed tolerance and an effective IPM program may never require the application of a pesticide. Sports fields,
however, have a lower pest threshold and require an intensive maintenance program including the occasional spot
application of a broadleaf weed herbicide. Resodding sections of a sportsfield is an alternative but it is expensive and sod
farms typically use significant quantities of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Golf courses and bowling greens have
bentgrass turf and, combined with very low mowing heights and weather conditions, are susceptible to fungus
infestations. Alternative methods to maintain turf health are used including syringing greens, aeration of compacted turf
and regular irrigation, but the application of a fungicide may be necessary to prevent extreme turf damage.
The Parks and Recreation Division is faced with the challenge of maintaining healthy, growing plants in an unnatural and
hostile urban environment. This requires a proactive and intensive maintenance program. IPM is the program
recommended as a "best practice" but the availability of pesticide application is a necessary component of the program.
The potential impact of not being allowed to use pesticides must be weighed against the loss of healthy trees and
greenspace in the City. Further, there would be an impact on our labour costs in terms of increased manual labour and
specialized horticultural functions and overall loss of productivity if pesticides could not be used. The Department's
professional staff are constantly exploring initiatives and alternatives which will assist in meeting this challenge.
Amalgamation of all the Parks and Recreation Departments will create the opportunity to standardize and expand the IPM
program throughout the City.
Many of the programs that the Parks and Recreation Division delivers would be seriously compromised by the elimination
of pesticide applications in park areas. For example, sports fields would gradually decline without the occasional
intervention of herbicide applications. Golf courses, especially tees and greens, could suffer irreversible damage without
fungicide applications. The annual revenue generated from sports field permits would be jeopardized without an option to
use pesticides, and well in excess of $5 million in green fees could be lost, along with recreational opportunities denied to
thousands of residents. The cost of renovating a sports field with new turf costs approximately $20,000 and the new sod
would have been chemically treated in any event.
Effective IPM programs require increased labour costs but the Department will attempt to rationalize the program within
existing resources. The Department is committed to a reduction in its use of chemical pesticides and the safe and
responsible use of pesticides is part of the IPM program for maintaining parks for the benefit of the public. Reductions in
pesticide usage will be available by standardizing the authorized list of pesticides and eliminating duplication in types of
pesticides that provide the same effect. Certain parkland areas may be identified as pesticide-free with necessary
exceptions allowed through proper authorization (e.g. poison ivy). Improvements in application equipment would reduce
the volume of pesticide needed and enable more precise spraying techniques.
Conclusion:
The implementation of an Integrated Pest Management program is one of the goals of the Parks and Recreation Division
of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. The emphasis is placed on using alternative strategies to control pest
populations to acceptable levels and to use chemical intervention only as a last resort.
Contact Name:
Doug McDonald
Tele phone: 392-8578
Facsimile: 392-3355
Joe Halstead
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism
DM/mgm
