Integrated Pest Management Policy | 1
City of Salinas
Integrated Pest Management Policy
Prepared by:
500 Seabright Avenue, Suite 205
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
April 2022
2 | Apr-22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 IPM Approach .................................................................................................................. 3 IPM Policy Goals ............................................................................................................... 3 Permit Compliance ........................................................................................................... 4 IPM Procedures and Implementation ................................................................................ 4 Appoint IPM Coordinator & Liaisons ..................................................................................... 5 Implement IPM Practices in Pest Management ...................................................................... 6 Staff Training................................................................................................................... 6 Application Protocols ......................................................................................................... 7 Record Keeping & Reporting Pesticide Use ............................................................................ 9 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................... 10
Integrated Pest Management Policy | 3
Introduction
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a pest management strategy that focuses on pest prevention strategies with minimum impact on human health, the environment, and nontarget organisms. For the past 50 years, pest management has relied heavily on synthetic chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Chemical runoff into local w aterways can cause problems for species in the aquatic environment. Reliance on pesticide use has caused several issues in pest management including damaging non-pest populations, an increase in the number of pests resistant to pesticides, and new organisms becoming pests. The purpose of an IPM policy is to provide a systematic, transparent, and environmentally responsible approach for implementing pest control measures. The IPM policy will meet the City’s NPDES Permit requirements from the State Water Reso urces Control Board. The permit requires implementation of IPM procedures to reduce the City’s application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers (PHF) and minimize the use of toxic chemicals that may discharge into waterways. Procedures established within this policy will set the framework to approach pest management in the City. On ce adopted, an all-encompassing pest management plan will be developed to address specific pests and address quantifiable reduction goals. The adoption of this policy will establish specific plans that reduce chemical pesticide use and will thereby protect public health and the environment. In this document the term pesticide encompasses pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and the term pesticide and PHF can be used synonymously to refer to these chemical-based treatments.
IPM APPROACH
An IPM program emphasizes pest prevention as its first approach, followed by actions to discourage or reduce pest populations from reaching levels where active control measures are needed. Tolerance levels are evaluated to help determine when pest populations have reached thresholds where active pest control measures should be considered. An IPM pest management approach first utilizes a variety of alternative controls to minimize pests before chemical treatments are considered. Alternative controls include mechanical tactics that physically remove the pest, biological controls that leverage naturally occurring agents to minimize the pest, and cultural controls. Cultural controls include informed plant selection and soil preparation that minimizes optimal conditions for pests which are enhanced through education and human behavior changes. After alternative controls are exhausted and the targeted pest population exceeds threshold levels, chemical pest controls are considered in combination with non - chemical controls. An IPM program focuses on using the least toxic chemical and the most target specific pesticide.
IPM POLICY GOALS
The City of Salinas is establishing an IPM policy to move towards a more holistic and less environmentally toxic approach to pest management. An IPM approach to pest management will only utilize pesticides when alternatives controls are not feasible or not effective. Salinas’ policy includes the following goals. • Create awareness among City staff and the local community to IPM benefits and techniques • Ensure all City staff that utilize pesticides in their duties are trained in IPM pr actices and have reviewed this policy and procedure before pesticides are applied • Conduct effective pest management that minimizes public health and environmental risk by limiting or eliminating pesticide application at City maintained facilities 4 | Apr-22
• Establish and maintain standardized record keeping and reporting for PHF use at City maintained facilities
• Increase transparency around pesticide use and areas treated for the public and City staff • Produce an annual report showing pesticide use and evaluate progress in achieving PHF reductions
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
The NPDES permit for the City of Salinas (Order No. R3-2019-0073) includes provision M.4 to implement procedures and policies to manage pesticide application at City maintained facilities. The policy outlines six procedures to provide City staff with guidelines to safely and responsibly apply pesticides when needed. The six procedures are:
1) Appoint IPM Coordinator and Liaisons
2) Implement IPM practices in Pest Management
3) Staff Training
4) Application Protocols
5) Record Keeping and Reporting
6) Public Outreach
A primary outcome of the IPM policy is an overall reduction in PHF application at all City operated facilities and related activities. In 2019 the City prohibited pyrethroid pesticides targeted for insects, but still applies herbicides for weed management and applies fertilizer on an as needed basis. PHF application use is currently tracked and documented annually (see Appendix 1) and submitted in the NPDES annual report. Current pesticide usage in Salinas indicates that Roundup (active ingredient Glyphosphate) and Lifeline or Cheetah (active ingredient Glufosinate ammonium ) are the most frequently applied and largest volumes applied. The current list of pesticides approved and applied will provide some guidelines in establishing PHF reductions. However, there is little information currently collected on the volume of PHF applied per unit area that may illustrate opportunities for reductions. As part of this policy, improved record keeping practices utilizing a standardized digital form will be implemented and tracked for an improved understanding of current usage. Data collected under this policy will better serve City staff to generate quantifiable targets for controlling specific pest populations while defining action thresholds to protect water quality. Quantifiable PHF reductions will be established by the IPM coordinator and may include reductions in total volumes currently applied, or reductions in action thresholds before pesticides are applied. PHF application use will be evaluated annually, and reduction targets will be modified by the IPM coordinator accordingly to meet project goals and evolving science around PHF that pose a water quality risk. Pyrethroid pesticides will not be used within City limits at Salinas owned or operated facilities.
IPM Procedures and Implementation
The City of Salinas is establish ing an IPM policy and procedures to minimize pesticide use to manage pests in a less hazardous manner. Procedures included in this p olicy provide a process for City staff to utilize alternatives to chemical controls, define clear guidelines to follow when chemical controls are needed, and delineate specific record keeping protocols. Crucial to the success of the IPM procedures and implementation, is the designation of the appropriate staff to manage the program and establish communication channels across departments to implement the IPM procedures listed herein.
Integrated Pest Management Policy | 5
APPOINT IPM COORDINATOR & LIAISONS
The City of Salinas must appoint an IPM coordinator to administer and manage the City’s IPM program.
The primary role for the IPM coordinator is to implement this policy’s procedures across City departments that utilize pesticides (Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Urban Forestry, Police, Fire, and Assessments Districts). The IPM coor dinator will report to the City’s NPDES manager to ensure the City is in compliance with the NPDES permit. Departments that have recurring pest management concerns shall appoint an IPM Liaison that serves as the communication lead for each department’s pest management related activities. Below is a bulleted list of the IPM coordinators and IPM Liaison responsibilities
IPM COORDINATOR
Appointed to lead a successful IPM implementation across City of Salinas departments to reduce pesticide use. Duties include:
• Facilitate implementation of the City’s IPM Policy and Procedures • Identify which City departments have recurring PHF use and establish an IPM Liaison at each department
• Confirm all PHF pesticide use at City facilities is entered monthly in the appropriate format by IPM Liaisons
• Coordinate an annual IPM training for City staff that cover s IPM practices , PHF application procedures, and safety guidelines
• Maintain a list of City staff that attended the IPM training, and the topics covered • Generate a specific plan to address recurring problem pests and establish action thresholds for chemical use
• Work closely with departmental staff to identify pilot IPM projects, and determine if an IPM specialist should be contracted to address a recurring pest issue • Stay current on all Federal (EPA), State (Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)), County Environmental Health, and local regulations related to PHF and provide updates to department personnel
• Review and approve all pesticide product request from IPM Liaisons • Update contract agreements with pest management vendors to ensure they adhere to the City’s IPM policy and procedures
• Maintain the City’s PHF inventory and verify all substances are approved and appropriately stored and disposed of
• Coordinate public outreach to businesses, residents, and general public about IPM practices • Generate an annual report showing pesticide use at City facilities • Ensure the annual report is available to the public
• Identify quantifiable targets and timelines for the City to reduce pesticide use • Periodically review (every two years) the IPM policy and make updates
6 | Apr-22
IPM LIAISON
Appointed from each City of Salinas department that has recurring or routine pest management activities to record and track all PHF usage within the respective department. Duties include:
• Review and be familiar with the City’s IPM Policy and Procedures • Ensure all department employees that may administer PHF receive necessary training and information on IPM
• Record monthly PHF use for their department and submit to IPM Coordinator • Request pest control services for department from an approved contractor list • Submit requests for new products to the IPM Coordinator for review and approval • Participate in periodic IPM meetings
IMPLEMENT IPM PRACTICES IN PEST MANAGEMENT
The first course of action for pest management at City operated facilities will be to adhere to the IPM principles which will be applied in determining treatment actions. IPM practices seek to increase the long-term prevention and suppression of pest problems with minimal impact on human health, the environment, and non -targeted organisms. Under I PM practices alternative control measures are leveraged instead of broad-spectrum pesticide application. All staff that may perform work related to pest management will be trained in IPM practices before pesticides are applied.
IPM PRACTICES
• Prevention – establish environmental conditions that minimize pest populations from thriving.
This may be achieved through proper landscape design, plant selection, irrigation, fertilizing, mulching, and waste management.
• Pest Identification – identify the unwanted pest or symptom causing damage and determine what environmental conditions contribute to pest population . Alter or modify conditions to eliminate pest habitat and reduce pest population.
• Monitor – evaluate pest populations after habitat conditions are modi fied and assess the damage
• Determine action threshold - determine a tolerable level of damage related to biological, aesthetic, or economic standard. Once damage has passed the defined threshold consider applying a combination of alternative control methods to address the problem. • Appropriate Management –apply control methods with the least risk to humans and the environment first when the pest population reaches treatment threshold . If biological, mechanical, and cultural practices aren't pro ducing results, use chemical controls that are appropriate for the site and the pest.
STAFF TRAINING
All City staff whose work involves pest management must be trained in IPM principles and given appropriate resources to minimize the need for chemical controls. Only a qualified applicator who has been trained in PHF application procedures, will be allowed to administer PHF controls at City maintained facilities. Applicators contracted by the City are required to be trained in safety precautions, pest biology, proper use of personal protective equipment, proper storage and handling of pesticides, local Integrated Pest Management Policy | 7
environmental concerns, employee rights regarding pesticide use, and California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Monterey County guidelines. Training unlicensed personnel in pesticide and herbicide safety protocols must occur before the application of any pesticide, regardless of its toxicity.
In addition, training procedures must be updated annually to ensure optimized safety for all personnel.
The IPM coordinator will schedule an annual training to cover the IPM related topics which may include:
• IPM decision making principles and practices
o Common practices to prevent pest populations from establishing o Common pests observed locally and effective biological, mechanical, and cultural controls
o Establish action thresholds for commonly targeted pests o Establish monitoring protocols for tracking targeted pest populations
• Pesticide application and safety guidelines
o All application protocols listed in the IPM policy section below o Environmental concerns, such as drift and runoff and stormwater quality impacts. o Information on the pesticide label concerning human health effects. o Regulatory requirements, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS)
o USEPA & DPR pesticide regulatory activities as they relate to urban water quality o Hazards of the pesticide, including acute and long-term effects o Pesticide poisoning symptoms and how PHF can enter the body o Need for, limitations, use, and cleaning of personal protective equipment (PPE) o Emergency first aid and how to get emergency medical care o Routine and emergency decontamination and spill procedures o Safety procedures for handling and transporting PHF
o Proper storage and disposal for PHF
o Location of hazard communication information.
o Employee rights related to pesticide application
A list of City staff that attend the training and apply PHF will be managed by the IPM Coordinator. Copies of the record form will be made available for the employee, the City, as well as local and State officials.
APPLICATION PROTOCOLS
PHF application will only be used when alternative methods are not effective or feasible. In situations where chemical measures are needed best practices and standard application procedures shall be adhered to by City staff and contractors.
GENERAL APPLI CATION BEST PRACTICES
• PHF shall not be applied in rainy conditions where runoff may mobilize pesticides into waterways.
Weather criteria that prohibit pesticide application includes:
o Two or more consecutive days with 50% chance of rainfall o Within a 48-hr window following a 0.2 inch per hour rain event o When water is flowing off the area where the application is to occur • PHF shall not be applied within 50 feet of a water body 8 | Apr-22
• PHF shall not be applied when winds exceed 10 miles per hour
STANDARD APPLICATION PROCEDURES
• Identify the pest requiring chemical control and select the appropriate pesticide • PHF applied within the City must be approved by the IPM coordinator before application • Select reduced-risk pesticide for application and use the minimum amount needed to be effective • Apply pesticide at the most effective time based on pest biology season, local conditions, and local environmental considerations to avoid contamination • Acknowledge the Hazard Tier of the PHF being applied
• Continued monitoring of pest population and effectiveness of control methods
PHF STORAGE AND DISPOSA L
• All PHF substances owned and used by the City shall be stored in accordance with the label’s instructions
• Stored p esticide container s must include the name of pesticide, category, EPA registration number, active ingredient, precautionary statements, first aid, and PPE instructions • Storage locations will be properly marked with visible warning notices in English and Spanish • Any banned substances will be removed from the City’s inventory and properly disposed of in accordance with the label or DPR guidelines
• Annually the IPM coordinator will inspect pesticide storage locations to ensure substances are stored appropriately and any unregistered or banned substances are removed • PHF substances will be transported in accordance with the DPR guidelines • Empty PHF containers must be triple rinsed and drained into the spraying equipment on site by the user. Rinse should be applied to the treated area. For equipment with a rinsing unit, properly place the container in the machine letting liquid drain into tank, rinsing until clean. • In case of a pesticide spill, follow DPR protocols – control spill, contain spill, and clean spill. Call the toll-free number on the label of the chemical for guidance on spill clean -up procedures.
Notify your employer as soon as it is safe and practical to do so. • Cleaned pesticide containers are never “empty” and need to be labeled and stored in a locked area as if they still have pesticides in them.
• Dispose of unwanted pesticides as recommended on the label or return to the manufacturer to avoid potential misuse or environmental contamination. Contact the county agricultural commissioner or county’s waste disposal agency for more information.
APPLICATOR OVERSIGHT
Any person applying pesticides in the City of Salinas, either City staff or contractors, must be trained and qualified in both IPM practices and pesticide application. City departments that contract for pest management services shall update the contract agreement to ensure the City’s IPM policies and guidelines are adhered to by all contractors. When feasible the City will look to contract pest management business with third-party certifications (i.e., Green Pro, Eco-Wise, Green Shield) to utilize IPM practices. Contracted vendor s may be asked to provide service records documenting pest monitoring activities, pesticide application records, and recommendations provided to facility managers.
Integrated Pest Management Policy | 9
Applicator must have the following information available when applying chemicals at City owned facilities:
• Pesticide label
• Pesticide MSDS
• Medical emergency contact information
RECORD KEEPING & REPORTING PESTICIDE USE
Pesticide application by City staff and its contractors will be documented and maintained by the IPM Coordinator. The IPM coordinator will work with department IPM Liaisons to maintain accurate records for pesticide use. Records will be updated by each department’s IPM Liaison at an interval and timeline designated by the IPM coordinator. Additionally, the IPM coordinator will review data and verify that it is entered into the City’s database within two weeks of submission. All pesticide use data will be compiled annually by the IPM coordinator and submitted by January 31st in the NPDES Stormwater Annual Report.
RECORD KEEPING
Any pesticides applied at City maintained facilities by City staff or contractors will track the following information:
• Pesticide applied
• Active ingredient
• Applicator name
• Department affiliation
• Application Date/Time
• Application location
• Weather conditions
• Targeted Pest treated
• Volume Applied /unit
• Size of Area applied /units
REPORTING
The IPM coordinator will review, compile, and generate an annual report showing the City’s pesticide use. The report will be generated by January 31
st of each year and will cover pesticide use from the
previous water year (October 1 – September 30th). Submission of this report will be part of the City’s NPDES Stormwater Annual Report related to municipal maintenance. The IPM coordinator will ensure the report is posted and available for public. Annual reports will include:
• Total pesticide applied at City maintained facilities • Total pesticide applied by department and the targeted pest • List of licensed applicators contracted in the City
• Link to a digital map showing where pesticides were applied in reporting year • Summary listing trainings, attendees, and public outreach efforts conducted to promote IPM will be kept on file by the City
• Discuss opportunities for reducing pesticide use in future years
10 | Apr-22
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public education and outreach efforts will be conducted to distribute information about the benefits of IPM practices.
• Handout IPM information and resources at public outreach events and on the Clean Water Salinas website
• Ensure City’s pesticide use data and annual report is available to public • Make available point of purchase outreach materials to pesticide retailers in the City. M aterials will include targeted information on proper pesticide use and disposal, environmental impacts of pesticides on water quality, and less toxic pest control alternatives. • Conduct outreach to residents and businesses who may hire structural pest control and landscape professionals. Provide information on links between pesticide use and water quality, information about IPM certification programs, and hiring information for structural pest control operators and landscape professionals.
• Encourage pest control professionals to become IPM certified through third -party certifications through Green Pro, Eco-Wise, or Green Shield.
• Using the Permittee’s Commercial Pesticide Applicator Inventory, target focused outreach to licensed commercial pesticide applicators posing the highest risk to water quality.
Appendix 1 - City of Salinas Pesticide Application
Table 1 – 2020-21 Rain Events
Start Date End Date Duration
(Days)
Rainfall
amount (in)
11/6/2020 11/7/2020 2 0.24
11/13/2020 11/13/2020 1 0.06
11/17/2020 11/18/2020 2 0.07
12/11/2020 12/11/2020 1 0.16
12/13/2020 12/13/2020 1 0.13
12/17/2020 12/17/2020 1 0.17
12/26/2020 12/28/2020 3 0.04
12/30/2020 12/31/2020 2 0.07
1/3/2021 1/4/2021 2 0.02
1/22/2021 1/22/2021 1 0.23
1/24/2021 1/24/2021 1 0.14
1/26/2021 1/29/2021 4 3.07
2/2/2021 2/2/2021 1 0.07
2/11/2021 2/13/2021 3 0.2
2/15/2021 2/15/2021 1 0.01
2/20/2021 2/20/2021 1 0.05
3/6/2021 3/6/2021 1 0.05
3/9/2021 3/10/2021 2 0.6
3/14/2021 3/14/2021 1 0.12
3/18/2021 3/19/2021 2 0.2
4/20/2021 4/20/2021 1 0.02
4/25/2021 4/25/2021 1 0.02
5/14/2021 5/14/2021 1 0.01
7/3/2021 7/3/2021 1 0.02
7/5/2021 7/5/2021 1 0.02
Total 38 5.79
Average 2 0.23
Yellow highlights indicate rain events that produced 0.5 inches or more precipitation with 48 hours between rain events.
Table 2 – Rain Fall Comparison per Year
2012
-2013
2013
-2014
2014
-2015
2015
-2016
2016
-2017
2017
-2018
2018
-2019
2019
-2020
2020
-2021
Rainfall (in) 10.12 5. 88 9.58 13.73 16.13 7.26 12.34 9.18 5.79 Duration
(Days) 50 45 42 58 65 45 63 44 38
Figure 1 - Rainfall comparison per year
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2012
-2013
2013
-2014
2014
-2015
2015
-2016
2016
-2017
2017
-2018
2018
-2019
2019
-2020
2020
-2021
Rainfall (in)
Permit Year
Table 3 – PHF application conducted within 7 days prior to a 0.5-in rain event
2012-
13 2013-
14 2014-
15 2015-
16 2016-
17 2017-
18 2018-
19 2019-
20 2020-
21 Speedzone (H) 21 68 0 55 46 0 0 0 0
Ranger Pro (H) 1010 1190 189 451 156 0 0 0 0
Pendulum (H) 0 0 0 80 79 0 0 0
Roundup (H) 682 80 1122 768 942 2686 299 200 0
Liberate (H) 0 0 0 0 0 704 0 0 0
LifeLine/Cheetah
(H) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grass Getter (H) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Turflon (H) 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pesticide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Herbicide 1713 1338 1311 1419 1223 3390 298.5 200 0 Total Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 2 - PHF application conducted within 7 days prior to a 0.5-in rain event 21 68 55 4680 79
682
80 1122
768
942
2686
299 200
080 79
704
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 PHF Applied (oz) within 7 days of 1/2" Rain
Event
Permit Year
Speedzone (H) Ranger Pro (H) Roundup (H) Turflon (H) Pendulum (H) Liberate (H) Table 4 – PHF Usage in 2020-2021
Date Division Speedzone
(H)
Ranger Pro
(H)
Roundup
(H)
Liberate
(H)
LifeLine/Che
etah (H)
Grass
Getter (H) Pointer (P)
Within
7 Days
of Rain
Event?
2,4-
Dichlorophen
oxyacetic
acid Glyphosate Glyphosate
Surfactant
Blend
Glufosinate
ammonium Sethoxydim Imidacloprid
28.57% 41% 50% 100% 24.50% 18% 5%
10/1/2019 City* 439.04 192 288 No
10/2/2019 City 281.6 166.4 224 No
10/4/2019 City 224 89.6 224 No
10/2/2020 City 268.8 76.8 192 No
10/5/2020 City 448 128 320 No
10/6/2020 City 492.8 140.8 352 No
10/7/2020 City 403.2 115.2 288 No
10/8/2020 City 672 192 480 No
10/9/2020 City 313.6 89.6 224 No
10/12/2020 City 537.6 153.6 384 No
10/13/2020 City 448 192 320 No
10/14/2020 City 313.6 89.6 224 No
10/15/2020 City 448 128 320 No
1/4/2021 S & E* 16 4 No
1/5/2021 S & E 16 4 No
1/12/2021 S & E 16 4 No
2/2/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/2/2021 New Image 144 No
2/3/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/5/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/10/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/16/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/22/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/23/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
2/25/2021 S & E 32.3 28 No
4/1/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/2/2021 City 416 128 288 No
4/5/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/5/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
4/6/2021 City 352 96 256 No
4/7/2021 City 448 128 320 No
4/8/2021 City 544 160 384 No
4/8/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
4/9/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/12/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/12/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
4/13/2021 City 448 128 320 No
4/14/2021 City 192 64 128 No
4/15/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/16/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/19/2021 City 320 96 224 No
4/23/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
4/28/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
4/30/2021 S & E 71.4 73 2.7 No
6/2/2021 S & E 57.6 48 No
6/4/2021 S & E 57.6 48 No
6/9/2021 S & E 57.6 48 No
6/11/2021 S & E 57.6 48 No
6/24/2021 S & E 57.6 48 No
Date Division Speedzone
(H)
Ranger Pro
(H)
Roundup
(H)
Liberate
(H)
LifeLine/Che
etah (H)
Grass
Getter (H) Pointer (P)
Within
7 Days
of Rain
Event?
2,4-
Dichlorophen
oxyacetic
acid Glyphosate Glyphosate
Surfactant
Blend
Glufosinate
ammonium Sethoxydim Imidacloprid
28.57% 41% 50% 100% 24.50% 18% 5%
7/5/2021 New Image 6 No
7/6/2021 S & E 600 400 No
7/7/2021 S & E 344 344 No
7/13/2021 S & E 8 8 No
7/13/2021 S & E 8 8 No
7/13/2021 S & E 40 40 No
7/15/2021 S & E 40 40 No
7/23/2021 S & E 72 72 No
7/26/2021 S & E 16 16 No
8/20/2021 S & E 24 No
8/25/2021 S & E 8 No
8/26/2021 S & E 140 No
8/31/2021 S & E 140 No
9/1/2021 S & E 24 24 No
Speedzone
(H)
Ranger Pro
(H)
Roundup
(H) Liberate (H) LifeLine/Che
etah (H)
Grass
Getter (H) Pointer (P) Total
(oz)
Total Amount of Product
used in 2020-21 (oz) 266 150 12,375 3,130 8,734 12 16 24,666 Total Amount of Product
within 7 Days of Rain (oz) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
* Applicators: City - City Public Works Maintenance Division S & E - Smith & Enright Landscaping, Inc
New Image - New Image Landscape Company
** Surfactant blend: Lecithin, methyl esters of fatty acids, and alcohol ethoxylate
By Products
Speedzone
(H)
Ranger
Pro (H)
Roundup
(H)
Liberate
(H)
LifeLine/Cheetah
(H)
Grass
Getter (H)
Pointer
(P)
Total
(oz)
Total Amount of Product
used in Year 7 (oz) 266 150 12,375 3,130 8,734 12 16 24,666 Total Amount of Product
within 7 Days of Rain (oz) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
By Active Ingredients
2,4-Dichlorophe
noxyacetic acid Glyphosate Glyphosate Surfactant
Blend
Glufosinate
ammonium Sethoxydim Imidacloprid
Total Amount of Product
used in 2020-2021 (oz) 76 62 6,212 3,130 2,140 2 1
Total Amount of Product
within 7 Days of Rain (oz) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 5 – Comparison of Total PHF Application from 2012 to 2021
2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2015-
2016
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2018-
2019
2019-
2020
2020-
2021
Speedzone (H) 236 650 1,357 652 943 1,021 218 258 266
Ranger Pro (H) 15,190 14,102 13,382 13,416 10,977 441 601 316 150 Roundup (H) 3,250 2,354 7,785 4,142 11,874 21,578 21,659 11,055 12,375 Surflan (H) 512 2,701 320
Turflon (H) 80 325 285
Pendulum (H) 1,290 657 752 627 1,162 81
Trimec (H) 4
Fusilade (H) 6 3
Grass Getter (H) 20 24 12
Liberate (H) 4,352 4,608 4,966 3,603 3,130
LifeLine/Cheeta
h (H)
4,756 8,734
Gastoxin Tablets
(P) 55 tabs
Sluggo (P) 16
Pointer (P) 16
Lesco Pro (F) 12,000
Turfgro (F) 6,000
Total Pesticide 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Total Herbicide 19,207 19,891 24,459 19,158 28,898 28,274 28,610 20,093 24,666 Total Fertilizer 12,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 0
Figure 3 – Total PHF application conducted in 2020-2021