HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02252014 - C.90RECOMMENDATION(S):
Accept the 2013 Annual Report on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The County Board of Supervisors adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy in November 2002. The
Board adopted the policy in response to a report published in March 2001 by the County’s Public and Environmental
Health Advisory Board (PEHAB). An Integrated Pest Management Task Force was established to look at the
County’s use of pesticides and ways of reducing them through the use of IPM. In January 2009, an IPM Coordinator
was hired and in November 2009 the Task Force was dissolved and the IPM Advisory Committee was formed to take
its place.
At the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee meeting on December 5, 2013, the Michael Kent
presented the report on the progress of the County’s IPM program. The report contains the accomplishments of the
Departmental IPM Programs, the IPM Advisory Committee, and the IPM Coordinator for 2013.
The
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/25/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYES 4 NOES ____
ABSENT 1 ABSTAIN ____
RECUSE ____
Contact: Randy Sawyer, 335-3210
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 25, 2014
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: T Scott, C Rucker, Tanya Drlik
C. 90
To:Board of Supervisors
From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Date:February 25, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Annual Report on the Integrated Pest Management Program
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
report was accepted by the Committee and referred to the Board.
ATTACHMENTS
Annual Report
Attachment C
Attachment D
2013 IPM Annual Report 1 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
2013 Annual IPM Program Status Report
to the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This year, the IPM Advisory Committee continued to explore
how pest management decisions are being made in the County,
how to make the IPM Program more transparent, especially in the area of pesticide use, and
additional metrics to comprehensively evaluate the IPM program (to augment pounds of pesticide used).
Last year, the Committee developed a form for documenting pest management decisions. This year, each of the
departmental IPM programs developed at least one comprehensive decision making document for a particular
pest, and the Agriculture Department developed two. The Committee reviewed these documents thoroughly and
found them to be useful for enhancing program transparency and for educating interested persons in the details
and complexities of pest management in the County. The Committee recommends that the Departments continue
to use the form to document pest management decisions.
The Committee addressed reporting of “Bad Actor” pesticides along with whether the County should develop an
IPM Ordinance, both issues raised by Parents for a Safer Environment.
Pesticide use by County operations increased somewhat this year but is still 60% below the amount used in FY
00-01. The increase in FY 12-13 was almost entirely in the Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel
Maintenance Division and was because increased staffing allowed the Division to do more work in flood control
channels. The Division also used fewer pounds of pre-emergent herbicides which necessitates the use of more
post-emergent herbicides because the crew must return one or more times to a site to achieve the same level of
weed control. This year, the Annual Report contains more detailed information about pesticides used in the
County than previous reports.
Bed bugs remain a serious problem in the County, especially for those citizens who are least able to cope with the
problem, such as the elderly, the disabled, and those with little means. The IPM Coordinator continues to provide
information to these citizens about what they can do to prevent bites and reduce bed bug numbers. This year, the
IPM Coordinator began working with Supervisor Gioia’s office and the City of Richmond, and Supervisor
Mitchoff’s office and the City of Concord to clarify responsibilities and policies in the cities and the County.
This fall, the Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, was
honored with a prestigious IPM Innovator Award from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Commissioner Guise and his department will be recognized in a ceremony in Sacramento this coming January.
The Department continued work on its noxious weed management program, a program that is unique in the state
in its scope and persistence. The Department surveyed over 217,000 acres of public and private land, and treated
322 net acres of weeds.
In the Public Works Department, the Facilities Division continues to repair structural deficiencies in buildings to
prevent the entry of pests. These deficiencies are prioritized and the backlog is addressed as time and resources
allow. The Grounds Division has been able to increase their staffing this year, and because of the added staff they
can once again work on improving the visual appearance of County grounds. The Roadside and Flood Control
Maintenance Division used goats and/or sheep to abate weeds at 17 sites and is gaining knowledge and experience
with this management method. The County Flood Control District is partnering with the non-profit Restoration
Trust in an experiment along the Clayton Valley Drain to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of planting
native grasses to outcompete exotic weeds.
2013 IPM Annual Report 2 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 3 November 22, 2013
HISTORY
From 2002 to 2009, an informal IPM Task Force met to coordinate implementation of the IPM Policy that was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November 2002. A formal body, the Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Advisory Committee, was created by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. This report is the fifth annual
status report from the IPM Coordinator and the IPM Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the IPM Advisory Committee
The purpose of the Committee is to:
1. Protect and enhance public health, County resources, and the environment;
2. Minimize risks and maximize benefits to the general public, staff, and the environment as a result of
pest control activities conducted by County staff and contractors;
3. Promote a coordinated County-wide effort to implement IPM in the County in a manner that is
consistent with the Board-adopted IPM Policy;
4. Serve as a resource to help the Agriculture and Public Works Departments and the Board of
Supervisors review and improve existing pest management programs and the processes for making
pest management decisions;
5. Make policy recommendations upon assessment of current pest issues and evaluation of possible IPM
solutions; and
6. Provide a forum for communication and information exchange among members in an effort to
identify, encourage, and stimulate the use of best or promising pest management practices.
Members of the IPM Advisory Committee
Currently the Committee has a total of 13 seats consisting of voting and non-voting members.
The 8 voting members include
One representative from Contra Costa Health Services
One representative from the County Storm Water Program
One representative from the County Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board
One representative from the County Fish and Wildlife Committee
One representative from an environmental organization
Three at-large members of the public.
The 4 non-voting members include
A representative from the Agriculture Department
Two representative from the Public Works Department (Facilities Division and Maintenance
Division)
One representative from the County’s pest management contractor
The Committee also has one public member alternate who only votes if one or more of the three at-large public
members is absent from a meeting.
2013 IPM Annual Report 4 November 22, 2013
COMMITTEE PRIORITIES FOR 2013
In January of this year, the IPM Advisory Committee made the decision to focus its work for the year on the
following two IPM program features and to develop recommendations for the Departments of Agriculture and
Public Works around these two topics:
A. IPM decision-making—documenting pest management decisions in the various IPM programs
B. Data management/IPM program evaluation—determining what data, other than pesticide use figures,
can be used for a more comprehensive evaluation of the County’s IPM programs
The Committee formed two subcommittees to work on these priorities.
2013 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE IPM ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE IPM
COORDINATOR
Accomplishments of the IPM Committee
The IPM Advisory Committee (the Committee) held six regular meetings and one extra meeting during 2013. The
subcommittees held a total of 10 meetings to address the above priorities. The IPM Coordinator serves as staff to
the Committee and the two subcommittees. The accomplishments of the IPM Committee and its subcommittees
are as follows:
Priority A: IPM Decision-Making
Through the work of the subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
1. Gained a detailed understanding of the complexities involved in making pest management
decisions and the degree to which these decisions are site specific and require highly specialized
experience and knowledge
2. Reviewed at least one decision-making process for each IPM program
Agriculture Department:
1. Perennial pepperweed near a remnant population of Contra Costa goldfields
2. Ground squirrels on critical infrastructure
Facilities Division: Rats and mice in and around County buildings
Grounds Division: Weeds on Camino Tassajara medians
Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division: Weeds on flood
control channels
These are detailed text documents developed by the Departments that follow a form devised by
the IPM Coordinator and the subcommittee. (See Attachment A for the decision making
documents completed this year.)
The Committee recommends to the Departments for 2014 that they
1. Continue to work on decision making documents for the types of pest management problems they
have
The Committee understands that these documents are examples of how the Departments make
decisions and are current as of the date on the document.
Priority B: Data Management/IPM Program Evaluation
Through the work of the subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
1. Worked with each Department to complete the IPM Priority Assessment tool (see Attachment B)
to assess the implementation of the elements of an IPM program, and for a second year to
prioritize those elements
2013 IPM Annual Report 5 November 22, 2013
2. Worked with each Department to choose one priority that was not fully implemented and improve
implementation during the year; considerable progress was made in the areas identified below
For the Agriculture Department: 1) more complete documentation of weed control
activities on private land, including completing the development of base maps for all
properties surveyed each year and 2) web posting for select pesticide use locations
according to the County posting policy
For the Facilities Division: 1) improved communication with the pest management
contractor, and 2) web posting of select pesticide use locations
For the Grounds Division: 1) increased staffing and 2) web posting of select pesticide use
locations
For the Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division:
1) design and implementation of a pesticide posting page on the County’s website and
2) web posting of select pesticide use locations
3. Discussed additional metrics that could be used to evaluate IPM programs
Finding appropriate and useful metrics proved to be a difficult task. After a review of
annual reports from other Bay Area counties, the subcommittee did not discover any
unique or innovative metrics.
Contra Costa County has been reporting pesticide use data for County departments as the
only metric in the IPM Annual Report, and pesticide use will continue to be reported.
The subcommittee agreed, however, that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the
County is implementing IPM. Pesticide use is the result of a decision to manage a pest.
IPM is a decision making process that can lead to a decision to manage a pest with a
chemical. The amount of pesticide used in any one year is influenced by factors that have
little to do with IPM implementation, such as weather conditions that influence the
increase or decrease of a pest population; the use of new or different pesticides that are
effective in ounces per acre rather than pounds per acre; the use of alternative pesticides
that are less hazardous but also less effective so that more material is needed for control;
the addition or subtraction of pest management projects to/from a department’s workload,
and budget or staff cuts that make it difficult or impossible to use alternate methods of
control.
Cost weighs heavily in the departments’ choices of pest management methods. Costs
must be balanced with efficacy; with feasibility; with hazards to the public, to staff, and
to the environment; and with available funding and staff time. The County has still not
recovered from the 2007 financial crisis, and budgets are still restricted. The
subcommittee concluded that tracking and reporting costs for various management
methods is important.
4. Discussed additional items and metrics that can be included in the Annual Report
Tasks Departments have undertaken as a result of recommendations from the IPM
Committee
Graphs of pesticide use for each Departmental IPM program
The spreadsheet used to calculate pesticide use for each IPM program
Photos and graphs that illustrate points in the report
Hours spent monitoring and engaging in other pest management activities
Acres under various management methods
The Committee recommends to the Departments for 2014 that:
2013 IPM Annual Report 6 November 22, 2013
1. Using the IPM Priority Assessment Tool, the Decision Documents produced for the Decision
Making subcommittee, and the IPM Annual Report, they identify one significant pest
management problem and determine costs to implement a more robust IPM approach that is cost
effective over time.
2. Continue updating and using the IPM Priority Assessment Tool.
Other Accomplishments of the IPM Committee
Reporting “Bad Actor” Pesticides
The Committee held a special meeting of the Data Management subcommittee in March to resolve the
issues raised by Parents for a Safer Environment of how to report “Bad Actor” pesticides in the Annual
Report. Dr. Susan Kegley from the Pesticide Research Institute was invited as the guest speaker. Dr.
Kegley was instrumental in developing the Pesticide Action Network’s pesticide database that coined the
term “Bad Actor.” The Pesticide Action Network is a non-profit advocacy group. The result of
deliberations in both the subcommittee and the full Committee was that the County will report as “Bad
Actors” only those pesticides designated as such in the Pesticide Action Network’s database.
Rodenticides
The Committee heard a presentation from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife on the hazards to
wildlife of anti-coagulant rodenticides. The Committee provided feedback and encouragement to the Mt.
Diablo Audubon Society on components of their “Don’t Take the Bait” campaign that focuses primarily
on the more toxic and problematic “second generation” rodenticides. The Committee also heard reports
from the Agriculture Department on their program to protect critical infrastructure such as levees, flood
control banks, roads, bridge abutments, and railroad berms from ground squirrel burrowing. The IPM
Coordinator reported on rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts.
IPM Ordinance vs. IPM Policy
In 2011, after much research and deliberation, the IPM Committee saw no advantage to creating an IPM
ordinance and voted unanimously to recommend that the County develop an Administrative Bulletin as a
complement to the County’s existing IPM policy to be used as the administrative vehicle for
implementing the County’s IPM program. The Committee also voted to review the ordinance issue in
2013.
At their September and November meetings the Committee reviewed and discussed the issue. In
November, the Committee voted unanimously to continue to use the IPM Administrative Bulletin to
complement the County’s IPM policy. The Committee noted that they had done their due diligence on the
issue, that they believed there was ample justification for continuing to use the IPM Administrative
Bulletin and IPM Policy as they are, and that they supported the opinions of County Counsel in the
matter. Various members said that there was no compelling argument that an IPM ordinance would
provide added value for the County.
Accomplishments of the IPM Coordinator
In addition to staffing the IPM Advisory Committee and working on both subcommittees, the IPM Coordinator
accomplished the following:
Bed Bugs
The common bed bug continues to be one of the most serious pests in the County, a pest that has provoked
citizens to misuse pesticides to an alarming extent. Pesticides do not solve the problem, and in many cases
make the problem worse. We increasingly see bed bugs affecting the citizens of Contra Costa who have the
fewest resources to combat them.
The bed bug problem is increasing in the County
2013 IPM Annual Report 7 November 22, 2013
There is a sense that the bed bug problem is increasing in the County, but this is anecdotal since there is no
coordinated effort in the County to collect data. The IPM Coordinator records each call for advice, but it is
unclear how many calls other staff in the County are receiving that are not forwarded to the IPM Coordinator.
We also have no way of knowing how many calls city staff receive. For the first time since 2009, a substantial
number of complaints have come from West County. There are increasing numbers of complaints from
Pittsburg and Antioch, and it is generally acknowledged that there are numerous apartment complexes in
Concord with severe infestations throughout the complex.
Stunning success in bed bug prevention in County-operated homeless shelters
In 2011 the IPM Coordinator, with the help of Health Services staff, developed a bed bug prevention protocol
for group living situations. During 2012, the Concord shelter began implementing the protocol. In mid-2012
the shelter was able to purchase new metal beds and new
mattresses with the help of a generous donor who was alerted to
the problem through a member of the Bed Bug Task Force. In the
fall of 2012, staff thoroughly cleaned the Concord shelter and
installed the metal beds. These beds have slick surfaces that bed
bugs find difficult to climb, and the metal beds provide far fewer
hiding places for bed bugs than the old wooden beds. The new
mattresses have few places for bed bugs to hide and can be easily
cleaned. With the implementation of the prevention protocol, the
bed bug population declined sharply, and since the installation of
the metal beds and new mattresses in fall of 2012, staff have not
seen any bed bugs in the facility. The Brookside shelter in
Richmond was fortunate to implement the prevention protocols
before they ever had a bed bug infestation, and that shelter remains bed bug free, even without metal beds.
Because of the transient nature of their clients, homeless shelters are at extremely high risk for the
introduction and continued re-introduction of bed bugs. It is a testament to the diligence of the staff at the
County’s two homeless shelters in enforcing prevention and educating clients that the shelters remain bed bug
free.
County works to secure research funds to help low income residents of apartment complexes
In 2012 the IPM Coordinator partnered with the University of California Cooperative Extension, the Michael
Chavez Center, and two pest management companies in a research proposal designed to compare the efficacy
of IPM methods and conventional methods of bed bug management in multi-family dwellings. The site of the
study was to be Contra Costa County. This proposal was not funded, but a revised proposal that includes
statewide partners and study sites in Contra Costa County and southern California has been submitted to a
new funder.
In an effort to educate County staff and the public about bed bugs, the IPM Coordinator
Continued to organize and staff the County’s Bed Bug Task Force; the Task Force meets every other
month and advocates for increasing public awareness of bed bug problems and for developing sound bed
bug management policy throughout the County
Investigated by telephone (with the help of the Bed Bug Task Force) the 43 bed bug complaints that came
to the attention of the IPM Coordinator
Provided advice to the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office in a case involving bed bug complaints
from the Extended Stay America in Pleasant Hill
Developed and presented a bed bug awareness training to around 200 pest management professionals at a
Pesticide Applicators Professional Association seminar in Walnut Creek
Provided advice to the Lily Mae Jones housing complex in Richmond on bed bug prevention
Worked with the Health Services media department to write a column on avoiding bed bugs while
traveling, for publication in local papers and online
New homeless shelter bed
2013 IPM Annual Report 8 November 22, 2013
Worked with the offices of Supervisors Mitchoff and Gioia to aid cities in their districts with bed bug
problems
Provided interviews to Contra Costa media on the bed bug problem
Attended the Global Bed Bug Summit in December to increase her knowledge of all aspects of the
problem
General Outreach/Advising on IPM by the IPM Coordinator
Worked with the Public Works Department, Supervisor Andersen’s office and residents of Canyon to
resolve weed and herbicide issues along the County road.
Provided on-going advice along with review of educational materials for IPM training in child care
settings as part of a project of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at U.C.
Berkeley
Participated in a committee developing IPM standards of practice for the Healthy Homes Alliance in
Alameda County; these standards, which include many more areas than just pest management, will be
directly applicable to Contra Costa County and will become part of a manual for in-home visitors in a
wide range of professions
Worked with the Cities of San Pablo and El Cerrito to develop a model IPM Policy for Contra Costa
cities and a set of standard operating procedures for major pests encountered in city parks and buildings
Coordinated a noxious weed awareness presentation by Vince Guise, Contra Costa Agricultural
Commissioner, for landscape maintenance personnel in the cities of San Pablo and El Cerrito
Gave an IPM presentation to the Crockett Improvement Association.
Gave an IPM presentation to Pleasant Hill Parks maintenance personnel
Responded to a number of requests for pest management information from County staff and citizens
Conferences and Trainings Attended
Weed Science Society Annual Conference
San Francisco IPM Conference
Alameda County Bed Bug Training for Property Owners
Least Toxic Pest Management Workshop put on by Parents for a Safer Environment
Global Bed Bug Summit
Pesticide Hazard Identification
Completed a pesticide hazard identification process for the County and screened each pesticide used by
County operations.
Presented the process to the IPM Advisory Committee at the beginning of the year.
2013 DEPARTMENT IPM PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS AND CHALLENGES
Agriculture Department
IPM Program Highlights
The Department won a prestigious IPM Innovator Award from the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation for their outstanding work in and commitment to integrated pest management. Only about four
to nine recipients are chosen each year from the entire state, and this is the first time the award has been
given to a county Department of Agriculture.
The Department actively worked on both subcommittees of the IPM Advisory Committee and has agreed
to the Committee’s recommendations to the Departments.
2013 IPM Annual Report 9 November 22, 2013
Rangeland infested with artichoke thistle
The Department updated its IPM Priority Assessment Tool at the beginning of the year and created two
decision making documents, one on managing ground squirrels in critical infrastructure and one on
managing perennial pepperweed that is threatening a remnant population of the endangered wildflower,
Contra Costa goldfields. (See Attachment A.)
All historically treated noxious weed sites were surveyed and treated again this year
In order to achieve eventual eradication of target noxious weeds, all sites that have not been declared
eradicated must be surveyed each year and treated if necessary. Significant progress was made in the
Department’s eradication and control effort this year. The department program involves 18 target
terrestrial noxious weed species. This year the Department surveyed over 217,000 acres and treated a total
of 322 net acres. (See Attachment C for details.)
Treatment involved hand removal, mechanical removal and targeted treatment with low toxicity
herbicides. With rare exception, pesticide treatment involved highly focused spot spraying using
backpack sprayers. In some newly treated areas,
treatment involved focused area spray using a vehicle-
mounted sprayer. The program involved over 6,444
hours of direct field time by staff. Of this,
approximately 90-95% of the time was spent in
surveying and monitoring with the remainder being
spent on treatment actions.
Artichoke Thistle (Cynara cardunculus)
Artichoke thistle is a highly invasive, non-native
perennial weed species that displaces herbaceous plants
and annual grasses, decreasing the value of agricultural
land, open space, and wildlands. Horses and cattle will
not consume this thistle, and at high densities, the
formidable spines on the leaves and stems and on the bracts around the flowers make it impossible for
animals or people to walk through stands of the weed.
In 1979 Contra Costa County was identified as one of the most heavily infested counties in the state. At
that time, at least 100,000 acres of land were infested with artichoke thistle to one degree or another. In
that year, the Department began their eradication program in cooperation with property owners by using
ground rigs and helicopters to spray large swaths of land. The artichoke thistle population has been
reduced to such an extent that staff primarily spot treat individual plants using a backpack sprayer.
Because seedlings form deep, fleshy taproots within the first year, mechanical or hand removal (digging
out the plants) is cost-effective only where these is a very limited area with a small number of very young
plants. Mowing and burning are neither practical nor effective.
Currently the Department monitors about 181,000 gross acres of land each year for artichoke thistle,
which includes over 590 properties (mostly private) that have been treated in past years. In 2013, staff
spot-treated a total of 179 net acres of artichoke thistle.
Japanese dodder (Cuscuta japonica)
Japanese dodder is a very aggressive parasitic plant
that has the potential to severely alter the composition
and function of riparian areas. It also affects
ornamental plantings and agricultural crops. It is
native to Southeast Asia and was first discovered in
the county in 2005.
Forty-six of the 49 historically infested properties in
the county have been free of Japanese dodder for three
or more years, which meets the criteria for eradication
on these properties.
First Japanese dodder find in CCC, 2005
2013 IPM Annual Report 10 November 22, 2013
Kangaroo Thorn
Red sesbania (Sesbania punicea)
This was the eighth year of red sesbania removal at the primary infestation site of Kirker Creek, Dow
Wetlands. Red sesbania is a small tree that has a high potential for environmental damage by displacing
native plants and wildlife in riparian areas. Red sesbania is an exotic invasive weed that is native to South
America, and is poisonous to humans, livestock, and many native vertebrates. It is invading riparian areas
locally, and in the American River Parkway in Sacramento County, about $300,000 has been dedicated to
its control. Red sesbania was first detected in California about ten years ago.
In Contra Costa County, red sesbania infestations are located on three wildland and 12 residential
properties. All plants removed were seedlings that germinated from the existing seed bank. Removal of
red sesbania is performed mechanically with a weed wrench or by hand pulling.
All historic sites were surveyed this year, and a total of 2,198 plants were removed from all sites,
compared to 4,293 last year. See the graph below of the number of plants removed from DOW wetlands
since 2006. No seed pods have been allowed to mature at this site since 2006. The yearly statistics show
that red sesbania seeds are long-lived, and that the seed bank is healthy and persistent. However, the
reduction in the number found this year may be indicative of a slow downward trend into the future. This
would be consistent with the Department’s experience with other noxious weeds that have long-lived
seeds.
878 827
488
2028 1899
2838
4183
1775
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
# of Plants RemovedRed Sesbania Removed at DOW Wetlands
(all red sesbania control is done by hand pulling or mechanical removal)
Kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa)
The County has one site infested with kangaroo thorn. The
removal of the existing infestation in 2005 involved 52 hours
of staff time. At that time the infestation covered a little less
than one net acre. This year, it took only 7.5 hours of staff
time to accomplish the surveying and seedling removal. Only
small seedlings of less than one foot in height were found,
and the infested area totaled less than one hundredth of an
acre.
Each year the Department removes by hand pulling all new
seedlings sprouting from the old seed bank.
Smooth Distaff Thistle (Carthamus baeticus)
There is only one known smooth distaff thistle infestation site in the county. It originated from the
movement of a tractor from Fallon, Nevada to a site off Christie Road in Martinez. The small infestation
was first discovered in 2005 by one of the Department’s biologists. For six years, the Department spot-
sprayed this area. The last two years, removal of all plants was done by hand without the use of herbicide.
2013 IPM Annual Report 11 November 22, 2013
Unfortunately, the numbers removed went from 42 last year to 547 this year. The Department has made
the decision that it will need to return to chemical treatment until the population diminishes to the point
where it is again feasible to use hand removal.
Two new noxious weed species: Japanese knotweed and woolly distaff thistle
Two very small infestations of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) were found in the county in 2012
by staff biologists. One is in Lafayette and one in El Sobrante. These were the first recorded occurrences
of this species in Contra Costa County. Japanese knotweed spreads by tenacious rhizomes from which
small pieces can break and form a new plant. The weed is a particular threat in riparian areas where it can
survive floods and quickly colonize scoured streambanks. The plant can form very dense patches that
shade out all other vegetation. The rhizomes produce bamboo-like shoots that can penetrate through two
inches of asphalt.
Last year’s treatments were very successful with only a few small Japanese knotweed plants found and
treated this year.
Two woolly distaff thistle (Carthamus lantanis) plants were found in 2012 by a staff biologist on
CalTrans right-of-way on Highway 4 at the Highway 680 overcrossing. This was also the first recorded
occurrence of this weed in the county. It occurs in Nevada, and it is very likely that the source of the
infestation was thistle seed falling off a vehicle carrying infested hay or equipment. Woolly distaff thistle
can form dense monocultures that displace native plants and reduce the availability and value of forage.
The plant does not produce rhizomes.
No new plants were found at the site this year indicating that the discovery of the infestation last year was
at the very earliest stage and was prior to any seed set.
South American Spongeplant (Limnobium laevigatum)
With the successful passage of AB1540 (Buchanan) last year, the responsibility and mandate to
aggressively treat this aquatic noxious weed species lies with the state Department of Boating and
Waterways (DBW). Unfortunately, South American spongeplant was found for the first time in Discovery
Bay. This represents a significant expansion of this Delta threatening aquatic pest. The DBW is aware of
and is treating this extension of the still incipient infestation.
Departmental IPM plan updated
The Department performed a detailed review and revision of the Department’s IPM plan. Numerous
photographs were added, text was expanded and edited to improve clarity, detailed information about the
Department’s ground squirrel live trapping study was added, and descriptions of the two new noxious
weeds discovered in the County last year were added along with text describing the decision making
process for treatment of the two new weeds.
Critical infrastructure protection continues
The Department continues to protect critical infrastructure including levees, earthen dams, railroad beds,
and roadways from damage by ground squirrels. The goal is to maintain a 100 linear foot buffer around
the infrastructure. Ground squirrel burrowing is the single biggest threat to California levees. Burrowing
can compromise the earthen embankments and create pathways for water leakage that can undermine the
structural integrity of levees, as well as earthen dams and railroad embankments. Burrowing and the
resulting pathways for water erosion can also cause damage to, or sudden failure of, roadsides and other
structures.
This year the Department has modified its ground squirrel treatment procedure for safety and efficiency,
and is working to apply bait more precisely and to reduce the number of bait applications in an area from
three to two. Treatments are carried out by a team of two staff members so that one person can
concentrate on driving while the other operates the bait spreader to apply bait only where ground squirrel
activity is observed.
The Department also worked with the Public Works Department to produce a map that is marked with all
the areas treated with diphacinone grain bait for ground squirrels.
2013 IPM Annual Report 12 November 22, 2013
Exotic pest prevention continues
The Agriculture Department is the County’s first line of defense against invading pests including insects,
plants, and diseases. Every day staff perform inspections on incoming shipments at destination points,
including nurseries, the post office, and express carriers (UPS, FedEx and others) to look for quarantined
plants as well as pests that can hitchhike unnoticed on plant material and other items such as household
goods.
In 2006, the Department was the first in the state to incorporate dog teams into parcel inspection. Since
then a number of other counties have followed Contra Costa’s lead. The dogs greatly speed inspections
and have significantly increased detections of quarantined plants and exotic pests. The dog teams are a
shared resource with other Bay Area counties that do not have the expertise or resources to maintain an
active surveillance program; therefore, as a result of Contra Costa’s initiative, pest detections in those
counties have increased.
This year the Department inspected 56,770 shipments and rejected 238 after finding various pests.
The Department also deploys and services numerous traps for the purpose of early detection of more than
17 different serious insect pests. This year the Department deployed 5,585 traps and staff serviced those
traps 68,684 times.
Agriculture Department Challenges
Ground squirrel control alternatives
The department continues to search for alternatives to treated grain bait. Unfortunately, raptor perches and
live trapping of ground squirrels have proved to be ineffective and/or too costly.
Finding alternatives to herbicides
Although in field operations the Department uses only least toxic “Caution” labeled herbicides, staff are
continually trying to find safer and more effective materials and methods for noxious weed control. This
includes evaluating the feasibility of mechanical or hand removal as well as new herbicides that may be
more efficacious and of reduced toxicity. This year the Department switched from the less
environmentally friendly imazapyr herbicide to glyphosate (Roundup®) for treating pampas grass after
consulting with a U.C. Invasive Weed Research scientist whose research has shown that glyphosate can
be very effective when used correctly on this species.
Public Works Facilities Division
IPM Program Highlights
The Division assisted as needed in the work of the two subcommittees of the IPM Advisory Committee
and has agreed to the Committee’s recommendations to the Departments.
The Division updated their IPM Priority Assessment Tool and as a result, met with Pestec, the County’s
structural IPM contractor, to discuss improvements in communication.
Pestec prepared an IPM decision document for managing rats and mice and met with the Decision
Making subcommittee to explain the document. (See Attachment A.)
Pestec, the structural IPM contractor, is providing excellent service
The Division hired Pestec IPM Providers in December 2009 for the County’s structural pest management.
They continue to do an outstanding job in the County and are very responsive to the County’s needs.
Pestec has an excellent relationship with their customers in County buildings.
County authorizes funds for maintenance to County-owned buildings
In 2007 the County hired ISES Corporation to perform a facilities condition analysis on 89 of the
County’s buildings (about 2.9 million square feet). The analysis noted deficiencies in accessibility,
2013 IPM Annual Report 13 November 22, 2013
Remains of owl meals atop the Co. Administration Bldg
electrical systems, the exterior structure, fire and life safety issues, plumbing, and HVAC systems. ISES
rated each building they inspected on a “facilities condition needs index” (FCNI). The breakdown for the
building ratings is as follows:
o 15 buildings—excellent condition
o 33 buildings—good condition, renovations occur on schedule
o 27 buildings—fair conditions, in need of normal renovation
o 7 buildings—below average condition, major renovation required
o 5 buildings—poor condition (4 of these building were constructed between 1901 to 1941, and
ISES noted that historic buildings often rate in this category)
o 2 buildings—complete facility replacement indicated
The combined FCNI for the 86 buildings was “good condition, renovations occur on schedule” indicating
that this group of County buildings is in better than average overall condition. ISES also noted in their
report that “while Contra Costa County has done a good job of maintaining building systems, many high
cost systems are due for replacement within the next 10 years. The County would be wise to prepare itself
for these expenditures, as these aging systems will not provide reliable and efficient service too much
further beyond their statistical life cycles.”
ISES identified $251 million in deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects that they recommended
completing in the next 10 years. Because of the financial crisis, the County was unable to budget any
funds toward the work until FY 12-13. For FY 13-14, the County has set aside $10 million for additional
work. The Board of Supervisors understands that the County will have to commit more funds in the
following years. These projects will take priority in the Facilities Division workload.
Another 55 buildings (about 1.1 million square feet) will be assessed soon.
Correcting structural deficiencies in buildings continues
The Facilities Division is still understaffed and has an extensive backlog of work orders. Facilities has 7
carpenters (along with two temporary hires for Health Services projects) for the 361 buildings comprising
more than 4.7 million square feet that the County maintains. There is a backlog of over 500 work orders
just for carpenters.
Pestec regularly reports on conditions conducive to pests (“deficiencies”) in County buildings. Correcting
these deficiencies is the key to pest prevention in County buildings. Deficiencies include things such as
doors without doorsweeps that allow rodents to enter the building, cracks and gaps in walls where insects
can hide and rodents can enter, and dirty drains in kitchens that provide breeding habitat for flies. It has
been difficult for the Division to keep up with pest exclusion repairs because of lack of budget and staff,
and their priorities must of necessity be emergencies and fire/life safety issues. In FY 13-14, they will
have added priorities from the Facilities Condition Analysis Report.
Owls in downtown Martinez
The “boneyard” on the roof of the County
Administration building at 651 Pine in Martinez is
still being used by owls as a dining area, probably
because the spot is quiet and well protected from
wind. The remains of hundreds of meals litter the
area, along with new whitewash (excrement) and
pellets (a regurgitated mass of undigested parts of the
owl’s food). Most likely the owls are nesting nearby
and feeding on small rodents like rats and mice, as
well as birds such as starlings.
Structural IPM program pesticide use remains low
In FY 12-13, 16 lbs. of active ingredients were used
in approximately 2.75 million square feet of County buildings. These pesticides are almost exclusively
deployed as baits in bait stations or in cracks and crevices. Pestec continues to successfully manage rats
and mice exclusively with traps.
2013 IPM Annual Report 14 November 22, 2013
Increase in service calls involving ants, cockroaches, bees and yellowjackets, and spiders
In FY 12-13, the Facilities Division received 154 additional calls for service for various pest problems.
These are calls for service that are outside the regularly scheduled monitoring service of the pest control
contractor. This is an increase from the 126 calls received last year. Of the 154 calls this year, 28% were
for ants, 18% for bees/yellowjackets, 15% for cockroaches, and 8% for spiders. These percentages are
similar to last year. Six out of the 14 buildings that called 4 or more times were Head Start buildings,
which by their nature often have more food and habitat available.
Bed bugs in County buildings
In 2010, the Concord homeless shelter began experiencing a serious bed bug infestation. Pestec treated
the infestation several times, but in a homeless shelter, reinfestation is a continuing problem. In 2011, the
IPM Coordinator and shelter staff developed bed bug prevention protocols, which were instituted in 2012
by both the Concord shelter and the Brookside shelter in east County. In the fall of 2012, the Concord
shelter purchased metal bed and new encased mattresses. Both are easier to inspect and clean, and they
provide far fewer hiding places for bed bugs than did the old mattresses and wooden beds. These changes,
coupled with staff vigilance and the involvement of clients in inspections and cleaning, have resulted in
the Concord shelter remaining bed bug free since September 2012. To date, the Brookside Shelter has not
had a bed bug infestation.
It is unlikely that the shelters will remain permanently free of bed bugs because the chances for new
introductions are so high with the daily influx of new clients, but any new introductions will be quickly
found. Other County buildings such as the hospital and offices with waiting rooms are at risk for bed bug
infestations, and County staff must continue to be vigilant.
Facilities Division Challenges
Pest exclusion in County buildings
This continues to be a challenge, but the Facilities Division is doing what they can with their staffing and
schedule.
Pest exclusion in leased buildings
Reducing pest intrusions into leased buildings continues to be more of a challenge since the responsibility
often falls to the landlord.
Bed bugs in County buildings
Bed bugs are particularly difficult and costly to control. As bed bugs become more prevalent, it is very
likely that more County buildings will be affected. At this point, awareness and prevention are critical.
Public Works Grounds Division
IPM Program Highlights
The Division participated in various aspects of the work undertaken by the two subcommittees of the IPM
Advisory Committee and has agreed to the Committee’s recommendations to the Departments.
The Grounds Division updated their IPM Priority Assessment Tool, and prepared a decision making
document for vegetation management on medians along Camino Tassajara. (See Attachment A for the
decision document.)
Division staffing has increased
Currently the Division has 15 permanent employees and 6 temporary employees. This is 5 more crew
members than 3 years ago, but is still substantially fewer workers than the 45 gardeners, 2 irrigation
technicians, and additional summer hires of 10 years ago. The number of properties that the Division
maintains has changed little in this time, but the level of maintenance for County properties is
considerably lower now because of the financial crisis. At the level of service that the Division is asked to
provide, the current crew is adequate; however the majority of County properties are still underfunded for
full landscape maintenance.
2013 IPM Annual Report 15 November 22, 2013
Mulched and newly planted entry way to Summit Center on
Arnold Dr. in Martinez
The Division has improved the visual appearance of many County landscapes
As staffing and funding have been slowly increasing, the Division has been working hard to improve the
appearance of County properties. This ranges from
small things such as planting colorful annuals at
the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center after a
hiatus of many years, to major projects such as
Summit Center on Arnold Drive in Martinez.
Summit Center was originally designed and
landscaped as a commercial office park that would
have had ample resources for landscape
maintenance. Over the last 5 years the County did
not have the funds to maintain the landscaping at
Summit Center, and the grounds became seriously
weed infested. In 2010, the Grounds Division
began killing vegetation around the building and in
the parking lot to reduce the landscape
maintenance requirements. All the turf in the
parking lot and entry way medians is now gone,
which has allowed the Grounds crew time to tackle
the very weedy areas. Many of these areas are now
mulched with wood chips, and as time and funding allow, mulch will be applied to more areas.
Since January 2012, the Division has been using organic fertilizers. Staff continue to see a difference in
the quality and health of the turf and the soil where they use fertilizer. Because there were a number of
complaints about the smell of the product at some of the health clinics the manufacturer remedied the
problem.
New equipment purchased
This fall the Division purchased a new Bobcat tractor that provides them with a smaller, more
maneuverable and versatile tractor than the much larger tractor they currently own. The new tractor is
small enough to pass through a 36” opening for work in the many playground areas maintained by the
Division throughout the County. It can be used to dig holes for trees, and it can grab and lift 1000 lbs. so
that staff can pull felled trees to the chipper. The tractor will enable staff to complete many projects more
efficiently and cost-effectively because manual labor costs will be reduced.
Turkeys at Hidden Pond Special District
Last year a new irrigation system and many new plants were installed in the frontage landscape at Hidden
Pond Rd. and Reliez Valley Rd. After a flock of turkeys began digging up plants and scattering mulch,
the Division experimented with two different scare tactics used in vineyards to chase away turkeys. One
is a kite that is shaped and colored to look like an osprey and is tethered to a flexible pole. It can be lifted
by even a gentle breeze. The other device is a bird scare windmill that combines sound and reflected light
to repel birds.
A year later, it appears that the scare kites have been effective in deterring the turkeys. Staff saw damage
abate and remain low after the kites and windmill were installed, but recently when the kites were
removed, staff found new turkey damage. The kites were removed because they had been shredded by a
year of wind, but the Division has ordered three new kites to install at the site.
Water use efficiency
The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) has a water budget program that can help customers use water
efficiently. A number of County properties in central and east County have been evaluated and have a
water budget developed by CCWD. If the County exceeds its water budget for a particular property,
CCWD sends a notice to the Grounds Division, which investigates the problem. Most often the problem
proves to be a break in the irrigation system that had gone undetected. Last year the Division received
four notices from CCWD, but this year it has not received any.
Pesticide use
2013 IPM Annual Report 16 November 22, 2013
Pesticide use by the Grounds Division remained the same as last year as the Division continues to try to
improve the condition of many of the County’s properties. For a number of years the lack of funding
made it impossible to properly manage weed problems around County buildings and in the Special
Districts the Division is responsible for. Weeds that are left unmanaged provide huge amounts of seed
that make the weed problem increasingly worse from year to year. While funding and labor remain below
adequate levels, the Division will probably continue at least this level of herbicide use because herbicide
applications are substantially cheaper than other management methods that require more labor time.
Disking or flail mowing on County parcels
This year the Division has hired a contractor to disc or flail mow empty parcels of land that the Division
is responsible for. The Grounds Manager is experimenting with an early season disking or mowing to
remove weed seed heads before they are mature in an effort to reduce the weed pressure on these parcels.
This year, a second disking or mowing was required to keep the vegetation at an acceptable height for the
Fire Marshal.
Grounds Division Challenges
Inadequate funding for landscape maintenance in the County
This year the Division was allowed to hire 4 permanent and 6 temporary workers, and now the Division
needs at least one more lead gardener because of the additional staff and the increased funding that is
providing more landscape maintenance hours at some buildings.
Inadequate funding to license all grounds staff
It would be ideal to have all members of the grounds crew licensed by the Department of Pesticide
Regulation; however, it would be extremely difficult to pay for the fees and their time to attend
continuing education classes to maintain their licenses. Currently, staff who do apply herbicides and are
not licensed must apply herbicides under the supervision of one of the three licensed staff members.
Public Works Department Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division
IPM Program Highlights
The Division participated in various aspects of the work undertaken by the two subcommittees of the IPM
Advisory Committee and has agreed to the Committee’s recommendations to the Departments.
Staff participated in the annual habitat assessment refresher training
This year, 40 Public Works Maintenance crew members attended the annual refresher training in habitat
assessment for endangered and threatened species in order to comply with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA). The RMA stipulates that before
work can commence in an area, an assessment must be conducted to identify endangered species habitat.
This year crews that were trained to identify potential habitat spent a total of 404 hours performing habitat
assessments. As habitats are identified, they are reported to CDFW, which then provides County staff
with guidelines to move forward with work. These guidelines may include full time monitoring of the
jobsite by a licensed biologist.
Flood control vegetation and erosion management using California natives
The County Flood Control District will be partnering with Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit
organization promoting habitat restoration and stewardship, in a native planting experiment along Clayton
Valley Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study will involve three 20’ x 20’ test plots and
one control plot that will compare the survival of three different California natives: Santa Barbara sedge,
(Carex barbarae), field sedge (Carex praegracilis), and creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides) planted by
seed and by plugs. Planting will begin in December 2013. The photo below shows the results of a similar
study three years after planting.
2013 IPM Annual Report 17 November 22, 2013
These species spread from underground
rhizomes that anchor the soil and thus
provide erosion control. They are all
perennial species that stay green year
around and are resistant to fire. The
plants are compatible with flood control
objectives since they do not have woody
stems, and during flood events, they lie
down on the slope, thereby reducing
flow impedance. They are not sensitive
to broadleaf-specific herbicides, and
unlike non-native annuals, they provide
carbon sequestration and remove as
much as ½ ton of carbon per acre per
year.
Restoration Trust will monitor these plots for 5 years after the plantings to assess native plant survival,
their degree of competition with the non-native annual species, and the relative success of seeding versus
planting plugs.
Grazing as a vegetation management tool – lessons learned so far
In 2012, the Division used goats and/or sheep to abate weeds at 17 sites where the animals grazed a total
of about 96 acres. The total cost was approximately $107,000, with an average cost of $1,108 per acre.
The sites range
in size from 1
acre to 13 acres.
Using grazing
as a
management
tool is
complicated
and very
dependent on
site-specific
conditions.
Grazing is not
appropriate in all situations and could not, for instance, be used on the side of the road without
endangering both the animals and motorists. Many factors raise or lower the cost of grazing, including the
size of the parcel, whether the animals can easily enter the site, the amount of fencing necessary, how
many times the animals must be moved within the job site and the ease with which that can be done,
whether water is available or must be trucked in, and the season in which the animals are being used
(costs are lower when demand is lower, e.g, in winter). The average cost per acre for the grazing at these
17 sites was about 33% more than mowing, but the extra cost is justified at some locations for two
reasons, 1) presence of endangered species such as California red legged frog and 2) steep or rugged
terrain that poses a high probability of worker injury while abating weeds with machine or handheld
power tools.
Multi-year grazing study continues
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCD) conducted the second
year of a three year streambank vegetation management study comparing herbicide application with
grazing of sheep and/or goats. The study is examining the safety, costs, and efficacy of each method to
meet the District’s vegetation management goals for streambanks and floodplains of the District’s
engineered channels.
84 Lumber Ditch before goats
Comparison planting of creeping wild rye (background) and non-native
annuals on flood terrace in the east Delta, 3 years after planting
84 Lumber Ditch after goats
2013 IPM Annual Report 18 November 22, 2013
Although both sheep and goat grazing were effective in initially reducing vegetation to 4- 6” in height
along the flood plain and streambanks, the vegetation in the floodplain grew back over the summer. Since
this re-growth remained green throughout the summer, it did not pose a fire risk.
Water quality has not been degraded by either grazing or herbicide applications. Herbicide chemicals
were not detected in stream samples after application. Nutrients were not detected during grazing
treatments, and bacteria did not exceed water quality standards during or after grazing. Turbidity did not
exceed water quality standards during either grazing or herbicide application.
More erosion features occurred in the goat grazing test plots than in either the sheep plots or the herbicide
plots during the first year, perhaps because goats pull vegetation up from the ground, while sheep tend to
sheer the vegetation with their teeth. Vegetation has grown back on the bare ground.
The third and final stage of the study will be conducted in winter and spring of 2014. The final report will
be completed in January 2015.
Buffer zones for certain pesticides enjoined by the courts continue to be observed
Several lawsuits brought by environmental organizations against the EPA have been temporarily settled
by the delineation of buffer zones in and around habitat for a number of endangered or threatened species
in the Bay Area. The Department continues to work within the guidelines of the injunctions to assess
work sites and implement buffer zones before using any of the enjoined pesticides.
Roadside and Creeks Divisions Challenges
Cost implications of regulations
Compliance with RMA requirements has considerable cost implications. As mentioned above, work
within CDFW jurisdiction requires a habitat assessment prior to start of work so that endangered species
are not harmed. Crews identified endangered species at a couple of job sites and consultation with CDFW
resulted in using alternative work methods that were more costly.
Cost implications of various management techniques
In FY 12-13, 46% of the Division’s expenditures on vegetation management was spent on non-chemical
treatment methods, while the number of acres treated non-chemically was 14% of the total acres treated
(see the chart below for details).
Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Vegetation Management Method
Acres
Treated
% of Total
Acres
Treated
Total Cost
for all acres
treated Cost/Acre
% of Total
Cost for
all acres
treated
Weed Spray - Roads 1819 69.0%$257,599 $142 38.7%
Right of Way Mowing 255 9.7%$189,891 $745 28.6%
Weed Spray - Flood Control Access Roads 228 8.7%$28,257 $124 4.2%
Weed Spray - Creeks 172 6.5%$28,324 $165 4.3%
Grazing 96 3.6%$106,335 $1,108 16.0%
Weed Spray - Aquatic Applications 59 2.2%$42,831 $726 6.4%
Mulching 5.7 0.2%$11,637 $2,042 1.8%
Totals 2634.7 $664,874
NOTE: The cost figures above for each method include labor, materials, equipment cost, contract costs (for grazing),
and overhead, which includes training, permit costs, habitat assessment costs, and permit costs. Licensing costs for
staff members are paid by the individual and not by the County. The cost of the Vegetation Management Supervisor
when he supervises work is not included in any of the figures, but is comparable among the various methods.
With a limited budget, staff, and equipment, the Division must make strategic decisions about where to
deploy their resources in order to meet their mandates of managing vegetation for fire and flood
prevention and road safety. The Division is managing weeds in a biological system and factors such as
2013 IPM Annual Report 19 November 22, 2013
weather, weed growth patterns, timing for optimum weed susceptibility to the treatment method, and
threatened and endangered species issues must also be factored into management decisions. The pie
charts below further illustrate the cost of various management techniques and show how the Division has
allocated resources.
Note: The legend to the right of each pie chart identifies slices starting from 12 o’clock and continuing clockwise.
Weather
Mowing, as well as the application of herbicides, to manage weeds is highly dependent upon weather
conditions. Weather can affect when herbicides can or must be applied and can also affect when mowing
can or should occur. Weather can substantially alter the size of the weed load or its distribution over time.
The Department has a limited capacity to use mowing because of a number of factors including vacancies
in vegetation management staff, the Department’s limited budget for weed abatement, and the limited
number of tractor mowers (two). The Department faces a continued challenge of balancing the use of
herbicides to control weed growth with the Department’s capacity to mow or to graze with goats or sheep
within the confines of the budget and timeline to prevent fires.
Using mowers during hot, dry weather also poses a hazard of its own: sparks caused by the metal mower
blades striking rocks or metal debris can ignite tinder-dry grass. During one mowing operation this year,
the mower blades started a grass fire that quickly got away from the crew and required professional fire
fighters to extinguish the resulting 240 acre blaze. The crew has begun taking a spray truck with plain
water in the tank to put out small grass fires more effectively.
Staffing
The Vegetation Management crew is still understaffed with only 4 personnel as compared to a staff of 6
four years ago.
69.0%
9.7%
8.7%
6.5%
3.6%
2.2%
0.2%
FY12-13 Vegetation Management
Methods--Percentage by Acres Treated
Weed Spray -
Roads
Right of Way
Mowing
Weed Spray -
Access Roads
Weed Spray -
Creeks
Grazing
Weed Spray -
Aquatic
Applications
Mulching
$142
$745 $124
$165
$1,108
$726
$2,042
FY12-13 Vegetation Management
Costs / Acre
Weed Spray -
Roads
Right of Way
Mowing
Weed Spray -
Access Roads
Weed Spray -
Creeks
Grazing
Weed Spray -
Aquatic
Applications
Mulching
2013 IPM Annual Report 20 November 22, 2013
PESTICIDE USE BY THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Starting in FY 00-01, the IPM Task Force annually reported pesticide use data to the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee for the County departments involved in pest management. The IPM Coordinator has
continued this task. Below is a bar chart of pesticide use over the last 5 years. For more detailed pesticide use
data, see Attachment D.
FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13
Facilities 23 17 5 9 16
PW Special Dist. 11 10 45 7 7
Grounds 240 46 113 378 377
Agriculture 465 687 795 539 529
Public Works 10,367 8,165 6,439 5,713 6,565
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient CCC Operations Pesticide Use by Program
2013 IPM Annual Report 21 November 22, 2013
Increase in Pesticide Use by the Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division
In FY 12-13 the Division’s pesticide use increased by 852 pounds of active ingredient. There are at least two
reasons for this, 1) the Division’s staffing has increased and allowed them to perform more weed abatement in the
County’s flood control channels and 2) because of weather and timing factors, the Division applied fewer pounds
of pre-emergent herbicides (herbicides that prevent weed seeds from germinating). This necessitated the use of
more pounds of post-emergent herbicides (herbicides that kill growing weeds) because post emergent herbicides
must often be applied two or more times to achieve the same degree of control as with pre-emergent herbicides.
Concern about “Bad Actor” Pesticides
There has been concern among members of the public and within the County about the use of “Bad Actor”
pesticides by County departments. “Bad Actor” is a term coined by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and
Californians for Pesticide Reform to identify a “most toxic” set of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of
the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase inhibitors,
known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity.
Parents for a Safer Environment has requested that additional pesticides to be reported as “Bad Actors”, but after
studying this request and consulting Dr. Susan Kegley, who was instrumental in developing the PAN pesticide
database, the IPM Advisory Committee decided that the County will report as “Bad Actor” pesticides only those
that are designated as such in the PAN database.
The County’s use of these particular pesticides has decreased dramatically since FY 00-01 as shown in the chart
below. Of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides used by the County since 2000, 22 have been phased out and one more is
in the process of being phased out. In addition, two other pesticides that are not designated as “Bad Actors” by the
Pesticide Action Network are being phased out because the County feels they are particularly problematic.
FY 00-
01
FY 04-
05
FY 07-
08
FY 08-
09
FY 09-
10
FY 10-
11
FY 11-
12
FY 12-
13
Total Use 18,939 14,396 12,669 11,106 8,925 7,397 6,646 7,495
Total Bad Actors 6,546 3,183 3,494 2,899 2,556 1,596 1,126 1,353
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient CCC Operations Total Pesticide Use and 'Bad Actor' Use
2013 IPM Annual Report 22 November 22, 2013
Rodenticide Use
The Department of Agriculture uses rodenticide for ground squirrels whose burrowing threatens critical
infrastructure in the County such as roads, levees, earthen dams, and railroad embankments. Special Districts uses
rodenticides for gophers, moles, and voles at Livorna Park and around the playing field at Alamo School.
“First generation” vs. “second generation” anticoagulant rodenticides
Anticoagulants prevent blood from clotting and cause death by internal bleeding. In small doses they are used
therapeutically in humans for a number of heart ailments. Vitamin K1 is the antidote for anticoagulant poisoning,
and is readily available. (There are some types of rodenticides for which there is no antidote.)
When rodenticides are necessary, the County uses first generation anticoagulant baits. First generation
anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill. This is different from second
generation anticoagulants that are far more toxic and can kill within days of a single feeding if enough bait is
ingested.
Second generation anticoagulants pose a greater risk to animals that eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent continues
to feed on the single-dose anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose at the first meal, it may build up more than a
lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the animal dies. Residues of second generation
anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks. Because rodents poisoned by second generation
anticoagulants can carry a heavier load of more toxic poison that persists in their bodies for a long period of time,
the risk of death is increased for a predator that eats rodents poisoned by second generation anticoagulants.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation understands the hazards of second generation anticoagulants
and is moving to restrict their use.
The first generation materials are cleared much more rapidly from animal tissues and have a much reduced
potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation materials. However, the first generation
anticoagulants can also kill animals that eat poisoned rodents.
The Agriculture Department mitigates the risk of secondary poisoning by performing carcass surveys in all areas
treated with anticoagulants whether or not it is required by endangered species restrictions.
Below, rodenticide use has been plotted separately from other pesticides used by the County.
* The Agriculture Department uses primarily diphacinone treated grain bait, but also some gas cartridges as fumigation agents.
More than 99.9% of the rodenticide used by Special Districts is aluminum phosphide, which is a fumigant and not an anticoagulant
rodenticide. Each year, only a few hundredths of an ounce of anticoagulant rodenticide active ingredient is used by Special Districts.
FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13
Agriculture Dept. 3 3 3 4 3
PW Special Dist. 11 9 12 7 7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 Lbs. of Active Ingredient Rodenticide* Use by County Operations
2013 IPM Annual Report 23 November 22, 2013
Trends in Pesticide Use
A change in pesticide use from one year to the next does not necessarily indicate a long-term trend. Long-term
trends are more meaningful than short-term changes. It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase
and decrease depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new and perhaps difficult to control
pests, the use of new products that contain small percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are
less hazardous but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects to a department’s
workload, and cuts to budgets or staff that make it difficult or impossible to use alternate methods of control.
The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution reduction programs. Early reductions
are dramatic during the period when changes that are easy to make are accomplished. When this “low-hanging
fruit” has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where additional changes can be
made. The County is entering this period, and if further reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require
time for focused study and additional funding for implementation.
2013 IPM Annual Report 24 November 22, 2013
DEPARTMENTAL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR 2014
Agriculture Department Priorities for 2014
Continue the County’s highly effective Noxious Weed Program
Noxious, invasive weeds cost Californians at least $82 million per year in monitoring, control, and
outreach. Every year, invasive weeds ruin thousands of acres for recreation and agriculture and for native
California plant and animal habitat. Some noxious weeds increase the fuel load in urban and rural areas,
and some suck up prodigious amounts of scarce water. Early detection and control of these weeds greatly
reduces their impact and the cost to manage them.
Contra Costa’s highly effective Noxious Weed Program has been in operation for 34 years. A major
objective of the Agriculture Department is to continue to monitor and treat targeted noxious weeds on all
historic sites before the weeds set seed. Preventing seed set is the most important factor in reducing weed
populations and in depleting existing seed banks. By doing this, the hours of labor needed and amounts of
herbicides applied in successive years to a particular area will be reduced. These reductions allow the
department to add previously untreated sites to the noxious weed program bringing local eradication of
the targeted weed species one year closer.
Continue work on the pesticide screening process
The Department will work with the IPM Coordinator to screen all pesticides used by the Department.
Continue attending IPM training and sharing the information with other Departments
The Agriculture Department will continue to have staff attend outside IPM seminars and training sessions
given on a variety of pest management issues. The Department will develop a training database so that
personnel who return from IPM seminars and workshops can store training and outreach materials in a
way that will be easily accessible to other County staff members. In addition, each staff person involved
with pest management attends annual pesticide safety training.
Public Works Department Priorities for 2014
Facilities Division
Continue working to fix structural deficiencies in County buildings
Continue monitoring the bed bug situation in County buildings and providing awareness training if
necessary
Grounds Division
Continue diverting as much green waste as possible from the landfill by chipping prunings and using the
material in place
Continue to use woodchip mulch from tree companies as a weed suppressant wherever possible
Continue to hand weed wherever and whenever possible; using mulch facilitates hand weeding
Continue to educate the public to help them raise their tolerance of weeds
Continue to conserve water as much as possible
Continue to raise the level of service on County property
2013 IPM Annual Report 25 November 22, 2013
Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division
Explore options to reduce grazing cost
The Department will work with grazing contractors to develop a procedure to use goats and/or sheep
during off peak seasons at a reduced cost in areas such as detention basins, flood control channels, and
other secure locations.
Continue to collect data from the two spray trucks equipped with data collectors and analyze data to
ensure accuracy and usability of information.
Continue grazing study
The County Watershed group will continue a multi-year study of grazing and chemical weed control
methods.
Continue to refine IPM practices
The Vegetation Manager will continue to refine the Department’s IPM practices and investigate new
methods of weed control. With the successful grazing by goats and sheep along Walnut Creek, the
Vegetation Manager will explore the feasibility of reseeding with a native rye grass in an effort to choke
out fire prone weeds such as wild oats.
2013 IPM Annual Report 26 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 27 November 22, 2013
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Pest Management Decision Making Documents Page 29
Attachment B. IPM Priority Assessment Tool Page 65
Attachment C. Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Progam Summary See separate PDF
Attachment D. Contra Costa County Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet Page 71
Also see separate PDF for spreadsheet
2013 IPM Annual Report 28 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 29 November 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT A.
Pest Management Decision Making Documents
Agriculture Department—Page 31
o Perennial pepperweed near a remnant population of Contra Costa goldfields
o Ground squirrels on critical infrastructure
Facilities Division—Page 45
o Rats and mice in and around County buildings
Grounds Division—Page 51
o Weeds on Camino Tassajara medians
Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division—Page 59
o Weeds on flood control channels
2013 IPM Annual Report 30 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 31 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION TREE for WEED MANAGEMENT
Date: 5/31/13
Department: Agriculture
Location: N/S Highway 4 and extending through the town of Rodeo
Situation: A perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) infestation is threatening the highly
endangered Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugans) at a remnant population site along
Hwy 4 near the I-80 interchange. The infestation also threatens the riparian corridor, upland
range and open areas nearby.
What are the
management goals for
the site or weed?
To control and ultimately eradicate the sporadic perennial pepperweed infestation that has started in this area.
Was the site monitored
and what was found?
Yes, and the following isolated infestations were found:
1. in the immediate vicinity of the CC goldfields population
2. east of the CC goldfields population on a Hwy 4 right-of-way across from Franklin Canyon Golf Course
3. one area near Rodeo Creek in the populated area of the town of Rodeo
4. in a Caltrans area near a pond at Willow Ave and Hwy 4
5. between the eastbound and westbound lanes of Hwy 4 at and near the Oak Harbor Freight Co. office
Note: The infestation on the Caltrans right-of-way across from Franklin Canyon Golf Course has been treated
for the last 2 years by our Department. The Oak Harbor Freight infestation was treated by our Department for
the first time last year.
Weeds have been
identified as the
following:
Weed: Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)
Family: Brassicaceae
Habitat: Many different areas and habitats, including wetlands, riparian areas, meadows, vernal pools, salt
marshes, flood plains, sand dunes, roadsides, pasture land, irrigation ditches, ornamental plantings, and
agronomic crops.
Origin: Native to Eurasia
Weedy characteristics: Prolific seeder; lab tests suggest that seeds germinate readily with fluctuating
temperatures and adequate moisture; fortunately seeds do not appear to remain viable in the soil for extended
periods. It reproduces primarily vegetatively from roots and root fragments. Large root fragments can survive
desiccation on the soil surface for extended periods, and fragments as small as ½ to 1 inch long and 2 to 8 mm
in diameter can develop into new plants. Rhizomes extend to a depth of up to eight feet. Flooding, soil
movement and human and animal activities disperse seeds and root fragments.
Are populations high
enough to require
control?
Explain
Yes, our goal is eradication and therefore, the tolerance level is zero. It is important to eradicate the infestations
in this area while they are still small and relatively easy to treat in order to protect the isolated population of the
highly endangered Contra Costa goldfields.
Perennial pepperweed can rapidly form dense stands that displace desirable vegetation and wildlife. It spreads
easily and once established it is persistent and difficult to control. The plant extracts salts from deep in the soil
and when the plant dies, deposits the salts on the surface of the soil thus inhibiting the germination and gr owth of
other species that are sensitive to salinity.
Is this a sensitive site? Does this include highly sensitive areas? Yes
2013 IPM Annual Report 32 November 22, 2013
These areas are in and near critical habitat for CC goldfields. Part of the area is
within California red-legged frog listed geographic area. Within this area, and with
the noxious weed program partial exemption, 2,4-D, glyphosate and imazapyr use
is not allowed within 20’ of a water feature.
Infestation is also near habitat for the Alameda whipsnake and California tiger
salamander.
Is this area part of any of the court-ordered endangered species injunction?
The area enjoined for a number of pesticides for the California red-legged frog and
the Alameda whipsnake is south and east of the Franklin Canyon Golf Course and
Hwy 4.
No
Is this a known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened
species?
See above.
Yes
Is it on or near an area where people walk or children play? No
Is it near a drinking water reservoir? No
Is it near a creek or flood control channel?
Near Rodeo Creek.
Yes
Is it near crops? No
Is it near desirable trees or landscaping?
There are trees along the creek, but no landscaping anywhere near.
Yes
Is the soil highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? Probably, along the creek.
Is the ground water near the surface? Unknown, but likely near
the creek.
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Mulching, weed barrier: Not effective; not practical in open fields or on creek banks
Planting Desirable Species: Establishing desirable vegetation in disturbed areas can suppress perennial
pepperweed and slow reinvasion after control, but the County has no control over the areas in question.
Burning: Not effective at reducing stands, but it is helpful at removing accumulated thatch. Not practical in these
areas and County has no control over infested sites.
CONCLUSIONS: None of these strategies is effective and/or practical.
Which
physical/mechanical
controls were
considered?
Hand pulling: Seedlings are easily controlled by hand, but seedlings are rarely encountered. Established plants
cannot be controlled this way because shoots quickly resprout from vast root reserves. Hand pulling exacerbates
the problem plus the area is too large for hand pulling.
Mowing/tilling by machine: Tilling typically increases the infestation by spreading root fragments. Mowing
stimulates perennial pepperweed to resprout and produce new growth. Mowing can be helpful for removing
thatch created by accumulated old stems. This can help prevent shading of desirable species. Combining
mowing with herbicides has been shown to be effective. For best results, plants should be mown at the bolting or
flower bud stage and herbicides applied to the resprouting shoots once they have reached the flower bud stage.
Any mowing is difficult in wild land areas and depending on the time of year can cause a fire. There also exists
increased hazard of mechanical and other injury to the operator.
Grazing: Cattle, sheep and goats will graze this weed, especially rosettes in early spring. When stands are
dense, it becomes difficult for most animals to graze. Sheep and goats permanently maintained in a pasture
suppress this weed’s growth, but once animals are removed, plants quickly resprout. This technique could not be
used near the Contra Costa goldfields. This technique could be used in some areas as a management tool;
however, it is not compatible with the eradication goal of perennial pepperweed.
CONCLUSIONS: None of these strategies is effective or practical for our purposes.
Which biological
controls were
considered?
Biological controls available: Biological controls are being evaluated for use in the U.S., but currently none are
available. Finding biological control agents for perennial pepperweed is complicated by the fact that this weed is
in the same family as broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and many other food plants. Researchers must take great
care not to introduce a pest on food plants. Department staff have observed a powdery mildew and a native
2013 IPM Annual Report 33 November 22, 2013
dodder that attack perennial pepperweed and appear to weaken the plants somewhat, though not to the extent
that either would be an effective biocontrol agent.
CONCLUSIONS: No effective biological controls are available.
Which chemical
controls were
considered?
Pre-emergent (residual) herbicide? Yes
Post emergent (contact) herbicide? Yes
Possible herbicide choices:
2,4-D—We have not tried this and do not want to because there are safer and more effective alternatives.
Glyphosate—Will not kill seeds or inhibit germination the following season. It is not selective and therefore
kills grasses and other plants. This opens the treated area to other weeds. Our trials have shown it to have
limited effectiveness.
Rate: 2 to 4 qt. product (Roundup ProMax)/acre; spot treatment: 2% product v/v
Timing: Postemergence from seedling to bloom; most effective at flower bud or flowering. It is
sometimes used in conjunction with mowing or a mowing/wiping technique.
Enjoined for endangered species? Yes
Imazapyr—It is non-selective, has long soil residual activity, and leaves more bare ground than other
treatments, even a year after application. Our trials have shown it to be very effective. However, we feel
there is a more environmentally friendly treatment options (chlosulfuron).
Rate: 1 to 2 qt. product/acre
Timing: Postemergence from seedling to bloom; most effective from flower bud to flowering
Enjoined for endangered species? Yes
Triclopyr—Our trials have shown limited effectiveness. The product has a higher toxicity “Warning” label. It
has a greater potential to cause offsite drift problems.
Chlorsulfuron—Has long soil residual activity and is generally safe on grasses. U.C Extension research in
Southern California has shown Telar to be the most effective herbicide for perennial pepperweed. Our trials
have shown it to be very effective as well. Telar has a “Caution” label.
Rate: 1 to 2.6 oz. product/acre
Timing: Postemergence from seedling to flowering. Most effective at flower bud or flowering.
Enjoined for endangered species? No
CONCLUSIONS: We feel that chlorsulfuron (Telar) is the safest effective material. It is also cost effective.
It does not injure grasses and therefore allows us to maintain the competitive vegetation in the area and
to prevent unsightly bare patches and browned-out areas around the treated weeds.
Our ideal treatment time is from late May to early June when plants are beginning to flower, though Telar
can be used effectively even into the fall. Perennial pepperweed plants are also easier to see when they
are in flower.
Which herbicide
application methods are
available for this
chemical?
Methods available: Broadcast or spot spray (directed spray)
CONCLUSIONS: We will use a directed spray to visible perennial pepperweed plants and the immediate
vicinity. Chlorsulfuron that falls on the ground near the weeds will prevent perennial pepperweed seeds
from germinating. Our work will mostly be done with a backpack sprayer, but depending on the density
of the weed patches, we may need to use a hose pulled from a truck. We consider both of these methods
spot treatments.
What factors were
considered in choosing
the herbicide
application method?
The size of the noxious weed infestations and their location are the most important factors in considering the
application method. We also consider safety to the applicator, the environment, and nontarget species;
endangered species considerations; the effectiveness of the method; and the cost to the Department.
2013 IPM Annual Report 34 November 22, 2013
What weather concerns
must be checked prior
to application?
Wind is the primary concern. It can carry the herbicide off-site to non-target or sensitive areas. The Contra Costa
goldfields are far enough away from the perennial pepper weed populations that the herbicide will not affect them
under our normal treatment protocol. If any perennial pepperweed is found within the goldfield site or close
enough to present a concern, the Department will consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Maps See attachment for a map of habitat for the Contra Costa goldfields and nearby habitat for the Alameda
whipsnake and the California red-legged frog.
See attachment for a map of the pesticide use limitation area for the Alameda whipsnake under the endangered
species injunction.
References DiTomasso, Joseph M., et al. 2013. Weed control in Natural Areas in the Western United States
Pest Notes. 2004. Perennial Pepperweed, Pub 74124. UC Statewide IPM Program, UC Davis
Cal IPC Perennial pepperweed plant profile. http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/Lepidium_latifolium.php. Web
page accessed 5/15/13.
2013 IPM Annual Report 35 November 22, 2013
Pesticide Profile for: Telar DF
Active Ingredient Chlorsulfuron (75% active ingredient in formulated product Telar DF)
Injunction
Restrictions
This chemical is not part of any of the court injunctions.
Signal Word Caution (the lowest hazard level in EPA’s labeling system)
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer No evidence of human carcinogenicity
Prop 65 Yes, listed for developmental, female.
Note that developmental toxicity was seen at concentrations above the maternally toxic doses. (from Thurston Co.,
WA review of chlorsulfuron)
Known Groundwater
contaminant
No
Mammalian Hazard Acute oral LD50 for formulated product (75% chlorsulfuron) is 2493 mg/kg to 4147 mg/kg (practically non-toxic).
“No observable effect levels of 100 ppm in the diet of rats (3 months) and 2500 ppm in the diets of mice (3 months)
and dog (6 months). No observable effect levels of 100 ppm in the diet of rats for 2 years and 500 ppm in the diet
of mice for 2 years.” (from Cornell Chlorsulfuron – Herbicide Profile 3/85)
The no observable effect level of 100 ppm in the diet of a rat is equivalent to ¼ oz. of chlorsulfuron per day in the
diet of a 160 lb. human.
Bird Hazard “Chlorsulfuron is practically non-toxic to birds and mammals on an acute exposure basis and is also practically
non-toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis. (from EPA R.E.D. Facts for Chlorsulfuron May 30, 2005)
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
“Chlorsulfuron is practically non-toxic to both freshwater and estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis and
is slightly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates.” (from EPA R.E.D. Facts for Chlorsulfuron May 30, 2005)
Bee Hazard “Chlorsulfuron is also practically non-toxic to honeybees on an acute contact basis.” (from EPA R.E.D. Facts for
Chlorsulfuron May 30, 2005)
Persistence “Degradation by hydrolysis appears to be the most significant mechanism for degradation of chlorsuolfuron, but is
only significant in acidic environments (32 day half-life at pH = 5); it is stable to hydrolysis at neutral to high pH.
Degradation half-lives in soil environments range from 14 to 320 days. (from EPA R.E.D. Facts for Chlorsulfuron
May 30, 2005)
Under growing season conditions, the half-life is 4-6 weeks. (from Cornell Chlorsulfuron – Herbicide Profile 3/85)
“Terrestrial Field Test Half-life (days) = 36” (from Thurston Co., WA review of chlorsulfuron)
Soil Mobility “Chlorsulfuron is likely to be persistent and highly mobile in the environment. It may be transported to nontarget
areas by runoff and/or spray drift.” (from EPA R.E.D. Facts for Chlorsulfuron May 30, 2005)
Use in County by the
Agriculture Dept.
Noxious weeds, particularly perennial pepperweed
Method of Application Spot treatment of individual plants or groups of plants with a backpack sprayer or a hose pulled from a truck.
Cautions Do not use on irrigation canal banks due to sensitivity of crops.
Normal applicator precautions include wearing gloves and eye protection and avoiding direct skin contact.
Rate Used in Co. Up to 3 ounces per net acre treated. (1/4 ounce per 3 gallon backpack)
Sources Label, MSDS, EPA registration and re-registration documents, carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, National Toxicology Program, Prop. 65, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Oregon State University Pesticide
Properties Database, National Pesticide Information Center (Oregon State), Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews,
European Union, University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 36 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 37 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION TREE for GROUND SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT
Date: 7/29/201
Department: Agriculture
Location: County wide
Situation: Ground squirrel management to protect critical infrastructure and human health
What are the
management goals for
the sites?
Maintain a squirrel-free buffer area around critical infrastructure (levees, earthen dams, canals, road ways, train
berms, bridge abutments); protect children from rattlesnakes attracted to ground squirrels living near a
community pool and playground in one homeowners’ association; protect foundations and retaining walls from
being undermined by ground squirrel burrowing at or near homes adjacent to open space
Who has jurisdiction
over the areas in
question?
The Department has no jurisdiction over any of the areas treated. We are contracted by a number of entities to
perform ground squirrel management on land under their jurisdiction: CCC Public Works Department, CC Water
District, the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, the BNSF Railroad, Central and Ironhouse
Sanitation Districts, CalTrans, the City of Concord, and a homeowners’ association.
How often are sites
monitored?
Each year the sites are monitored for activity prior to treatment.
The problem species
has been identified as
the following:
Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi)
California ground squirrels are known to be carriers of bubonic plague, tularemia and many other transmissible
diseases. Burrowing by ground squirrels can be very destructive causing severe erosion and loss of structural
integrity. Ground squirrels are a problem in levees, in flood control facilities and canals, in earthen dams, on
roads, on railroad berms, around foundations and retaining walls, and in landscaping where they chew on
irrigation lines.
What is the tolerance
level for this species?
Tolerance level: any activity within the desired buffer zone (approximately 100 linear ft.) justifies treatment.
Ground squirrels within this area have the potential to cause damage by burrowing (or presenting the
disease/rattlesnake threat).
The Army Corps of Engineers regularly inspects Contra Costa levees, and they do not want the levee system
compromised by ground squirrel burrowing. Burrows can destroy the levee system and can also create habitat
for burrowing owls. When protected species are living in burrows on the levees, the Public Works Department
cannot perform maintenance or other work on the levees. If the County does not manage ground squirrel
burrowing on the levees, the Corps could view this as lack of due diligence on the part of the County and could
decertify the levee system. Decertification of a flood control facility results in the denial of emergency funds to
the County in the event of a serious flood. The County would have to provide all emergency management funds
alone.
The Bureau of Reclamation inspects Contra Costa Water District canals and requires the District to manage
squirrels whose burrowing can compromise the earthen canal embankments and create pathways for water
leakage that can undermine the structural integrity of the canals.
Ground squirrel burrowing is the biggest threat to California levees. The burrow of one ground squirrel can be
long enough to perforate a levee. Shorter burrows may be close enough to each other to perforate a levee. Many
burrows in close proximity can create voids that are prone to collapse. High water can go into burrows and
compromise the structure of the levee. Even one colony of ground squirrels can cause considerable damage.
The longer a ground squirrel population inhabits a levee, the more likely the burrows are to be extended.
Research has shown that burrows are shorter where squirrels are regularly controlled. Squirrel populations on
levees that persist at high densities over time are more likely to make longer and more interconnected burrows.
This same burrowing and resulting pathways for water erosion can cause damage to or sudden failure of
roadsides and other structures.
Are these sensitive
sites?
Are any of the sites part of any of the court-ordered injunctions regarding
threatened and endangered species?
Yes
2013 IPM Annual Report 38 November 22, 2013
a) There is San Joaquin kit fox habitat along Vasco Road and some other,
mostly East County, roads, but there are no known active dens (from our
observation and observations of others) in the areas where we bait for
ground squirrels. Restrictions prohibit use of aluminum phosphide,
chlorophacinone, diphacinone, gas cartridges (and several rodenticides
not used by the Department) within 700’ of known San Joaquin kit fox
dens. The Endangered Species Act requires prebaiting and carcass
survey in habitat areas.
b) Alameda whipsnake habitat is near some areas that are treated. Use of
diphacinone and gas cartridges is prohibited within 100’ of coastal sage
and northern coastal sage flora in these areas.
c) California tiger salamander habitat is near some areas that are treated.
Use of diphacinone or gas cartridges are prohibited within 200’ of certain
water features in these areas, as listed in the injunction.
d) California red-legged frog habitat is near some treated areas. Use of gas
cartridges is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act within 500’ of
certain water features in these areas.
Are there other species to be aware of?
a) Burrowing owls live in abandoned ground squirrel burrows. These owls
are predominantly, but not exclusively, in East County. Gas cartridges
must be used only in active ground squirrel burrows; Conibear traps
should only be used in active burrows.
Is there known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species at any
of the sites?
See above.
Yes
Are any of the sites in or near an area where people walk or children play?
The area adjacent to the EBRPD’s trail along Marsh Creek is treated and posted.
The Contra Costa Fair Grounds has problems with ground squirrels. Our
department has treated there in the past but not in the last 4-5 years. We may be
asked to treat again if the problem becomes serious enough.
Yes
Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir?
Yes, the earthen dam sides (the sides away from the water) of Mallard reservoir
and CC Water District canal embankments are treated.
Yes
Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? Yes
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Burrow destruction: Ground squirrels work hard on their burrows and do not readily give them up. They
continue to improve their burrows through multiple years and generations, creating complex systems that can be
anywhere from 3 to 135 feet long and 2 to 4 feet deep. It has been observed that when burrows are abandoned,
new squirrels will reinfest the area and occupy the old burrows. Destroying the burrows can slow or prevent the
reinfestation of ground squirrels.
Burrow destruction can be accomplished by deep ripping of the soil. Some burrows can be destroyed or partially
destroyed as a result of the explosion that occurs when using the O2 plus propane treatment method.
In an unpublished study conducted at UC Davis, it was found that of various methods of preventing reinfestation,
ripping the burrows to a depth of 18 inches was a relatively effective method for reducing reinvasion into old
burrows.
Burrow destruction by either method will kill any other species (including rare and endangered species such as
the burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and Alameda
whipsnake) living in the burrows and/or will destroy potential habitat for them.
Planting desirable species: Research has indicated that tree cover and leaf litter have a negative influence on
probability of the occurrence of ground squirrel burrows on levees, and that the effect was significant on both the
land side and the water side of the levee. This probably is the result of tall woody vegetation obscuring the view
of the sky and hence of raptors that might prey on the squirrels.
CONCLUSIONS: We do not use burrow destruction because it is impractical in the areas the Department
treats. There is also the danger of killing or displacing rare and endangered species. Burrow destruction
2013 IPM Annual Report 39 November 22, 2013
may damage the infrastructure the Department is trying to protect. If the area is preferred habitat,
ground squirrels would return and dig new burrow systems.
Revegetation is not compatible with the program due to expense. Also, at present, the Army Corps of
Engineers does not allow trees on levees, but the research may have implications for management in the
future.
Which physical controls
were considered?
Shooting: Shooting controls squirrels in small numbers. Squirrels often come to recognize this activity and
become gun shy. They may learn to retreat to their burrows any time a vehicle drives into the area or they hear
a gunshot. There are safety concerns, and this is a time-intensive method.
Live Trapping: Trapping can be done anytime squirrels are present. Most traps require the use of bait, which
may be of limited effect during certain times of the year. Bait must be at least as appetizing as what the squirrels
are currently feeding on. Best overall results come from trapping squirrels just before they have their young,
although trapping anytime squirrels are active can be effective. Trappers with SWAT Pest Control in Santa Clara
County have found that July, August, and September are best for trapping ground squirrels. They find it very
difficult to entice squirrels into traps in the spring because of the abundant green vegetation, which the squirrels
prefer.
Live trapping requires a method of euthanization, since it is illegal to relocate trapped squirrels. Handling the
traps prior to euthanization can expose staff to fleas and ticks living on the animals.
Our in-house trial of live trapping showed this method to be very expensive and time consuming. The
Department of Fish and Wildlife mandates that traps be checked and animals removed at least once a day,
which was the protocol we followed. UC recommends checking and removing squirrels twice a day, which would
greatly increase the cost.
Besides cost, we found a number of other problems with live trapping in the 2012 experimental study that our
department performed:
Squirrels fought inside the traps and were bloodied and wounded by these encounters.
Four squirrels were found dead in the traps probably from either fighting or heat stress.
Anxious squirrels gnawed on the bars of the trap cutting their mouths.
The traps consistently needed maintenance and modification in order to attract squirrels. At the end of
the study, the traps had to be thoroughly cleaned because of the dried blood and powerful smell.
Although signs were posted warning the public to leave traps alone, two traps were found with their tops
open in what must have been an attempt by passersby to release the squirrels. This vandalism is
worrisome not only because it impeded the trapping, but also because it exposed the public to bites,
scratches, and zoonotic diseases. In addition, it is an indication that trapping would not be well-
accepted by the public and would result in complaints.
The week after the trapping trial, ground squirrels were back using the burrows in the buffer zone.
Costs: Our 2012 study showed that the cost for us to live trap ground squirrels along one linear mile of roadway
was $5,074 compared to $220 per linear mile for baiting.
For comparison purposes, quotes were obtained from commercial pest control operators that could treat using
non chemical live traps or other methods. The quotes ranged from $90 to $125/hr plus mileage for nonchemical
ground squirrel control using live traps or other methods. At 139 hours per linear mile for the five days of
trapping this would amount to $12,524 to $17,394 per linear mile plus mileage. We also received two quotes of
$20 and $25/ground squirrel captured. These quotes on the per squirrel basis convert to a per linear mile rate
of $13,360 and $16,700 respectively considering that the equivalent of 668 squirrels were captured per linear
mile in our trial.
From UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Best Management Practices for Ground Squirrels:
“Trapping is not the most effective method of control, mainly because of the high labor required to achieve
good results. But it may be an ideal method to use when other methods are not appropriate.”
Kill trapping: As with live trapping, kill trapping can be done any time of year. Box and tunnel traps are baited to
entice squirrels in, and Conibear traps are placed over the burrow entrance and the squirrel passes into the trap
on exiting the burrow. Kill traps are very strong and can injure fingers and hands.
CONCLUSIONS:
Shooting: We do not use this method. It is impractical on a cost basis and is not effective over large
areas. There are also safety concerns.
Live trapping: We do not currently use this method. Live trapping may be a viable option for small,
especially sensitive sites that require treatment, but over large areas (in 2012, the Department treated
925 linear miles of critical infrastructure buffer area), the high cost would not be a responsible use of the
2013 IPM Annual Report 40 November 22, 2013
public funds entrusted to our Department. The method was not found to be effective in the treatment
area due to the rapid reinfestation into the burrows by ground squirrels from the surrounding area. This
does not happen with baiting. There are also issues with humaneness of this approach and exposure to
the public.
Ventura County has stated that trapping would play a small role in their ground squirrel IPM plan
because of the extensive labor required.
Kill trapping: We do not use this method. With kill trapping, there is too much risk of capturing
nontarget animals, and kill traps present a danger to children or adults who might tamper with traps. It
would also be very costly.
Which biological
controls were
considered?
Biological controls available: There are a number of animals that prey on ground squirrels, including
rattlesnakes, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, red-tail hawks, red-shoulder hawks and golden eagles. Snakes
and bobcats are better than other predators at taking ground squirrels. According to SWAT Pest Control trapper
observations, hawks may not take many ground squirrels because the ground squirrels flick their tails to fool the
hawk and many times the bird gets just a piece of the tail. Most owls are not large enough to take ground
squirrels and their nocturnal hunting habits do not coincide with the diurnal activities of ground squirrels. The
great horned owl is the exception as it has been found to very occasionally take a ground squirrel.
Predators can prune the ground squirrel population, but they cannot provide the degree of control necessary in
the specific locations we are contracted to treat.
The Department continues to monitor the raptor perches that we erected in 3 areas in 2009, but we have not
found that they attract the raptors that could feed on ground squirrels in the numbers that would be required for
the degree of control necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no effective biological controls available.
Which chemical
controls were
considered?
Burrow fumigation methods:
Gas cartridge: The cartridge (made from sodium nitrate, charcoal, and cardboard) releases carbon monoxide
gas into the burrow system. This method is only effective when the soil moisture is high in either winter or
spring. Gas cartridges are more effective when used prior to breeding or emergence of young. The timing,
though, conflicts with other programs for which staff are needed such as the noxious weed program, the
pesticide use enforcement program and the pest exclusion program. There are endangered species restrictions
and concerns to consider prior to use.
Aluminum phosphide: Aluminum phosphide reacts with moisture in the soil and in the atmosphere to produce
phosphine gas. This fumigant is only effective when soil moisture is high and so has the sam e timing issues as
above. Aluminum phosphide is a restricted use material, and is a hazard to the applicator. We have
endangered species concerns and restrictions to consider prior to use.
CO and CO2: These fumigants require a CO or CO2 generating device, which is difficult to move from burrow to
burrow during treatment. These must be used when soil moisture is high, and they have the same timing issues
as above. Use of CO2 for ground squirrels is not registered through the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Explosive devices:
O2/propane explosive devices: This method is more destructive, poses hazards to the applicator from flying
debris, and would damage levees, berms and embankments. There is also the difficulty of getting the device to
the burrows.
Anticoagulant treated grain bait:
Diphacinone treated grain bait: Diphacinone is applied to oat kernels that are rolled and dyed blue to make
them less attractive to non-target species. Treated grain baits take advantage of the ground squirrel’s highly
developed seed foraging abilities.
Diphacinone is a first generation anticoagulant that prevents blood from clotting and causes death by internal
bleeding. First generation anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill. This is
different from second generation anticoagulants that are far more toxic and can kill within days of a single
feeding if enough bait is ingested.
Second generation anticoagulants pose a greater risk to animals that eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent
continues to feed on the single-dose anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose at the first meal, it may build up more
than a lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the animal dies. Residues of second
generation anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks, so a predator that eats many poisoned
2013 IPM Annual Report 41 November 22, 2013
rodents may build up a toxic dose over time. However, even the first generation anticoagulants may be
poisonous to animals that eat poisoned rodents. The first generation materials break down much more rapidly in
animal tissues and have a much reduced potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation
materials. To mitigate for this the Department performs carcass surveys in all areas treated whether or not it is
required by endangered species restrictions.
CONCLUSIONS:
Gas cartridges: The department uses these in some instances, but the cost is high, we have endangered
species restrictions to consider prior to use and staff is generally engaged in other program critical
activities in winter and spring when gas cartridges can be used effectively. The department does use
this method in certain instances in late winter/spring. Major considerations for use are sensitivity of the
site and available staff time. Our employees are specifically trained to distinguish the difference
between active and inactive ground squirrel burrows. Due to concerns over burrowing owls, we only
treat active burrows and will not use gas cartridges in sensitive areas of other endangered species that
may inhabit ground squirrel burrows.
We do not use other fumigation methods because they have the same limitations as gas cartridges. Gas
cartridges are much safer than aluminum phosphide. CO & CO2 are impractical due to the difficulty in
getting a CO or CO2 producing device to the burrows.
Diphacinone is our material of choice. It is both effective and is labeled “Caution” which is the least toxic
pesticide label category. In certain areas we have endangered species considerations/mitigations that
we follow.
Which application
methods are available
for this rodenticide?
Methods available:
Bait Station—.005% diphacinone is registered for use in bait stations (and for broadcast baiting small areas by
hand)
Broadcast—.01% diphacinone is registered for hand or mechanical broadcast baiting over larger areas
CONCLUSIONS:
Bait Station: We do use this method in a very few specific situations. In general, though, there are a
number of concerns with this method: bait can spill or be kicked out of bait stations; cattle can damage
stations resulting in spillage; children or adults may tamper with bait stations; dominant ground
squirrels may gorge on bait and prevent other squirrels from eating it and individual ground squirrels
consuming large quantities of bait increases the risk of higher exposure levels to non target predators;
much larger quantities of bait are used in bait stations as compared to broadcast treatment; rain
damaged or moldy bait must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Broadcast: This is generally our method of choice. It is the safest method for the environment and the
applicator.
The Department’s typical protocol for ground squirrel baiting is as follows:
1. Ground squirrel work is conducted in late June, after forage grasses have dried, to early October
depending on when fall rains begin.
2. On Friday, staff “prebait” by putting out untreated, clean rolled oats. This increases foraging
activity so that our treatment can be more highly focused, and we can use the least amount of
treated bait necessary.
3. On Monday, staff make the 1st application of treated bait along a 12 to 15 ft. swath around/along
the critical infrastructure to be protected. Applications are made only where ground squirrels
are observed actively taking the “prebait.”
Bait is spread at the labeled rate, which equates to 2-3 treated kernels per square foot. The oat
kernels have been rolled and dyed which makes them less attractive to nontarget animals.
Bait applications are made using a Hurd Spreader mounted on the back of a truck or an ATV.
Some smaller applications are made by hand spreading the bait. Two staff members ride in the
truck so that one person can focus on looking for squirrel activity and operating the spreader
while the other drives.
4. On Wednesday, staff broadcast the 2nd application of treated bait to the same 12 to15 ft. swath.
5. On Friday, staff perform a survey of the treated areas to remove any squirrels that may die above
ground. This reduces nontarget exposure potential. In 2012, on 925 linear miles of roadway, staff
found only 6 squirrel carcasses. In Ventura County’s 2007 Field Trial using broadcast baiting,
they found no above ground carcasses at any of their 3 test sites.
2013 IPM Annual Report 42 November 22, 2013
Any heavily infested areas with continued squirrel activity are treated a 3rd time.
What factors were
considered in choosing
the pesticide application
method?
Safety to the applicator, the environment, and nontarget species; endangered species considerations; the
effectiveness of the method; and the cost to the Department.
What weather concerns
must be checked prior
to application?
Gas cartridges: Dry weather and dry ground greatly decreases effectiveness. At the same time the potential of
starting a wildfire from this method increases.
Dipacinone: The main concerns are rain or heavy dew that will render broadcast bait ineffective and can cause
the bait in bait stations to mold.
References Salmon, T. & P. Newman. Date? Bait and bait application methods for ground squirrel control: reducing non-target hazards. UC Coop Ext.
Berentsen, AR & T. Salmon. 2001. The structure of California ground squirrel burrows: control implications. Transactions of the Western
Section of the Wildlife Society, 37:66-70.
Van Vuren, DH & M. Ordenana. 2012. Burrow dimension of ground squirrels. California Levee Vegetation Research Program, UC Davis.
Van Vuren, DH & M. Ordenana. 2011. Habitat associations of burrowing mammals along levees in the Sacramento Valley, CA. California
Levee Vegetation Research Program, UC Davis.
Marsh, RE. 1994. Current (1994) ground squirrel control practices in California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conf. 16:61-65, UC
Davis.
Stone, WB, JC okoniewski, & JR Stelelin. 2003. Anticoagulant rodenticides and raptors: recent findings from New York, 1998-2001.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 70:34-40
Rattner, BA, KE Horak, SE Warner, DD Day & JJ Johston. 2010. Comparative toxicity of diphacinone to northern bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus) and American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Poceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conf. pp 146-152, UC Davis.
Riley, SPD, C Bromley, RH Poppenga, FA Uzal, L Whited, RM Sauvajot. 2007. Anticoagulant exposure and notoedric mange in bobcats
and mountain lions in urban Southern California. J. of Wildlife Mgmt, 71(6):1874-1884.
Lima, LL & T Salmon. 2010. Assessing some potential environmental impacts from agricultural anticoagulant uses. Proceedings o f the
24th Vertebrate Pest Conf. pp. 199-203, UC Davis.
McMillin, S. (CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. Personal communication.
UCANR Ground squirrel best management practices. http://ucanr.edu/sites/Ground_Squirrel_BMP/. Webpage accessed 5/31/13.
Pest Notes. 2010. Ground squirrel, Pub 7438. UC Statewide IPM Program, UC Davis.
2013 IPM Annual Report 43 November 22, 2013
Pesticide Profile for: Diphacinone treated grain bait
Active Ingredient Diphacinone .01% or .005%
Injunction
Restrictions
This chemical is enjoined in particular locations for the following endangered species: Alameda whipsnake,
California tiger salamander, salt marsh harvest mouse, and San Joaquin kit fox.
Signal Word Caution (the lowest hazard level in EPA’s labeling system)
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
Yes - federally restricted (can only be used by, or under the direction of, licensed or certified applicators)
Cancer Not listed
Prop 65 Not listed
Known Groundwater
Contaminat
No
“Based on the available data, little if any contamination of surface and ground waters is expected for brodifacoum,
bromadiolone, chlorophacinone and diphacinone. These chemicals, although persistent, tend to be relatively
immobile in soil and fairly insoluble in water.” [from USEPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision Facts for Rodenticide
Cluster, July 1998]
Mammalian Hazard Highly toxic by ingestion with oral LD50 values for technical diphacinone of 0.3 to 7 mg/kg in rats, 3.0 to 7.5 mg/kg in
dogs. [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Bird Hazard “Diphacinone is slightly toxic to birds. The oral LD50 for diphacinone in mallard ducks is 3158 mg/kg, and in bobwhite
quail is 1630 mg/kg.” [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Secondary Poisoning “The Agency believes that there is a high risk of secondary poisoning, especially to mammals, from the use of these
rodenticides outdoors (i.e., “around” buildings) in rural and suburban areas. The available data indicate that
brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and 0.01% a.i. chlorophacinone and diphacinone baits may pose a secondary hazard
to avian and/or mammalian predators that feed on poisoned rodents. Brodifacoum and bromadiolone likely pose
the greatest secondary risks, because they are more acutely toxic, especially to birds, more persistent in animal
tissues, and can be lethal in a single feeding. In contrast, chlorophacinone and diphacinone tend to be less toxic to
birds, less persistent in the tissues of primary consumers, and must be eaten over a period of several days to cause
mortality. Therefore, a predator feeding only once on a poisoned carcass may not die if the rodent was poisoned
with diphacinone or chlorophacinone, but is more likely to die if the rodent was poisoned with brodifacoum or
bromadiolone.” [from USEPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision Facts for Rodenticide Cluster, July 1998]
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
“Diphacinone is slightly to moderately toxic to fish. The 96-hour LC50 for technical diphacinone in channel catfish is
2.1 mg/l, for bluegills is 7.6 mg/l, and for rainbow trout is 2.8 mg/l. The 48-hour LC50 in Daphnia, a small freshwater
crustacean, is 1.8 mg/l.” [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]. The method of use of the
treated bait will preclude waterway contamination.
Bee Hazard No data found though bee hazard is not expected considering the treatment method
Persistence “Diphacinone is rapidly decomposed in water by sunlight.” [EXTOXNET Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Soil Mobility “Diphacinone has a low potential to leach in soil.” EXTOXNET Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Use in County by the
Department
Ground squirrel management to protect critical infrastructure.
Method of
Application
The Agriculture Department mechanically broadcasts the majority of the diphacinone treated bait it uses.
Occasionally bait is applied in bait stations.
Special Cautions Wear gloves and eye protection when directly handling or applying treated bait.
Rate Used in Co. 2-3 treated kernels of grain per sq. ft. (10 lbs. per swath acre)
Sources Label; MSDS; EPA registration and re-registration documents; carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Toxicology
Program; Prop. 65; California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database; National Pesticide Information Center
(Oregon State), EXTOXNET (a coalition of a number of Cooperative Extension offices across the country); Thurston Co., WA Terr estrial Pesticide Reviews;
European Union; University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 44 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 45 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION TREE for COMMENSAL RODENT MANAGEMENT
Date: 5/29/2013
Department: Facilities Division
Location: County wide
Situation: Rat and mouse management to protect food, infrastructure and human health &
safety in and around County buildings
What are the management
goals for the sites? Prevent rats and mice from entering County buildings; prevent rodent complaints in County buildings, remove
rodents from buildings if they get in; and comply with Health Department regulations.
Who has jurisdiction over
the areas in question? The County has jurisdiction over the facilities in question.
How are the sites
monitored and how
frequently?
All County buildings that receive regular services under the pest management contract are monitored by
technicians from Pestec, the County’s structural IPM contractor. Some locations within the County elect to
have “per-call” services, only requesting services when County staff determine it necessary. It is also the
responsibility of all County staff and building occupants to continually monitor and report signs of rodent
activity to the Facilities Division.
Monitoring is done by visual inspection. Monitoring frequency depends on the type of building and its use and
can range from twice a week to monthly. As a monitoring aid, Pestec has placed rodent bait stations around
various County buildings. Detex Blox® (non-toxic feeding blocks) are placed inside the bait stations along with
a T-Rex® snap trap that that is not set. Pestec technicians regularly inspect the feeding blocks for evidence of
rodent gnawing. When evidence of feeding is detected, the snap traps are set. (More on trapping below under
physical controls.)
Buildings with kitchen or food handling facilities are monitored more frequently and with closer scrutiny.
The problem species have
been identified as the
following:
Roof rat (Rattus rattus); Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus); house mouse (Mus musculus)
Rats and mice can damage structures by gnawing and can cause electrical fires by chewing off insulation
around electrical wires. These rodents can chew on, nest in, and excrete wastes in sensitive electronic
devices. They eat human and animal food and contaminate surfaces and food with urine and feces. They also
carry a number of human diseases, and house mouse urine contains a protein that can trigger severe asthma
or allergic reactions in susceptible people. These rodents are carriers of ectoparasites suc h as fleas and mites
that can bite people, and they are implicated in the transmission of 55 different human pathogens.
What is the tolerance level
for these species? Tolerance level: The tolerance level outside of buildings for rats and mice varies. There is a zero tolerance for
Norway Rat burrows within 500ft from an occupied structure on County property. There is also a zero
tolerance for the sighting of a roof rat during the day on County property. Mouse population tolerances are
undetermined.
The tolerance level for rodents inside buildings is zero.
Any feeding activity on Detex Blox outside and any sightings or evidence of rodents inside County buildings
justifies treatment (education, sanitation, clutter control, pest proofing, vegetation management, trapping).
Are these sensitive sites? Are any of the sites part of any of the court-ordered injunctions regarding threatened
and endangered species?
The County does not normally use rodenticides for the control of rats or mice, but
might use a rodenticide in the event of a public health emergency.
The injunctions exempt “The use of the Pesticides covered under Section 3 above
Possibly
2013 IPM Annual Report 46 November 22, 2013
[applicable rodenticides are brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin,
cholecaliciferol, difenacoum, difethialone, and warfarin] for:
“--the purpose of public health vector control when such a program is
administered by public entities; or
“--use by certified applicators for control of a vector pest when such control is
necessary to respond to a federally or state declared public health emergency.”
Are there other sensitive species to be aware of?
In urban areas, pets as well as birds of prey, and sometimes wild mammalian
predators feed on rodents. Pets and other urban wildlife could feed directly on
rodenticides if the rodenticides were not secured inside a tamper-resistant bait
station.
Is there known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species at any of
the sites?
See also above.
Possibly
Are any of the sites in or near an area where people walk or children play?
County buildings in general are sensitive sites because people work in the buildings.
Head Start facilities are especially sensitive because of the children who spend many
hours of their day in the buildings. Buildings with kitchens or food handling facilities are
also especially sensitive.
Extra care must be taken at Head Start sites to make sure children cannot access snap
traps. Inside offices, snap traps for mice are set in concealed or out-of-the way
locations and occupants are informed of their location.
Yes
Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? N/A
Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? N/A
Which cultural controls
were considered? Educating custodial staff and building occupants on proper sanitation and its critical role in rodent
control
Store food properly, especially at night. Proper food storage is in the refrigerator or cooler or in glass,
metal or heavy plastic with a tight-fitting lid.
Limit areas for eating and storing food. Building occupants should be strongly discouraged from keeping
food in their desks.
Keep eating and cooking areas clean.
In food handling and preparation areas, regularly steam clean appliances and hard-to-reach areas that
may accumulate food debris.
Limit food waste to designated garbage receptacles.
Remove all garbage from buildings at the end of the day, and store in receptacles that will prevent
rodent access.
Outside, make sure all refuse goes into the proper receptacles. Do not allow any food wastes to
accumulate outside of dumpsters or other garbage cans.
Keep garbage can and dumpster lids closed.
Regularly clean waste receptacles and dumpsters.
Preventing rodent access to structures
Educate Facilities maintenance personnel about the importance of and reasons for rodent proofing.
Make general building repairs and seal large and small holes in structures, both inside and out. Mice
can squeeze through a hole that a pencil can fit in, and rats can enlarge that size hole by gnawing until
they can fit through also.
Seal vents with ¼” hardware cloth.
Seal gaps where pipes and wiring enter the structure.
Weather strip doors and windows, and use door sweeps, metal kick plates, or raised metal door sills to
prevent rodent entry. Openings around doors should be less than ¼”.
2013 IPM Annual Report 47 November 22, 2013
Repair broken sewer pipes.
Install threaded caps on drains, and make sure that the traps in little used drains are kept filled with
water.
Make sure air conditioning units are well-sealed, especially those on the roof.
Trim tree and large shrub branches 3 to 6 feet from buildings to prevent rodents from using the
branches to access upper levels of structures.
Limiting availability of shelter/harborage for rodents
Trim bushes and ground covers at least 2 feet from the structure to decrease cover for rodent runways,
to prevent hidden access to buildings, and to make inspections easier.
Remove ivy and other vines from outside walls.
Eliminate dense plantings, especially next to structures. In landscaping, break up dense plantings with
pathways, stretches of lawn, or very low ground cover to decrease cover for rodent runways.
Eliminate plantings of Algerian ivy (Hedera canariensis) and date palms because rats can live in and
feed on these plants. If it isn’t possible to immediately eliminate these plantings, work toward that goal.
In the meantime, shear ivy very close to the ground.
Remove rock and wood piles and construction debris.
Reduce clutter and debris that can provide hiding places for rodents. Items such as paper, cloth,
carpeting, and insulation are ideal nesting materials for rodents and should be stored in rodent -proof
containers if mice or rats are making use of them.
Seal holes in structures that allow rodents access to shelter or harborage in the buildings.
Keep weedy grasses trimmed low and/or eliminate them to reduce harborage and food from seeds.
CONCLUSIONS: All of these tactics are very important in reducing the number of rodents in and
around structures. All of these tactics are used where appropriate in the County.
Which physical controls
were considered? Trapping requires more time, effort, and skill than other control methods, but has several advantages: you can
see your success, rodents do not die in walls or other inaccessible places and cause odor and fly problems,
and no rodenticides are necessary.
Live Trapping: Multiple catch live traps for mice can be useful in certain situations and can save labor in
setting individual traps. They do not need to be baited and can be used at any time of the year. It is important
to use a sufficient number of traps to resolve the problem in a timely manner. The mice must be humanely
euthanized and should not be released alive outside the building because they will return to cause more
problems.
For rats, snap traps are much easier to use and more effective than live traps. Rats are much larger than mice
and present more problems for humane euthanization.
Glue boards can successfully catch mice, but are not as effective for rats. Rats may pull themselves free of the
glue, and if the board is not anchored, the rat may drag it away with only a tail or a foot caught. Glue boards
are generally considered inhumane because rodents caught in the glue usually die slowly and with much
struggle.
Kill trapping: Snap traps are effective for both rats and mice, and can be used both indoors and out at any
time of the year. In general, they should be baited with something that is attractive to the target animal.
Indoors, traps must be placed where they will not attract attention and where children and adults will not
accidentally encounter them. Trap placement is crucial for success and in general, it is important to use more,
rather than fewer traps. Traps set inside a building should be inspected within one week to remove any
rodents that were caught.
Outdoors, when feeding is detected on a Detex Blox inside a rodent bait station, the T-Rex® trap inside the
station is baited and set. T-Rex traps are the best choice for using inside a bait station. The station must be
large enough to accommodate the trap. Pestec uses Protecta Sidewinder® Bait Stations, but other brands that
will easily accommodate the trap with its jaws open will work. The bait stations are inspected within a week to
remove trapped rodents. At this point, the bait is refreshed and the traps are reset. When no more rodents are
being trapped, the traps are deactivated and the technician goes back to monitoring the station for feeding
activity.
Electronic traps are also available for rats and mice. These electrocute the rodent and need batteries to
operate. They are also 7 to 8 times more expensive than a T-Rex trap. Pestec is testing the various brands for
use in the County.
CONCLUSIONS: Trapping is very effective and is the only method of direct control used in the County,
barring a public health emergency. Pestec has experimented with 2 brands of multiple catch traps
2013 IPM Annual Report 48 November 22, 2013
(Victor® Tin Cat and Kness® Ketch-All) for mice along with various set ups for the traps. They have
not found them as effective as snap traps, but continue to test multiple catch traps.
Which biological controls
were considered? Biological controls available: There are a number of animals that prey on rats and mice, including cats and
owls
Predators can prune rat and mouse populations, but they cannot provide the degree of control necessary in
the specific locations. Cats and dogs are often found living in close association with an infestation of rats or
mice.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no biological controls that can effectively manage the County’s rat and
mouse populations in specific areas; however, natural predators can aid the County’s efforts
considerably. Owls living on the roof of the County Administration Building at 651 Pine in Martinez
have left a huge number of rodent bones on the roof.
Which chemical controls
were considered?
Repellents will be considered for rat and mouse control when trapping and exclusion are insufficient.
Repellents may include DeTour, an EPA exempt pesticide, or other repellents that are tested and found to be
more efficacious and still within Pestec’s IPM certification guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS:
The County does not use rodenticides to control rats and mice, but in the event of a public health
emergency, the County would use all available means to control rats and/or mice, including
rodenticides, if necessary.
A first generation anticoagulant, such as warfarin, would be chosen. Warfarin is readily accepted by
both rats and mice, it effectively kills these rodents, and it has a wide margin of safety because it
requires multiple daily sequential feedings for toxicosis, and it has a readily available and easily
administered antidote (Vitamin K). First generation anticoagulants also pose less of a secondary
poisoning risk.
If rodenticides must be used, they will be used according to the Greenshield IPM Certification
Standards as follows:
i.) used only after reasonable measures are taken to correct conducive conditions including preventing
access to water, food or garbage; removing clutter; sealing cracks or holes in foundations, sidewalks;
removing tall weeds; and trimming shrubs to expose ground and discourage rat burrowing; and
ii.) in bait-block form and placed in a locked, distinctively marked, tamper-resistant container designed
specifically for holding baits and constructed of metal or heavy duty plastic and securely attached to the
ground, fences, floors, walls or weighted bases, etc. such that the container cannot be easily
moved/removed; and
iii.) baits are secured (e.g., on a rod) in the baffle-protected feeding chamber of the bait container and not
in the station’s runway; and
iv.) in loose pellet formulation or loose meal formulation (i.e., not within packets) placed deep into burrows
(i.e., at least two feet into the burrow from the burrow’s main entrance) to reduce potential for rejection or
access by non-target animals. Neither bait blocks nor baits still enclosed within packets are to be used for
direct burrow baiting.
Which application
methods are available for
this rodenticide?
Applications around buildings must be made in tamper-resistant bait stations situated along walls or other
external parts of buildings (e.g., doorways, ramps and loading docks) where rats or mice might seek to gain
entrance. Indoors, rodenticides must be used in tamper-resistant bait stations.
CONCLUSIONS: Rodenticide would first be deployed in tamper-resistant bait stations that would be
anchored to the substrate.
Tamper-resistant bait stations are of durable fabrication and meet the following criteria:
1. resistant to weather
2. strong enough to prohibit entry by large non-target species
3. equipped with a locking lid and/or secured rebaiting hatches
4. equipped with entrances that readily allow target animals access to baits while denying access
to larger non-target species
5. capable of being anchored easily and securely to resist efforts to move the container or to
displace its contents
6. equipped with an internal structure for securely containing baits
2013 IPM Annual Report 49 November 22, 2013
7. made in such a way as not to be an attractive nuisance
8. capable of displaying proper precautionary statements in a prominent location.
In an emergency, if control of burrowing rats is not achieved with mechanical means or repellents,
then burrow baiting to the Green Shield IPM Certification specifications (see above) will be employed.
What factors were
considered in choosing
the pesticide application
method?
Safety to the applicator, the environment, and nontarget species; endangered species considerations, the
effectiveness of the method, and the cost to the Division.
What weather concerns
must be checked prior to
application?
Since the rodenticide would be protected inside a bait station, weather would not be a concern.
2013 IPM Annual Report 50 November 22, 2013
Pesticide Profile for: Warfarin
Active Ingredient Warfarin (.025%)
Injunction
Restrictions This chemical is enjoined in particular locations for the following endangered species: Alameda whipsnake.
Signal Word Caution (the lowest hazard level in EPA’s labeling system)
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Not listed
Prop 65 Listed as a developmental toxicant
DPR Groundwater
Protection List Not listed
Mammalian Hazard Highly toxic by ingestion with oral LD50 values for technical sodium warfarin of 323 mg/kg in male rats and 58 mg/kg
in female rats; 60 mg/kg in mice; and 200-300 mg/kg in dogs. [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile,
1995]
Bird Hazard “The acute avian toxicity of warfarin indicates that it is practically nono-toxic to game birds. In subacute studies,
warfarin ranged from moderately toxic to practically non-toxic to upland game birds and waterfowl.” [EXTOXNET
Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile, 1995]
Secondary Poisoning “One study exists on a 50/50 percent formulation of warfarin-sulfaquinoxaline technical. The warfarin-
sulfaquinoxaline caused secondary poisoning in mammalian carnivores such as mink and dogs when ingesting
prey killed after they were provided with treated bait (carrots containing 0.025% by weight of the test materials).
The first death occurred after 8 days of continuous exposure to treated nutria.” [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide
Information Profile, 1995]
Aquatic Organism
Hazard “The toxicity of warfarin to aquatic organisms is felt to be of low potential due to the fact that warfarin is insoluble in
water. A long field experience shows no potential hazards to aquatic organisms.” [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide
Information Profile, 1995]
Bee Hazard “Warfarin used as a prepared bait (0.13%) is considered non-toxic to bees when used as prescribed.” [EXTOXNET
Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile, 1995]
Persistence No data found.
Soil Mobility No data found.
Use in County by the
Department Warfarin is not used by Contra Costa County operations. This profile has been prepared because warfarin might be
used as a rodenticide bait for rats and mice in the event of a public health emergency.
Method of Application If it were used, it would be inside of tamper-resistant bait stations anchored to the substrate.
Special Cautions Keep away from humans, domestic animals and pets. Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through the skin because
this material may reduce the clotting ability of blood and cause bleeding. Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing.
Wash arms, hands and face with soap and water after applying and before eating or smoking.
Rate Used in Co. To be determined.
Sources Label; MSDS; EPA registration and re-registration documents; carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Toxicology
Program; Prop. 65; California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Oregon State University Pesti cide Properties Database; National Pesticide Information Center
(Oregon State), EXTOXNET (a coalition of a number of Cooperative Extension offices across the country); Thurston Co., WA Terr estrial Pesticide Reviews;
European Union; University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 51 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION TREE for WEED MANAGEMENT
Date: 8/14/13
Department: Grounds Division
Location: Camino Tassajara medians in Danville between Conejo and Shadow Creek (~1 mi.)
Situation: Weed management on Special District medians ranging in width from 2 to 10 ft.;
planted with sycamores, 10 different kinds of shrubs, some of them hedges, including roses,
Cotoneaster, and Rhaphiolepis, but no grass; some medians are mulched, some are not;
watered by drip irrigation; traffic on the road averages 55 to 60 mph; staff cannot block lanes to
work because it causes major traffic problems, but they use traffic cones to block turnouts.
Note that Special Districts vary widely in the funding available for their maintenance. In newer
housing developments there is more money while in most of the older developments, the
assessments are far below what it costs to maintain the landscaping. In San Pablo and
Richmond funding can vary greatly from one side of the street to the other.
What are the
management goals for
the site or weed?
For medians in Danville, where citizens expect aesthetically pleasing landscaping, the goals are
to maintain the medians “weed-free”—this means that weed growth 1” to 2” tall is OK.
to maintain the medians at an aesthetic that is just at or below the complaint level
to concentrate management efforts on the areas near stoplights and stop signs because people notice the
condition of the medians when they slow down and/or stop
How often is the site
monitored?
The site is monitored weekly.
Weeds have been
identified as the
following:
Various grasses, including wild oats, and various broadleaf weed including, vetch, bristly oxtongue, prickly
lettuce, spurge, filaree, willow herb, dandelion, clover,
Are populations high
enough to require
control?
The Division manages weeds as necessary to meet the goals stated above.
Is this a sensitive site? Is this a “highly sensitive site” as defined by PWD Environmental staff? No
Is this under the RMA with Fish and Game? N.A.
Is this part of any of the court-ordered injunction?
From Conejo to approximately 96 yds to the east is included in the San Joaquin kit
fox injunction area. See attached map. However, none of the pesticides used by
grounds in this area is part of the injunction.
Yes
Is this a known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened
species?
San Joaquin kit fox
Yes
Is it on or near an area where people walk or children play? No
2013 IPM Annual Report 52 November 22, 2013
Is it near a drinking water reservoir? No
Is it near a creek or flood control channel?
The eastern end of this area of medians is near the Shadow Creek Detention
Basin.
Yes
Is it near crops? No
Is it near desirable trees or landscaping? Yes
Is the soil highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly?
Lots of clay in the soil there, but for most sites, the soil is an artificial soil mix.
No
Is the ground water near the surface?
Drilling logs from the vicinity indicate ground water could be from 10 to 22 ft. from
the surface.
Unknown
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Mulching: This is used in some areas. Grounds can mulch periodically when there is enough money in this
particular Special District budget. An extensive mulching project would depend on whether or not the S pecial
District Zone considered it a priority and wanted to pay for it.
Mulching is very expensive, especially if the mulch must be purchased. The cost of the mulch plus labor can cost
from $5K to $10K for ¼ mile at an average of 8 to 12 ft wide. Mulching is easiest where the median is flat, rather
than mounded. In areas where the median is built up into a little hill, the mulch falls or blows off. If mulch were to
be used on those areas, the median would have to be completely redesigned to remove the hill and enough soil
below the curb to allow space for the mulch and keep it from moving into the roadway. Grounds can recommend
changes such as this, but the Division does not have control over design or planting, only maintenance.
Grounds must also consider the aesthetic of mulching. In an area where mulching is possible for a 10 foot
stretch and then not for 50 more feet before another 10 foot stretch, the look would not be uniform, and people
would complain.
Weed barrier/sheet mulching: This is very labor intensive and expensive. The plants are established so it
would be very difficult to do and would be less effective.
Restricting irrigation to reduce weed growth: The medians are irrigated with spaghetti tubing with drip
emitters or bubblers, which reduces weed growth (as opposed to overhead sprinklers).
Planting Desirable Species: Grounds is only in charge of maintenance and not design or planting. Special
Districts is alerted when there are plant problems, but there may or may not be funds for changes and it may or
may not be a priority. When Special Districts does a re-landscaping project they do consult the Grounds
Manager about maintenance issues.
Dense plantings to shade out weeds: In some areas the plantings are dense, but Grounds has no control over
planting.
Hardscaped medians: The medians on the eastern end of Camino Tassajara are paved and have evenly
spaced openings for a tree and some herbaceous plants. These are ideal for ease of maintenance. The few
weeds that come up in the pavers can be handpulled. This design also reduces water use and planting costs.
CONCLUSIONS: The kind of cultural control that can be used on these medians is driven by the funds
available in the Special District budget and the priorities in the Zone. Mulching is preferred where it can
be employed and where there is money available for the installation. Drip irrigation is being used to
reduce weed growth. Dense plantings in some areas also suppress weed growth. Hardscaped medians
greatly reduce the amount of maintenance and weed control needed. The use of other cultural controls
is not practical or not possible at this time. Note that Grounds does not have control over planting or
design for these medians.
Which physical controls
were considered?
Pruning for the health of the plant: Every 3 or 4 years when enough money has been saved in this Special
District budget, Grounds hires a contractor to prune the sycamores. Currently, it is better to contract this work out
because necessary tree cutting vehicles are not yet back in the Grounds’ budget. Staff prunes shrubs when
there is time and when pruning is needed.
Handpulling weeds: This is done whenever there is a low enough density of weeds. Staff handpull, rather than
weed whack plants that are going to seed to avoid scattering seed everywhere.
Mowing by hand: Weed whacking is used wherever and whenever possible.
2013 IPM Annual Report 53 November 22, 2013
Mowing by machine: This is not appropriate or possible on these medians.
Grazing: Grazing is not appropriate on a median.
CONCLUSIONS: Pruning is used for the health of the trees and bushes, and weed whacking is used as
much as possible within the budget. Handpulling is used whenever the weed density is low and
especially for weeds with seed heads.
Which biological
controls were
considered?
CONCLUSIONS: Biological controls are not applicable in this situation.
Which chemical
controls were
considered?
Pre-emergent (residual) herbicide? Yes
Post emergent (contact) herbicide? Yes
Possible herbicide choices:
Pre-Emergent Herbicides
Prodiamine (Barricade®): This is a selective pre-emergent to control susceptible broadleaves and grasses.This
herbicide has not been used for many years, but may be used again as part of a rotation to prevent weed
resistance.
Dithiopyr (Dithiopyr 40 WSB®): This is a selective, systemic, pre-emergent and early post-emergent. Will
control or suppress more than 40 different annual grass and small-seeded broadleaf weeds including, wild oats,
annual bluegrass, oxalis, chickweed, geranium, marestail pigweed, purslane, and spurge. It will not harm nearby
flowers, shrubs, or trees, but direct applications to ornamental plants should be avoided. Dithiopyr 40 WSB
requires at least ½” of rain or irrigation to activate it.
Rate: 10 oz./100 gal. of water
Timing: Pre-emergence to early seedling; applied before 1st rains in fall to prevent germination of winter
weeds and in spring around April to prevent germination of spring weeds
Material cost: $80/acre
Isoxaben (Gallery®): Gallery is a selective pre-emergent herbicide that prevents the growth of 95 species of
broadleaf weeds for up to eight months. It must be activated by light cultivation or at least 1/2 inch of rainfall or
sprinkler water within 3 wks. of application to set up a solid control area around weed seedlings. As the weed
seeds germinate, Gallery disrupts and halts root and stem development of the weeds, so seedlings gradually die
before they ever break the soil surface. Control includes prickly lettuce, bristly oxtongue, clover, filaree, willow
herb, dandelion.
Rate: 0.9 lb./acre.
Timing: Pre-emergence to early seedling; applied before 1st rains in fall to prevent germination of winter
weeds and in spring around April to prevent germination of spring weeds
Material cost: $350/acre
Post-Emergent Herbicides
Glyphosate (Roundup®): This is a systemic herbicide that will kill almost any type of vegetation—grass,
broadleaf, vines, brush, etc.
Rate: 9 oz./ 3 gallon backpack sprayer (used to spot treat weeds)
Timing: Seedling to mature plant, ideally before seed set; the smaller the weed, the less herbicide required
Material cost: $13.60/acre
Fluazifop-P-butyl (Fusillade 2000®): This is a systemic herbicide for the control of annual and perennial
grasses. This herbicide is not used because there is not a large enough volume of grass weeds on these
medians.
Triclopyr: Grounds uses triclopyr only for hard to control weeds (mostly woody plants such as ivy), stumps, and
invasive weeds, so it would not be appropriate for the weeds on medians.
Herbicides with both Pre- and Post-Emergent Action
Flumioxazin (Sureguard®): Flumioxazxin is a preemergent and fast postemergent for the control of broadleaf
and grassy weeds in landscape settings. It is taken up by roots and foliage of plants (it is primarily absorbed by
2013 IPM Annual Report 54 November 22, 2013
the roots of treated plants following soil applications).
Pre-emergence: Flumioxazin is applied to clean, weed-free soil, mulch, or gravel surfaces. Moisture at some
time following the application is necessary to properly activate the herbicide.
Post-emergence: Flumioxazin can be tank mixed with a postemergent herbicide, such as glyphosate when
weeds are present. Tank mixtures of flumioxazin with glyphosate provide faster and more effective weed
control than glyphosate alone. The flumioxazin provides long-lasting residual weed control with a single
application. Flumioxazin should not be applied to the foliage of ornamental plants.
Note: Grounds does not use flumioxazin alone as an herbicide
Rate: 1/3 oz./3 gallon backpack sprayer
Timing: Seedling to mature plant, ideally before seed set; the smaller the weed, the less herbicide required. It
can provide residual control for 4 to 10 months.
Cost: $154/acre (@ 11oz/acre)
CONCLUSIONS: Mulching is preferred wherever it can be used, but when an herbicide is needed,
Grounds uses isoxaben and dithiopyr as pre-emergents to reduce the amount of post-emergent
herbicide use and to reduce the amount of time that staff must work on these dangerous medians. These
2 herbicides are usually applied both in fall and spring because different weeds germinate at different
times. Both pre-emergents are used because they each target somewhat different weed species.
Grounds uses glyphosate alone and glyphosate mixed with flumioxazin to control weeds that escape the
pre-emergent treatments. Post emergent treatments are mostly spot treatments done with a backpack
sprayer.
Glyphosate + flumioxazin is applied in areas where there is a dense enough stand of weeds to not waste
the glyphosate and an extensive enough area that the 3 gallons of spray mix in the backpack can be
used up. After flumioxazin is mixed with water, it must be applied within 12 hours. Currently only Lead
Gardeners are allowed to use glyphosate mixed with flumioxazin. Grounds is seeing a large decrease in
the weed populations on these medians now that they have been using flumioxiazin. This is presumably
because of the synergistic effect that flumioxazin has on glyphosate and because of the pre-emergent
quality of flumioxazin.
Which herbicide
application methods are
available for this
chemical?
Methods available: Broadcast from a truck with a boom; spot-sprayed pulling hose from a truck; spot-sprayed
with a backpack sprayer
CONCLUSIONS: The pre-emergents are applied by pulling hose from a truck wherever a truck can get in
to the areas needing treatment. In other areas a backpack sprayer is used.
Glyphosate or glyphosate plus flumioxazin are spot-applied using a backpack sprayer.
Broadcast application with a boom from a truck is not used because it wastes large amounts of
herbicide.
What factors were
considered in choosing
the pesticide application
method?
Staff safety is the first consideration. Other considerations are the effectiveness and precision of the method, the
extent of the area needing treatment and its location, the time of year, the size and kind of weeds, the possibility
of pesticide runoff, risks to non-target species, endangered species issues, and the cost to the Division.
What weather concerns
must be checked prior
to application?
For any herbicide, a primary concern is wind since it can carry herbicides off-site, onto non-target plants or to
sensitive areas.
For glyphosate, heavy rain soon after application may wash the herbicide off the plant necessitating an additional
application. Glyphosate should not be applied during a temperature inversion because drift potential is high.
For isoxaben, rain must occur within 21 day in order to activate the herbicide. The soil should be slightly moist
and not bone dry in order to ensure that the herbicide clings to the soil.
Flumioxazin requires moisture to activate the herbicide, but it is not time-sensitive.
Dithiopyr 40 WSB requires activation by at least ½” of rain or irrigation.
2013 IPM Annual Report 55 November 22, 2013
DRAFT Pesticide Profile for: Gallery®
Active Ingredient Isoxaben (75% in formulated product, Gallery)
Injunction
Restrictions
None
Signal Word Caution
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Possible carcinogen for isoxaben.
Known or probable carcinogen for the crystalline silica in the formulation. Crystalline silica has been shown to cause
lung cancer with chronic occupational exposure.
Prop 65 Not listed
Known groundwater
contaminant
No
Mammalian Hazard Acute oral LD50 >10,000 mg/kg in rats and mice (practically non-toxic)
Bird Hazard Acute oral LD50 >2,000 mg/kg (practically non-toxic)
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
Fish: LC50 >1.1 mg/L (moderately toxic)
Crustacean: LC50 >1 mg/L (moderately toxic)
Mollusk: LC50 >0.96 mg/L (highly toxic)
Moderately toxic to aquatic organisms.
Bee Hazard LD50 >101.7 ug/bee (practically non-toxic)
Persistence The photolysis half-life in water is 6 days.
The photolysis half-life in soil is 100 to 248 days.
Soil Mobility Koc = 1400 (moderately adsorbed onto soils)
Use in County by
Grounds Division
To prevent weed germination on high profile medians along Camino Tassajara where traffic is 55 to 60 mph. Use of
isoxaben twice a year reduces the amount of post-emergent herbicides that must be used.
To maintain bare ground on the Marsh Creek Firing Range in order to prevent fires.
Method of
Application
Pulling a hose attached to a truck is the main method. Occasionally a backpack sprayer is used
Cautions Normal applicator precautions include wearing gloves, long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks, and
avoiding ingestion, breathing dust or spray mist, and contact with skin, eyes, or clothing.
Isoxaben must be applied within 21 days of at least ½ inch of rain or irrigation in order to activate the herbicide.
Rate Used in Co. 0.9 lb/acre (approx. 0.675 lb a.i./acre)
Sources Label, MSDS, EPA registration and re-registration documents, carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, National Toxicology Program, Prop. 65, California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database, National Pesticide Information Center (Oregon State),
Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews, European Union, University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide
Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 56 November 22, 2013
DRAFT Pesticide Profile for: Dithiopyr 40 WSB®
Active Ingredient Dithiopyr (40% in formulated product, Dithiopyr 40 WSB)
Injunction
Restrictions
None
Signal Word Caution
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.
Prop 65 Not listed
Known groundwater
contaminant
No
Mammalian Hazard Acute oral LD50 >5,000 mg/kg in rats and mice (practically non-toxic)
Bird Hazard Acute oral LD50 >2,250 mg/kg (practically non-toxic)
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
Fish: LC50 0.46 mg/L (highly toxic)
Crustacean: LC50 5.2 mg/L (moderately toxic)
Mollusk: not found
Warning on label: Highly toxic to aquatic organisms.
Bee Hazard LD50 81 ug/bee (practically non-toxic)
Persistence Biotic or aerobic half life is 39 days.
Abiotic half life is 69 days.
Liquid products of dithiopyr are likely to have some of it volatilize after application, and the remainder of the
chemical will be degraded by sunlight and soil microbes. Dithiopyr is expected to degrade to half of the applied
concentration in less than 60 days.
Soil Mobility Koc = 1175 - 2482 (moderately adsorbed onto soils with organic matter and poorly onto soils without organic matter)
Use in County by
Grounds Division
To prevent weed germination on high profile medians along Camino Tassajara where traffic is 55 to 60 mph. Use of
dithiopyr twice a year reduces the amount of post-emergent herbicides that must be used.
To maintain bare ground on the Marsh Creek Firing Range in order to prevent fires.
Method of
Application
Pulling a hose attached to a truck is the main method. Occasionally a backpack sprayer is used
Cautions Normal applicator precautions include wearing a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical-resistant gloves made
of any water proof material, and shoes plus socks.
Requires ½ inch of irrigation or precipitation to activate the herbicide.
Rate Used in Co. 10 oz./100 gal water (approx. 0.5 lb. a.i./acre)
Sources Label, MSDS, EPA registration and re-registration documents, carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, National Toxicology Program, Prop. 65, California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database, National Pesticide Information Center (Oregon State),
Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews, European Union, University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide
Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 57 November 22, 2013
DRAFT Pesticide Profile for: SureGuard®
Active Ingredient Flumioxazin (51% in formulated product, SureGuard)
Injunction
Restrictions
None
Signal Word Caution
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Prop 65 Not listed
Known groundwater
contaminant
No
Mammalian Hazard Acute oral LD50 >5,000 mg/kg in rats and mice (practically non-toxic)
Bird Hazard Acute oral LD50 >2,250 to 5,620 mg/kg (practically non-toxic)
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
Fish: LC50 2.3 to 21 mg/L (moderately to slightly toxic)
Crustacean: LC50 0.23 mg/L (highly toxic)
Warning on label: Toxic to aquatic invertebrates.
Bee Hazard LD50 105 ug/bee (practically non-toxic)
Persistence Aerobic half life is 12 to 27 days.
Abiotic half life is 69 days.
Soil Mobility Koc = 1412 (potential to leach into groundwater is low)
Use in County by
Grounds Division
For spot treatment on high profile medians along Camino Tassajara where traffic is 55 to 60 mph.
Method of
Application
Spot treatment with a backpack sprayer.
Cautions Normal applicator precautions include wearing a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical-resistant gloves made
of any water proof material, and shoes plus socks.
SureGuard must be applied within 12 hours of mixing.
Rate Used in Co. 11 oz./acre (approx. 5.6 oz. a.i./acre)
Sources Label, MSDS, EPA registration and re-registration documents, carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, National Toxicology Program, Prop. 65, California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database, National Pesticide Information Center (Oregon State),
Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews, European Union, University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide
Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 58 November 22, 2013
DRAFT Pesticide Profile for: Roundup Pro Concentrate®
Active Ingredient Glyphosate (50.2% in formulated product, Roudup Pro Concentrate
Injunction
Restrictions
60 ft. buffer around California red-legged frog habitat
Signal Word Caution
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans
Prop 65 Not listed
Known groundwater
contaminant
No
Mammalian Hazard Acute oral LD50 >5,000 mg/kg in rats and mice (practically non-toxic)
Bird Hazard Acute oral LD50 >1,000 mg/kg (slightly toxic)
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
Fish: LC50 86mg/L (slightly toxic)
Crustacean: LC50 281 mg/L (practically non-toxic)
Mollusk: LC50 >10 mg/L (slightly toxic)
Bee Hazard LD50>100 ug/bee (practically non-toxic)
Persistence A typical field half life is 47 days.
The median half life in water varies from a few days to 91 days.
Glyphosate is expected to degrade to half of the applied concentration within 60 days.
Soil Mobility Koc = 21,699 (potential to leach into groundwater is low)
Use in County by
Grounds Division
For spot treatment on high profile medians along Camino Tassajara where traffic is 55 to 60 mph.
For spot treatment of weeds in numerous locations in the county.
Method of
Application
Spot treatment with a backpack sprayer.
Cautions Normal applicator precautions include wearing a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical-resistant gloves made
of any water proof material, and shoes plus socks.
Rate Used in Co. 63 oz./acre (approx. 2 lbs. a.i./acre)
Sources Label, MSDS, EPA registration and re-registration documents, carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, National Toxicology Program, Prop. 65, California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database, National Pesticide Information Center (Oregon State),
Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews, European Union, University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide
Properties Database
2013 IPM Annual Report 59 November 22, 2013
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION TREE for WEED MANAGEMENT
Date: October 20, 2013
Department: Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Div.
Location: Flood Control Channels
Situation: Vegetation management along flood control channels and creek banks
Note that management decisions are site specific for flood control channels. Not every
management technique will work equally well at all sites and the costs of each technique will
vary depending on the site.
What are the
management goals for the
site?
To maintain vegetation along flood control channels and creek banks so that
erosion of the banks does not occur
vegetation does not impede the flow of water in a flood
vegetation does not collect silt and debris that could obstruct the passage of water
vegetation does not hide problems on banks such as ground squirrel burrows, erosion, beaver activity, etc.
homeless encampments cannot flourish unnoticed
waterways do not become a conduit for the spread of noxious weeds throughout the county
waterways provide habitat for wildlife
maintenance is performed in accordance with the Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA) with the state
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Vegetation is also managed along flood control access roads to maintain the integrity of the roads and the ease
of access for equipment.
How often is the site
monitored?
All sites in the county are monitored every few days. The Vegetation Manager spends part of every day
inspecting waterways on a rotating basis. The road crews, the flood control supervisors, and the vegetation
management crew are all trained to recognize vegetation issues on flood control channels and creeks and to
report them to the Vegetation Manager.
Weeds have been
identified as the following:
Various grasses, including Harding grass, Johnson grass, reed canarygrass, wildoats, quack grass; various
broadleaf weeds including mustard, cocklebur, poison hemlock, wild carrot, stinging nettle, blackberries; and
noxious weeds such as perennial pepperweed, purple loosestrife, red sesbania
Are populations high
enough to require control?
The Vegetation Management crew manages vegetation as necessary to meet the goals above.
Is this a sensitive site? Is this a “highly sensitive site” as defined by PWD Environmental staff?
Some sites fit in this category.
Yes
Is this under the RMA with Fish and Game?
All creeks are covered under the RMA.
Yes
Is this part of any of the court-ordered injunction?
Some areas are included in one or more injunctions.
Yes
Is this a known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened
species?
Yes, some sites contain habitat for various sensitive species including salmonids,
Yes
2013 IPM Annual Report 60 November 22, 2013
red legged frog, various nesting birds, dusky footed woodrat, salt marsh harvest
mouse.
Is it on or near an area where people walk or children play?
The walking trails on Walnut Creek, Marsh Creek, and Wildcat Creek are above the
creek slopes, and the Division does not use pesticides on or near the trails. The
public is not allowed on the slopes or in the water.
No
Is it near a drinking water reservoir?
No flood control channels that the Division maintains are near reservoirs.
No
Is it near crops?
There are areas of Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Dry Creek that are near crops.
Yes
Is it near desirable trees or landscaping?
There are some flood control access roads that are near residences.
Yes
Is the soil highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly?
Yes, in some areas.
Yes
Is the ground water near the surface? Unknown, but near the
creeks, groundwater may
be at creek level
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Mulching: Woodchips are used on flood control access roads where appropriate to prevent and suppress
weeds. Creek banks cannot be mulched
Weed Barrier/Sheet Mulching: This cannot be used on the creek banks, and for the access roads, it would be
an added and unnecessary expense since a deep cover of woodchips serves the same purpose.
Planting Desirable Species: The Vegetation Manager is experimenting with planting Bermuda grass on some
areas of the slopes of Walnut Creek to see if it can choke out other weeds. Although the areas were seeded with
the grass 2 years ago, it is very slow growing and the results of the experiment will not be apparent for some
time yet. One of the drawbacks of using Bermuda grass is that it will grow over riprap and hide the rocks . Staff
that are working in those areas may not see the rocks and thus risk injuries, such as twisted ankles.
The County Flood Control District will be partnering with Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit
organization, in a native planting experiment along Clayton Valley Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek).
The study will involve three 20’ x 20’ test plots and one control plot that will compare the survival of thr ee different
California natives: Santa Barbara sedge, (Carex barbarae), field sedge (Carex praegracilis), and creeping wild
rye (Leymus triticoides) planted by seed and by plugs. Planting will begin in December 2013.
These species spread from underground rhizomes and will anchor the soil to provide erosion control. They are all
perennial species that stay green year around and are resistant to fire. The plants are compatible with flood
control objectives since they do not have woody stems, and during flood events, they lie down on the slope,
thereby reducing flow impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf-specific herbicides, and unlike non-native
annuals, they provide carbon sequestration and remove as much as ½ ton of carbon per acre per year. Native
grasses and sedges can potentially out-compete non-native broadleaf weeds and annual grasses, but they may
require maintenance assistance from herbicides.
Restoration Trust will monitor these plots for 5 years after the plantings to assess native plant survival, their
degree of competition with the non-native annual species, and the relative success of seeding versus planting
plugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Mulching can be and is used along flood control access roads where the mulch will not
drift into the creek. The Public Works Department is experimenting with planting desirable species to
out-compete weedy species. This is an IPM technique the Public Works Department is interested in
exploring further.
Which physical controls
were considered?
Pruning: Trees are pruned for equipment clearance and for line of sight along access roads. Feral trees that
sprout on the slopes or in creek channels are cut down.
Mowing by machine: Many creek slopes are mowed by tractor for fire prevention, as required by the Fire
District. The channels are mowed along the top of the slope and about 6 ft. down the side of the slope. Mowing
works best on open spaces without a lot of trees.
2013 IPM Annual Report 61 November 22, 2013
Mowing by hand: Where it is not possible to get a tractor in, the Department uses a crew with weed whackers.
Grazing: Grazing is used where the presence of endangered species, such as the red legged frog, make it
impossible to mow, for example, on Pine Creek Dam. Grazing is also used in areas such as Pine Creek and
Ygnacio Valley Drain where the creek sides are steep and dangerous for human workers. Goats are more
expensive than hand mowing, but less expensive than an injured employee. The Department’s grazing study is
being conducted on Walnut Creek.
Burning: This technique was used in the past but is no longer because the Air Quality Control Board allows
burning only in very limited circumstances.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of these techniques, except burning, is used by the Department where they are
appropriate.
Which biological controls
were considered?
Biological controls are not applicable in this situation unless a particular invasive weed is the target, and
it has a biological control available.
Which chemical controls
were considered?
Possible herbicide choices
Pre-emergent Herbicides
Indaziflam (Esplanade®): This pre-emergent herbicide controls a broad spectrum of weeds if applied before
germination. It does not generally control weeds after they have emerged. For maximum weed control, the
herbicide needs to reach the soil surface and be activated by rainfall or adequate soil moisture. It is applied in
the fall to control winter germinating weeds and in the spring to control spring germinating weeds.
Rate: 5 oz./acre
Timing: Before weeds sprout in either fall or spring near the time rain is expected.
Material cost: $40/acre
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 29
Sulfometuron methyl (Oust XP®): This pre-emergent and early post-emergent herbicide controls many annual
and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. The Department uses it to control grasses on flood control access
roads.
Rate: 3.6 to 4.8 oz/acre
Timing: Before or just after weeds germinate in the fall or spring.
Material cost: $41.80 to $55.73/acre
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2
Prodiamine (ProClipse® 65 WDG): The pre-emergent herbicide controls grass and broadleaf weeds by
preventing the growth and development of newly germinated weed seeds. Weed control is most effective when
the product is activated by at least ½” of rainfall or irrigation, or shallow (1” to 2”) incorporation before weed
seeds germinate and within 14 days following application.
Rate: 1 to 2 lbs/acre
Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate, and close to the time rain is expected.
Material cost: ~$33 to $66/acre
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 3
Post emergent (contact) herbicides
Glyphosate (Roundup® Pro Concentrate & Aquamaster®): Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide (is absorbed
into the plant and circulates to kill the entire plant) that will kill almost any type of vegetation—grass, broadleaf,
vines, brush, etc. Roundup is used on creek slopes for many different weeds. Aquamaster is used at a much
reduced rate for chemical ”mowing” on creek slopes to stunt vegetation but not kill it. Aquamaster is registered
for use in water so the Department uses that form of glyphosate if applications are going to be very near water.
Rate for use on access roads using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 pts in 20 gal of water/acre
Rate for use pulling hose with a handgun attached: 6 pts in 100 gal of water/acre
Rate for chemical mowing: 1/5 pt in 10 gal of water/acre
Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load
2013 IPM Annual Report 62 November 22, 2013
Material cost::
$9.00/acre for Roundup application from a boom mounted on a truck
$27.00/acre for Roundup application from a hose with a handgun
$1.20/acre for Aquamaster used for chemical mowing
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 9
**Enjoined for red legged frog**
Triclopyr TEA (Garlon® 3A and Renovate®): Triclopyr controls woody plants and broadleaf weeds, but not
grasses. Renovate is registered for use within or adjacent to aquatic sites.
Rate for use of Garlon 3A or Renovate on access roads using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 pts in 20 gal
of water/acre
Rate for use of Garlon 3A or Renovate pulling hose with a handgun attached: 4 pts in 100 gal of
water/acre
Rate for cut stump treratment: Undiluted material
Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load
Material cost:
$20.26/acre for Garlon 3A application from a boom mounted on a truck
$40.52/acre for Garlon 3A application from a hose with a handgun
$28.62/acre for Renovate application from a boom mounted on a truck
$57.24/acre for Renovate application from a hose with a handgun
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 4
**Enjoined for red legged frog**
Herbicides with both Pre- and Post-Emergent Activity
Chlorsulfuron (Telar® XP): Telar XP is both a pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide for the control of
many invasive and noxious broadleaf weeds. Warm, moist conditions following application enhance the
effectiveness of Telar XP since moisture carries the herbicide into weed roots and prevents them from
developing. Weeds hardened off by drought stress are less susceptible to this herbicide. This herbicide is used
by the Department mainly for control of perennial pepperweed.
Rate: 1.6 oz./acre
Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate and close to the time rain is expected.
Material cost: $34.40/acre
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2
Imazapyr (Habitat®): Habitat is registered for the control of undesirable vegetation in and around standing or
flowing water, and can be used for wetland, riparian, and terrestrial vegetation growing in or around surface
water when treatment might inadvertently result in application to surface water. Habitat has both pre - and post-
emergent activity and is a systemic herbicide (is absorbed into the plant and circulates to kill the entire plant) that
controls grass and broadleaf weeds, brush, vines, etc. It will not control vegetation submerged in water.
Rate: 8 oz./3 gal of water in a backpack for spot treatments and for cut stumps
Timing: Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load
Material cost: $34.40/acre
Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2
**Enjoined for red legged frog**
CONCLUSIONS: Esplanade, Oust XP, and ProClipse 65 WDG are pre-emergent herbicides that are used
only on flood control access roads to prevent weed emergence. They each belong to a different
resistance management group and are used in rotation to prevent creating herbicide-resistant weeds.
The Department uses pre-emergent herbicides to reduce the amount of post-emergent herbicides that
are needed. In some areas, it is very difficult to mow either by hand or by machine, and grazing would be
too costly. Those areas are treated with herbicide.
2013 IPM Annual Report 63 November 22, 2013
Glyphosate, which is not a selective herbicide, is used at a regular rate in areas where it is not necessary
to maintain a cover of grasses. Glyphosate, at a much reduced rate, is used to chemically “mow”, or
stunt, vegetation on creek banks.
Garlon 3A and Renovate are specific for broadleaf weeds and are used where the Department wants to
keep a grassy cover on the creek slopes. Either might be used as a cut stump treatment.
Telar is used primarily for control of perennial pepperweed.
Habitat is used only as a spot treatment for Arundo, pampas grass, ivy growing on fences and in creeks,
and as a cut stump treatment for feral trees (the tree is cut down and the herbicide is immediately
applied to the cut stump).
Which herbicide
application methods are
available for this
chemical?
Methods available:
There are 4 methods available: application from a boom attached to a truck, application from a handgun
attached to a hose connected to a truck-mounted tank, spot treatment with a backpack, and spot treatment with
a squirt bottle.
The truck with a boom is used wherever it is possible to get the truck in since it is so much faster. A handgun is
used where the truck can’t get in, the backpack sprayer is used for small spot treatments, and the squirt bottle is
used for cut stump treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: The terrain, the proximity to the water, the kind of weed, and the goal of the treatment
dictate the application method.
What weather concerns
must be checked prior to
application?
Each day, the Vegetation Manager checks the weather when he arrives at work at 6:00 AM. Rain can prevent
application of some herbicides because of the danger of runoff. For most pre-emergent herbicides, rain is
needed after application in order for the herbicide to be effective. He must also consider wind speed to avoid
herbicide drift. Excessive heat or cold makes plants shut down, and herbicide applications at that time would be
ineffective.
Costs of various
management techniques
See the chart below.
Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Vegetation Management Method
Acres
Treated
% of
Total
Acres
Treated
Total Cost
for all
acres
treated Cost/Acre
% of
Total
Cost for
all acres
treated
Weed Spray - Roads 1819 69.0% $257,599 $142 38.7%
Right of Way Mowing 255 9.7% $189,891 $745 28.6%
Weed Spray - Flood Control Access Roads 228 8.7% $28,257 $124 4.2%
Weed Spray - Creeks 172 6.5% $28,324 $165 4.3%
Grazing 96 3.6% $106,335 $1,108 16.0%
Weed Spray - Aquatic Applications 59 2.2% $42,831 $726 6.4%
Mulching 5.7 0.2% $11,637 $2,042 1.8%
Totals 2634.7 $664,874
2013 IPM Annual Report 64 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 65 November 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT B.
IPM Priority Assessment Tool
2013 IPM Annual Report 66 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 67 November 22, 2013
Date:
IPM Best Management
Practices
Department: Percentage Implementation Dept.
2012
Priority
L = low
M=
med
H= high
IPM
Comm.
2012
Priority
L = low
M= med
H= high
Can this be
improved
with
existing
resources?
Pest Mgmt.
Data/Info Inventory pesticide stock annually
Record location of chemical use
Record size of area treated with chemicals
Track chemical use by cost (labor + materials)
Record location of non-chemical mgmt
Record size of area treated non-chemically
Track non-chemical mgmt by cost (labor & equipment)
Note target species
Make information available to public upon request
Make information available to public on the Web
IPM Plan Have written IPM Plan that is periodically reviewed and
updated.
Develop and maintain pest and/or site specific IPM Plans
Record explicit mgmt goals for each pest/site/kind of site
Develop metrics to evaluate the extent to which goals are met
Record the extent to which goals are met
List explicit tolerance levels for pest/site/kind of sites (can be
set at 0)
Describe pest management decision-making process
Monitoring
Monitor areas under management regularly for pest/damage
detection, identification, and population estimates
Monitor areas under management regularly for evaluation of
mgmt efforts
Document monitoring activities
IPM Decision-
making
Process
Document preventive measures considered and reason(s) for
use or rejection
Document non-chemical strategies considered and reason(s)
for use or rejection
Document chemical strategies considered and reason(s) for
use or rejection
Document potential impacts of the pest on human health
and/or the environment
Document potential impacts of management actions on human
health and/or the environment, including "no impact"
Note costs and ability of staff to implement
2013 IPM Annual Report 68 November 22, 2013
Schedule mgmt activities for optimal effect
IPM Research Research new, alternative options for pest mgmt
Budget or seek other funds for design and implementation of
field trials for evaluating new, alternative treatment strategies
Conduct field trials of new strategies
Document potential program improvements that could be
implemented if there were resources, and document resource
needs (tools, equip, training, staff, budget, etc)
Training Conduct annual IPM safety training
Conduct training in BMPs for pests and sites
Provide all staff involved in pest management with at least
yearly professional development training
Provide training/educational presentations for other entities
Program
Administration Adopt and implement County IPM Posting Policy
Report annually on IPM program
Track pest management budget
Environmental
Compliance Conduct environmental assessment & monitoring to comply
with Public Wrks RMA
Conduct environmental training for staff (relating to pest mgmt
activities)
Comply with Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater
Discharge
Follow court-mandated pesticide injunctions
Regulatory
Compliance Report pesticide use monthly to Ag Dept.
Comply with state and federal permit requirements
Comply with fire regulations for vegetation
Comply with flood control certification requirements
Comply with water conservation laws
Comply with Health Department regulations
Comply with pesticide safety regulations
Comply with OSHA worker safety regulations
Safety Provide employees with written policies on worker safety in
regard to pest management activities, pesticide emergencies,
and pesticide clean-up
Conduct regular worker safety trainings
Track incidents related to safety in pest management (both for
chemicals and alternatives)
2013 IPM Annual Report 69 November 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT C.
Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Program Summary
(See PDF)
2013 IPM Annual Report 70 November 22, 2013
2013 IPM Annual Report 71 November 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT D.
Contra Costa County Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet
(See PDF for spreadsheet)
History of Pesticide Use Reporting
Since the 1950s, the State of California has required at least some kind of pesticide use reporting, but in 1990, the
comprehensive reporting program we have now went into effect.
California was the first state in the nation to require full reporting of all agricultural and governmental agency
pesticide use. The current reporting system exempts home use pesticides and sanitizers, such as bleach, from
reporting requirements. (Sanitizers are considered pesticides.)
What does “pesticide” mean?
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) defines pesticide as “any substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, weeds,
or other pests. In California plant growth regulators, defoliants, and desiccants, as well as adjuvants, are also
regulated as pesticides.”
“Adjuvants” increase pesticide efficacy and include emulsifiers, spreaders, foam suppressants, wetting agents, and
other efficacy enhancers. In FY 12-13, Contra Costa County operations used a total of 7,494 lbs. of pesticide
active ingredient, which included 2,719 lbs. of spray adjuvant and growth regulator active ingredients that were
used to prevent foaming, to reduce pesticide drift, and slow plant growth or were used as a surfactant.
How Pesticide Use is Reported to the State
Pesticide use data is reported monthly to the County Agriculture Commissioner. The data is checked and sent on
to DPR, which maintains a database of pesticide use for the entire state. Although pesticide use is reported to DPR
as pounds, ounces, or gallons of pesticide product, DPR reports pesticide use in its database as pounds of active
ingredient.
DPR defines active ingredient as “[a]n agent in a product primarily responsible for the intended pesticidal effects
and which is shown as an active ingredient on a pesticide label.” (Since adjuvants are regulated as pesticides in
California, the active ingredients of adjuvants are also included in DPR’s database.)
How Pesticide Use is Reported by Contra Costa County Operations
The attached spreadsheet records pesticide use data only for County operations and not for any other agency,
entity, company, or individual in the County.
Since DPR reports California pesticide use in pounds of active ingredient, Contra Costa County does the same.
The County uses the same formula for converting gallons of pesticide product into pounds of active ingredient
that the state uses:
Pounds of Active Ingredient =
gallons of product used X 8.33 lbs/gallon of water X the specific gravity of the product X the % of active ingredient in the product
1
Control Method Used
Net Acres
Treated
Gross Acres
Surveyed
Total Sites
Surveyed
# of Sites
Eradicated
Contra Costa County Agriculture Department Noxious Weed Program - Treatment Summary 2013
Feasiblity of
Mechanical Control Description of Control Process
Program
HoursMechanical or HandMow or GrazeChemicalNet Acres
Treated
Gross Acres
Surveyed
Total Sites
Surveyed
# of Sites
Eradicated
Feasiblity of
Mechanical Control
Artichoke Thistle
Possible, but not practical to
dig out. Must go down about
18".
Description of Control Process
Program
Hours
179.13 181,446 496 113 No No Yes
Spot sprayed hundreds of sites throughout
County (intense control on about 85% to
90% of the land area in the County where
this weed is present). Goal: Eradication
3,403
91.21 29,902 210 71 No No Yes
Spot sprayed over 400 sites throughout
County (intense control on more than 90%
of the land area where this noxious weed is
present in the County) Goal: Eradicate from
Alhambra Creek watershed, and stop
spread.
542
2.41 512 14 2 No No Yes
Spot sprayed 12 sites--mostly in one
watershed (estimated 20 other untreated
sites in the County)
46
5.46 157 8 3 No No Yes Total of 8 known sites in the County (2 new
sites discovered this year). Goal: Eradication
30
5.92 654 3 1 No No Yes 1 Site hand pulled, 2 sprayed (2 other large,
20+ acre untreated sites in the County)24
Perennial Pepperweed 31.21 2709 44 2 No No Yes
CalTrans rts-of-way plus satellite leading-
edge sites are treated; 18 sites were new
this year. (Estimate 2,000 net acres
untreated in the County and spreading.)
Goal is to stop the spread.
219
0.05 6 1 0 Yes No No
Mechanical removal. There is only 1 known
site in County; 8th year of seedling removal
at this site. Goal: Eradication
8
0.16 70 5 1 No No Yes
Only CalTrans rts-of-way are treated
(pampas grass is fairly common in west
county, virtually none outside of urban areas
in central and east areas) Goal: keep it out
of open rangeland and parkland.
25
0.70 135 17 2 No No Yes
Spot sprayed all 17 known sites in the
county. 1 new site discovered this year.
Goal: Eradication
14
Very extensive root systems.
Mechanical removal increases
the problem.
Kangaroo Thorn
We have chosen to use hand
removal. It is effective and we
only have one small
infestation site.
White Horsenettle
Very extensive root systems.
Mechanical removal increases
the problem.
Oblong Spurge
Extensive root systems. Very
limited success with
mechanical control attempts.
Heart-, Lens- & Globe-
Podded Hoary Cress
Extensive root systems.
Mechanical removal increases
the problem.
Barb Goatgrass
Mechanical may work on this
species in extremely small
areas. Very time consuming.
Purple Starthistle
Possible but not practical to
dig out. Too many small
rosettes that emerge
sporadically in the
spring/summer.
Pampas Grass
Mechanical can be effective
but need a backhoe or other
heavy equipment. Steep
grades and traffic where we
treat make this method
impractical.
Artichoke Thistle
Possible, but not practical to
dig out. Must go down about
18".
Current Ag Department Program Funding Sources: East Bay Regional Park District; Mt. Dablo State Park; private ranchers, Cities of
Concord, Morage and Walnut Creek; various homeowner associations; County general funds 2
Control Method Used
Net Acres
Treated
Gross Acres
Surveyed
Total Sites
Surveyed
# of Sites
Eradicated
Feasiblity of
Mechanical Control Description of Control Process
Program
HoursMechanical or HandMow or GrazeChemicalNet Acres
Treated
Gross Acres
Surveyed
Total Sites
Surveyed
# of Sites
Eradicated
Feasiblity of
Mechanical Control Description of Control Process
Program
Hours
Russian Knapweed 4.56 755 7 3 No No Yes
One new site this year. All sites treated; 3
other sites have been eradicated; no other
known sites in the county. Goal: Eradication
12
0.08 550 1 0 No No Yes
32 plants treated. Surveyed Walnut Creek &
Pacheco Slough for the 11th year, none
found upstream this year. Goal: Eradication
31
Japanese Knotweed 0.03 5.7 2 0 No No Yes
First detectected in 2012. Spot sprayed the
only two sites in the county. Goal:
Eradication
11
0.25 21 1 0 Yes No No
Only 1 site in the county - 8th year of
removal. All hand pulled (547 plants). Goal:
Eradication
9
Woolly Distaff Thistle 0.00 2 1 1 Yes No No
First detectected in 2012 - only 2 plants,
which were hand pulled. None found in
2013. Goal: Eradication
2
2,206
plants 105 15 6 Yes No No
All mechanical removal. 8th year of program
that involes 3 wildland sites and 11
residential sites. 1 new residential sites was
discovered this year. Goal: Eradication
129
0.00 5 49 46 Yes No No
A total of 49 properties have been found
infested since the first county find in 2006.
All control is by mechanical removal. Of the
49, 3 were in riparian areas, 2 in industrial
areas and 46 on residential properties. We
have eradicated it from 46 properties (no
dodder found for 3 or more years at the
site). Goal: Eradication
45
Net Acres
Treated
Gross Acres
Surveyed
Total Sites
Surveyed
# of Sites
Eradicated
Other surveying work, Training, and Support
Hrs:1,902
Totals 321.92 217,035 874 251 TOTAL Noxious Weed Program Hours:6,452
Japanese Dodder
We have chosen to use
mechanical removal on this
species. It is hard work but
effective and we only have
relatively small infestation
sites.
Very extensive root systems.
Mechanical removal increases
the problem.
Purple Loosestrife
Extensive root mats make this
method impractical.
Mechanical removal increases
the problem.
Very extensive root systems.
Mechanical removal greatly
increases the problem.
Smooth Distaff Thistle
We have chosen to use
mechanical removal on this
species. It is effective and we
only have relatively small
infestation sites.
We have chosen to use
mechanical removal on this
species. It is effective and we
only have one small
infestation site.
Red Sesbania
We have chosen to use
mechanical removal on this
species. It is hard work but
effective and we only have
relatively small infestation
sites.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 1
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Liquid Materials Formula for liquid materials: (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)
Adjuvant Activator 90 36208-50014 1.040 90.000 4786.31 3592.41 4248.36 433.75 3381.90 0.00 0.00
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt AquaMaster 524-343 1.205 53.800 0.00 0.00 814.09 122.75 662.88 90.25 487.37 59.75 322.67 82.63 446.22 55.75 301.06
Chemtrol 36208-50015 0.995 1.000 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 1.82
Copper ethanolamine
complexes, mixed Cutrine Plus 8959-10-AA 1.206 9.000 58.78 0.00 40.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 6.78
Indaziflam Esplanade 200 SC 432-1516 1.050 19.050 2.50 4.17
Adjuvant Foam Fighter F 36208-50015 0.995 5.000 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dimethyl silicone fluid
emulsion Foam Fighter F
36208-50003, 72-
50005-AA 1.000 10.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.94 0.75 0.62 0.75 0.62 0.50 0.42 0.88 0.73
Triclopyr triethylamine salt Garlon 3A 1.135 44.400 268.66 459.66 1862.78 368.75 1547.95 487.88 2048.03 277.75 1165.94 180.50 757.71 240.13 1008.02
Triclopyr BEE Garlon 4 62719-40 1.060 61.600 278.76 67.28 155.02 19.63 106.77 20.50 111.50 0.25 1.36 0.50 2.72 2.00 10.88
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-174 0.990 19.400 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oxyfluorfen Goal Tender 62719-447 1.170 41.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 7.99 4.13 16.50 0.50 2.00
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-243 1.120 22.000 0.00 0.00 13.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Habitat 241-426 1.068 28.700 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 5.75 6.69 17.08 13.47 34.40 5.13 13.10 2.25 5.75
Aminopyralid, tri
isopropanolamine salt Milestone VM 62719-537 1.140 40.600 0.00 0.00 173.26 61.83 238.42 62.60 241.39 59.40 229.05 58.46 225.43 31.15 120.12
No Foam A 11656-50086-ZA 1.050 90.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.25 253.87 347.00 2731.53 291.25 2292.68 288.06 2267.57 291.00 2290.71
Pendimethalin Pendulum Aquacap 241-416 1.175 38.700 0.00 121.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 28.41
Sethoxydim Poast 7969-58 0.935 18.000 0.00 5.61 20.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.700 11.00 26.83
Triclopyr TEA Renovate 3 62719-37-67690 1.140 44.400 0.00 277.27 324.71 73.50 309.95 40.75 171.84 32.50 137.05 43.50 183.44 34.5 145.49
Glyphosate,Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.800 1193.46 660.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roundup Pro 524-475-ZB 1.170 41.000 2041.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Concentra 524-529 1.199 50.200 0.00 2352.35 588.28 230.25 1153.95 187.13 937.84 200.88 1006.75 218.00 1092.55 298.5 1496.00
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Tough Weed F 239-2636 1.070 18.000 61.13 98.07
Maleic hydrazide Royal Slo Gro 400-94-AA 1.135 21.700 20 41.03
Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Stalker 241-398 1.050 27.600 13.58 318.05 20.98 3.75 9.05 0.00 0.00
Adjuvant Silwet L-77 36208-50025 1.007 100.000 14.26 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 15.77
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.62719-113 1.188 40.400 56.97 39.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.70506-44 1.236 40.400 0.00 0.00 112.33 21.00 87.36 11.50 47.84 8.00 33.28 0.50 2.08
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 68891-50001-AA 1.118 53.400 197.06 189.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 11656-50093 1.180 53.400 0.00 0.00 112.85 36.38 190.95 34.63 181.77 24.63 129.28 32.13 168.65 33.13 173.90
Clopyralid Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.900 89.00 286.77 48.81 1.56 6.17 0.00 0.00
Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.800 1360.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanquish 100-884 1.250 56.800 0.00 1293.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 228-397 1.250 56.800 0.00 0.00 906.37 119.63 707.53 16.50 97.59 6.88 40.69 56.38 333.45
Weedar 64 71368-1-264 1.160 38.900 1979.96 357.09 18.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PESTICIDES OF CONCERN ARE SHADED (Pesticide Action Network defined "Bad Actors")
Contra Costa County Public Works
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x % AI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 2
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I. Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Dithiopyr Dimension Ultra 40 WP 62719-445 N/A 40.000 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Diuron 80DF 66222-51 N/A 80.000 0.00 0.00 960.00 800.00 640.00 0.00 0.00
Direx 80DF 352-508-1812 N/A 80.000 2300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Direx 80DF 1812-362 N/A 80.000 0.00 1240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Endurance 55947-43 N/A 65.000 983.45 52.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Endurance 100-834ZB N/A 65.000 0.00 1008.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Prodiamine Endurance 228-398 N/A 65.000 0.00 0.00 1194.05 1215.00 789.75 1316.00 855.40 1060.00 689.00
Isoxaben Gallery 75DF 62719-145 N/A 75.000 40.50 39.00 51.75 79.00 59.25 73.00 54.75 3.50 2.63 4.00 3.00 21.00 15.75
Sulfumeturon methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.000 20.53 137.25 152.25 144.16 108.12 102.06 76.55
Oust XP 352-601 N/A 75.000 101.13 75.85 128.81 96.61 19.00 14.25
Predict 55947-78 N/A 78.600 389.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Predict 100-849 N/A 78.600 0.00 7.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Prodiamine ProClipse 65 WDG 228-434 65.000 310.00 201.50 556.00 361.40 690.00 448.50
Ronstar 50WSP 264-538 N/A 50.000 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Simtrol 90DF 35915-12-60063 N/A 90.000 387.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tebuthiuron Spike 80DF 62719-107 N/A 80.000 48.00 72.00 48.00 120.00 96.00 120.00 96.00 132.00 105.60
Telar XP 352-654 75.000 6.50 4.88 6.88 5.16 8.00 6.00
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-404 N/A 75.000 19.031 10.448 13.313 14.50 10.88 0.00 0.00 8.50 6.38
TOTAL:16590.97 12589.20 11890.25 10367.44 8165.12 6438.92 5713.48 6565.25
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 5764.53 2653.88 3493.47 2883.09 2545.49 1582.41 1117.04 1340.19
Contra Costa County Public Works (continued)
Amt . Used x %AI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 3
Contra Costa County Public Works, Special Districts
Name of EPA Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Reg #
Specific
Gravity
%
A.I.Used FY 07-08 & before FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Liquid Materials Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)
Glyphosate Roundup ProMax 524-579 1.36 48.7 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79 26.45
Dry Materials Amt. used x % AI no data (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Bromethelin Talpirid Mole Bait 12455-101 N/A 0.025 no data 0.003 0.0000008
Chlorphacinone Chlorophacinone 11071-CA-001 N/A 0.005 no data 44.000 0.00220
Chlorphacinone
Chlorophacinone
Treated Grain Rodent
Bait 10965-50004ZA N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.000190 28.75 0.0014375
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50003 N/A 0.010 no data 1.50 0.0001500
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-5001-ZA N/A 0.005 no data 75.00 0.00375
Diphacinone Eaton's Answer 56-57 N/A 0.005 no data 46.50 0.002325 42.00 0.00210 19.50 0.0009750 19.00 0.00095
Diphacinone Eaton's Bait Blocks 56-42 N/A 0.005 no data 2.00 0.0001 5.00 0.000250 4.00 0.00020 12.00 0.00060
Aluminum phosphide Fumitoxin 72959-1-5857 N/A 55.000 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.81
Strychnine Alkaloid Gopher Getter AG Bait 36029-7 N/A 0.500 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.0020
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-23 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.0002
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-24 N/A 0.005 no data 8.05 0.0004025 1.86 0.00009
Diphacinone
P.C.Q. Pelleted Rodent
Bait 12455-50003-AA N/A 0.010 no data 5.00 0.0005000 36.50 0.00365
Aluminum phosphide Phostoxin 72959-4 N/A no data 19.62 10.79 16.72 9.20
Oxadiazon Ronstar G 432-886 N/A 2.000 no data 300.00 6.00
Chlorphacinone Rozol 7173-242 N/A 0.005 no data 2.00 0.00010
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.000 no data 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.66 19.40 11.64 11.22 6.7320000 11.90 7.140
Zinc phosphide ZP Rodent Bait AG 12455-17 N/A 2.000 no data 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.75 0.02
TOTAL 10.79 9.86 44.92 6.735666 7.151343
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 10.79 9.86 12.47 6.73 7.14
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 4
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)
glyphosate Aquamaster 524-343 1.205 53.80 0.98 5.29
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-AA 1.224 53.80 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-4581 1.201 53.80 5.00 26.91
esfenvalerate Asana XL 352-515 0.930 8.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.01
Dicamba & 2.4 D Banvel 55947-1 1.211 48.20 72.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2,4-D 34704-5 1.163 46.50 24.78 87.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bivert 2935-50157-AA 0.790 100.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbaryl ("7")54705-4 1.100 41.20 30.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Clarity 7969-137 1.250 56.80 0.00 703.80 416.43 28.90 170.92 47.42 280.46 66.23 391.70 46.57 275.43 38.12 225.45
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 464-554 1.082 61.60 13.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
imazapyr isopropylamine salt Habitat 241-426 1.068 28.70 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.47 1.20 0.28 0.72 0.53 1.35 0.10 0.26 0.36 0.92
surfactant Hasten 2935-50160 0.900 100.00 0.16 1.20 0.02 0.15
Adjuvant
Herbicide Activator
(First Choice)11656-50024-ZC 0.900 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.94 0.00 0.00
Drift retardant--oils In Place 2935-50169 0.880 100.00 8.11 59.45
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt Milestone 62719-519 1.140 40.60 0.00 0.00 33.74 2.75 10.60 9.87 38.06 11.26 43.42 4.59 17.70 5.58 21.52
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Milestone VM Plus 62719-572 1.140 18.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 7.88 5.09 8.91 0.05 0.09 3.75 6.57
surfactant Pro-Tron 71058-50008-AA 0.984 95.00 25.15 195.84 6.61 51.47 17.69 137.75
Adjuvant R-11 2935-50142-AA 1.020 90.00 389.99 216.48 180.09 9.39 71.80 22.25 170.14 0.23 1.76
Clopyralid, triethylamine salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Redeem 62719-337 1.140 45.10 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.30
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.80 13.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 276.35 75.90 104.04 49.03 195.97 45.70 182.66
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt
Roundup Pro
Concentrate 524-529 1.199 50.20 30.45 152.67 29.82 149.51 12.74 63.88
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-296 1.060 27.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.30 0.23 0.56
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-398 1.060 27.60 0.66 1.61 0.29 0.71
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 22K 464-323 1.140 24.40 3.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Clopyralid, monoethanolamine
salt Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.90 277.99 13.92 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.003 0.01
Adjuvant Tri-Fol Buffer 2935-50152-AA 1.120 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.80 299.20 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.83 0.04 0.24
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 100-884 1.250 56.80 0.06 0.35
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Remedy 62719-552 1.080 61.60 0.00 0.00 16.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 5
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Diphacinone Diphacinone .005%10965-50001-ZA N/A 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.03 810.00 0.04 530.00 0.03 88.00 0.00 4570.00 0.23 1835.00 0.09
Diphacinone Diphacinone .01%10965-50003-ZA N/A 0.01 1.57 2.56 2.58 23434.00 2.34 27795.00 2.78 33743.00 3.37 31045.00 3.10 27487.50 2.75
Sodium nitrate, charcoal Gas Cartridge 56228-2 N/A 81.00 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.00 0.00 2.39 1.94 2.55 2.07 5.63 4.56 6.75 5.47
Imidacloprid Merit 75WSP 3125-439 N/A 75.00 10.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 N/A 75.00 0.00 0.77 0.14 0.38 0.29 0.24 0.18 1.19 0.89 1.24 0.93 7.78 5.84
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 10K 464-320 N/A 11.60 0.99 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.36 0.50 0.06
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.59 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.95
TOTAL:1420.66 1121.42 757.58 465.09 687.35 794.73 539.44 529.11
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 131.84 107.58 0.14 0.88 0.48 1.26 1.94 5.84
Amt . Used x %AI
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture (continued)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 6
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)
Chlorantraniliprole Acelepryn 352-731 1.094 18.40 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.24
Dikegulac sodium Atrimmec 2217-776 1.095 18.50 0.00 0.00 1.31 2.21 0.19 0.32
Prodiamine Barricade 100-1139 *35.01
**Dicamba**, MCPA,
Triclopyr Cool Power 228-317 *9.27
Dursban 2E 464-586 1.000 24.10 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
Myclobutanil Eagle 62719-463 *0.06
Embark 7182-7-AA 1.110 28.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bifenazate Floramite 400-508 *0.03
Ethephon Florel 62719-145-AA 1.016 3.90 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethephon Florel 264-543-54705 *0.65
NAA, ammonium salt Fruit Stop 5481-66-65783 *0.43
Fluazifop-P-butyl Fusilade II 100-1084 0.980 24.50 *0.19 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50
Goal 707-174 0.990 19.40 19.34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grass Getter (Poast)7969-58-ZA-54705 0.935 18.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexythiazox Hexygon 10163-208 *0.11
Petroleum distillates Lesco Horticultural Oil 10404-66 0.00 *2.13
Knox Out 2 FM 4581-335-449 1.036 23.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lindane 7001-279-AA 0.976 87.60 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
Adjuvant Magnify 17545-50018 1.220 51.50 0.09 0.47
Maintain A 400-396-AA 1.000 0.30 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Malathion 655-598 1.032 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ornamec 2217-728-AA 0.880 6.75 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Flumioxazin Payload 59639-120 *0.30
Glyphosate isopropylamine
salt Razor 228-366 *91.73
Glyphosate, diquat
dibromide Razorburn 228-446 1.146 43.10 1.00 4.11
Roundup Pro 524-445-ZB 1.020 41.00 156.00 158.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 23.98 0.00 0.00
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 33.89 10.16 50.92 8.29 41.56 18.77 94.11 72.50 363.50 70.15 351.72
Glyphosate potassium salt Roundup Promax 524-579 1.356 48.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 1.87
Nonanoic acid Scythe 62719-529 0.00 *0.66
Sevin SL 464-586 1.000 24.10 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bifenthrin Talstar 279-3206 *0.02
Triclopyr 4EC 81927-11 1.100 61.60 1.00 5.64 0.25 1.41
**Dicamba, MCPA**,
MCPP Tri Power 228-262 *3.79
Triclopyr BEE Turflon 62719-258 1.060 61.60 1.96 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
Contra Costa County General Services - Grounds
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 7
Name of EPA Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Dry Materials Amt. Used x %AI (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Isoxaben Gallery 62719-145-AA N/A 75.00 97.08 102.38 0.00 *44.42 19.00 14.25 6.50 4.88 11.00 8.25
Dithiopyr Dithiopyr 40 WSB 73220-13 N/A
0.125 lbs
ai/5 oz
13 5oz.
packets 1.63 108.75 oz.2.72
Lindane 20954-107-AA N/A 99.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Orthene 59639-88 N/A 75.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acephate Orthene 59639-26 0.00 *0.13
Sulfometuron methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.00 3.85 0.00 *0.17
Oxadiazon Ronstar WP 264-538 N/A 50.00 648.63 414.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-1-10163 N/A 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Flumioxazin SureGuard 59639-120 N/A 51.00 0.00 2.49 1.27 23.93 12.20
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 *0.06
TOTAL 927.37 684.98 57.87 240.06 45.89 112.97 377.74 376.77
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 649.14 421.59 0.00 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NOTE: The totals for 07-
08 only account for
Grounds Div. usaage
and do not include Tru-
Green usage.
*Total A.I. was
computed on a
separate
spreadsheet
developed by
GSD with
TruGreen data
Contra Costa County General Services - Grounds (continued)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 8
Contra Costa County General Services - Facilities
fl. oz. used x 1.04 dry oz/fl oz of H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
Name of EPA Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used Total oz. A.I. by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I. by
wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I. by
wt.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Liquid Materials (fl. ounces)(fl. oz.)(fl. Oz.)(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.
Orthoboric acid Drax Liquid Bait 9444-206 0.00 2.22 0.03 0.00 0.00
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax Advance Ant Gel 499-492 1.23 5.40 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.002
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate
Advance Liquid Ant
Bait 499-491 1.24 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.00 4.12 2254.00 37.79 3701 62.047 4314.00 72.323
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Gel 352-746 1.2 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.77 0.00 47.27 0.03 33.61 0.021 53.6 0.0334
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Gel
Bait 352-652 0.0066 0.60 2.00 0.00 0.08 0.000003 12.08 0.00050
Hydroprene
Gentrol IGR
Concentrate 2724-351 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source 2724-469 90.60 0.02 0.00
2 each (109
mg ai in
each)0.007
17 each (109
mg ai in each)0.065
Rosemary Oil EcoExempt 1C None 1.66 79.99 8.32 1081.60 112.49
2-phenethyl propionate EcoPco Acu 67425-14 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.01
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Killer Bait
Gel 432-1264 1.27 0.00 0.00 17.04 0.00 1.59 0.00 1.00 0.000013
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Select
Roach Gel 432-1259 1.1414 0.01 0.05 0.000006
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Gel 432-1254 2.15 0.13 1.13 0.03 0.00 0.00
Fipronil
Maxforce Roach Killer
Bait Gel FC 432-1259 1.1414 0.01 1.43 0.00017 0.1 0.000012
sodium lauryl sulfate Oh Yeah Eco-018 1 0.70 1301.00 9.47 2573 18.731 1315.17 9.57444
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Precor 2000 274-483
0.5%
permethrin 4 0.0208
0.09%
methoprene 0.0000
coyote & fox urine
Shake Away:
Fox/Coyote 80917-5 1 5.00 394 20.488
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax Terro PCO Bait stations 149-8-64405 1 5.40 2.16 0.12
60 each(net
wt of each
station 0.36
oz)1.166
34 each (net wt
of each station
is 0.36 oz)0.661
Dry Materials OZ. by Wt.(ounces)OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Alpine Dust 499-527
0.25%
dinotefuran 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.000
95% DE 0.14 0.010
Abamectin Avert Dry Flowable Bait 499-294 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Bait Arena 352-664 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 4.76 0.00 77 0.077
90 Each (Net
wt of Arena is
0.07 oz)0.0063
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 12-13, Revised 11-21-13
Page 9
Contra Costa County General Services - Facilities, continued
Name of EPA Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used Total oz. A.I. by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I. by
wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I. by
wt.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 FY 09-10 Used 09-10 FY 10-11 Used 10-11 FY 11-12 Used 11-12 FY 12-13 Used 12-13
Dry Materials OZ. by Wt.(fl. oz.)OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Bait
Arena 352-668 0.50 0.64 0.00
15 Each
(Net wt of
Arena 0.07
oz)0.005
4 Each (Net wt
of Arena is 0.07
oz)0.0014
Orthoboric acid Borid 9444-129 0.00 7.00 6.93 1.00 0.99
Amorphous silicon dioxide
Concern Diatomaceous
Earth 73729-1-50932 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 2.46 2.09 2 1.700 0.8 0.680
Bromodialone Contrac Blox 12455-79 0.09 1252.00 0.06 489.00 0.02
non-toxic rodent monitoring food
bait Detex Blox Eco-019 (617.4 oz)
Note: product has 3 a.i. s Eco PCO WP-X None
3%
phenethyl
propionate 2 0.060 2.64 0.0792
Eco PCO WP-X
5% Thyme
oil 0.100 0.132
Eco PCO WP-X
0.05%
pyrethrins 0.001 0.00132
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Eco PCO DX 67425-16-655
1% 2-
phenethyl
propionate 0.017 0.00017
0.4%
pyrethrins 0.000068
Orthoboric acid
Niban FG/Mother Earth
Granules
64405-2
499-515 5.00 190.69 2150.56 107.53 1252.70 62.64 719.55 35.98 1137.5 56.875 3126 156.300
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 432-1256 0.05 0.00 4.66 0.00 0.48 0.00
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 64248-10 0.01 0.05 0.000005
11 Each (Net
wt of bait
station is 0.05
oz)0.000055
Fipronil
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 64248-11 0.05 0.55 0.00028
6 each (net
wt of each
station
0.053)0.00016
10 Each (Net
wt of bait
station is 0.053 0.000265
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 432-1251 0.19 1.48 0.03 0.11 0.00
Boric Acid Perma Dust 499-384 142.71 682.00 242.11 265.00 94.08
OZ of A.I 335.55 365.04 274.38 85.64 140.823 260.347
LBs of A.I.20.97 22.81 17.15 5.35 8.80 16.27
OZ of BA 0.41 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.0014