The Federal Government regulates pesticides through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register pesticides and to regulate their use. FIFRA also allows for individual states to have primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use within their borders
The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) Pesticide Program regulates the use of pesticides in this state according to the 1978 Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act (Chapter 132 B of the Mass. General Laws). State regulations 333 CMR 1.00-14.00 have been promulgated pursuant to this law.
A brief overview of the specific parts of the regulation governing the application of pesticides by turf managers and in some instances other pesticide applicators follows. It is incumbent upon pesticide applicators to become familiar with the details of all aspects of the Pesticide Regulations, not just those listed here. For additional information on pesticide regulations, contact the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Pesticide Program (see contact information in the side bar of this page).
To obtain a complete copy of the regulations, contact the MDAR Pesticide Program or the UMass Extension Pesticide Education Program. The regulations are also available for download at the MDAR Pesticide Program web site.
| For More Information |
|---|
|
UMass Extension Pesticide Education Program Agricultural Engineering Building University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-1044 www.umass.edu/pested Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Pesticide Program 251 Causeway Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02114-2151 (617) 626-1720 http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/pesticides/ |
The process of licensing and certification for those individuals who apply pesticides is conducted by the MDAR Pesticide Program under Massachusetts Pesticide Regulations 333 CMR 10.00. Applicators applying pesticides to the property of another or areas to which the public has access, both indoors and outdoors, must be licensed. Applicators must be certified in order to buy restricted use pesticides. Complete information on the procedures and exams for licensing and certification, as well as recertification and insurance requirements are detailed in the Pesticide Examination and License Information Bulletin, available annually from the MDAR Pesticide Program.
The UMass Extension Pesticide Education Program conducts regular workshops and trainings designed to assist applicators in preparation for licensing and certification exams. Study materials are also available for purchase. For additional information on Massachusetts pesticide applicator licensing and training visit the Pesticide License Information page of this web site.
333 CMR 13.06 requires turf pesticide applicators provide to the entity with which they contract or the manager or superintendent of the contracting entity information about pesticides used, safety measures for humans and the environment, and specific application information. Provisions for pre-notification of application are covered in this regulation. It further requires that turf pesticide applicators post approved signs on properties prior to treatment and that signs remain in place for 24-72 hours. Further information on this regulation should be obtained from the MDAR Pesticide Program.
Regulation 333 CMR 10.14 requires that all licensed and certified commercial applicators or their employers keep true and accurate operational records on each application of a pesticide. The same regulation authorizes the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources to require annual records and reports of the information maintained in accordance with the regulation. Record keeping forms and/or a listing of specific information required is available from the MDAR Pesticide Program.
Legislation (The Act Protecting Children and Families from Harmful Pesticides — Chapter 85 of the Acts of 2000) that amends the Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act (Chapter 132B of the M.G.L.) took effect on November 1, 2000. This regulation is commonly known as the Children and Families Protection Act.
This legislation primarily addresses the use of pesticides in schools, day care centers, and school-age childcare programs. Other sections of the legislation include but are not limited to: notification and posting requirements, pesticide use along rights-of- way, applicator competency evaluation, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plans. Ultimately, the intent of the legislation is to encourage the use of IPM and to minimize pesticide exposure, especially to children and facility employees.
Who is responsible? Those persons who perform, contract, and/or administratively oversee pest management services for schools, day care centers, and school-age child care programs play significant roles in ensuring compliance regulation. Additional parties involved may include utility companies and state agencies.
The MDAR Pesticide Program is responsible for the implementation of this legislation. Detailed information about how to comply with the Children and Families Protection Act can be obtained from the MDAR Pesticide Program. For turf managers that must develop an IPM plan under the requirements of the Children and Families Protection Act, UMass Extension has published Integrated Pest Management Protocols for Turf on School Properties and Sports Fields. This manual is a tool that specifies the steps required for development and implementation of a comprehensive IPM plan. For additional information see the Printed Publications page of this web site.
The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) Public Drinking Water Supply Protection Regulations (State Regulation 333 CMR 12.00, enacted 1/1/1992) are intended to prevent non-point source contamination of public drinking water supply wells from pesticide products on the Massachusetts Groundwater Protection List. Updated annually, the Groundwater Protection List identifies specific pesticide active ingredients that could potentially impact groundwater due to their chemical characteristics and toxicological profile.
Geographic sites protected under the regulations are referred to as primary recharge areas. For pesticide regulatory purposes, a primary recharge area is considered to be either an Interim Wellhead Protection Area (IWPA) or a “Zone II” for wells that have pumping rates of over 100,000 gallons per day (gpd). The Drinking Water Supply Protection Regulations do not apply to wells that pump less than 100,000 gpd.
If a management decision has been made to use one of the pesticides listed on the Groundwater Protection List, then it is the responsibility of the applicator to be aware if the site is within an IWPA or Zone II area, and to act accordingly. For general guidelines about how to comply with the Massachusetts Public Drinking Water Supply Protection Regulations, consult the flowchart in Figure 4 below.
Table 24. Massachusetts Groundwater Protection List (current as of April 1, 2018)
| Herbicides | Insecticides | Fungicides | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acetochlor Acifluorfen Alachlor Aldicarb Atrazine Bentazon* Bromacil Cyanazine Chlorthal-dimethyl (DCPA) Dimethanamid* |
Diuron Flufenacet Fluthiacet-methyl MCPA* Metolachlor Metribuzin PCP Pronamide Propazine Simazine Sulfentrazone* |
Aldicarb Carbofuran Dinotefuran* Disulfoton Fonofos Lindane Methoxyfenozide PCP Propoxur Terbufos Thiamethoxam* |
Chlorothalonil* Cyflufenamid Cyproconazole Folpet Kresoxim-methyl Triticonazole* Sedaxane |
| Nematicides | |||
| Fenamiphos* | |||
* Denotes active ingredient labeled for cool-season turf use
Figure 4. Do the Massachusetts Public Drinking Water Supply Protection Regulations Apply to You?1. Do you plan to make a pesticide application within a Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area (IWPA)?For instructions on how to determine if your application will fall within a Zone II or an IWPA, contact the MDAR Pesticide Program at (617) 626-1771, or visit https://www.mass.gov/pesticides-and-water-supply-protection If NO, then STOP. You do not need to be concerned about the regulations. If YES, then proceed to Question 2. 2. Does the pesticide product that you intend to use contain any of the active ingredients listed on the current Massachusetts Groundwater Protection List?If NO, then STOP. You do not need to be concerned about the regulations. If YES, then proceed to question 3. 3. Are there any viable alternatives to the pesticide that you intend to use?If YES, then STOP and use the alternative. If NO, then proceed to Question 4. 4. Will the pesticide product be applied to an area which has greater than 50% foliar cover?If YES, then you must confirm the non-viability of alternatives, you must apply the pesticide as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program approved by MDAR, and you must submit a Groundwater Protection Program Notification Form to MDAR within 10 days of the end of the calendar month in which the pesticide is applied. If NO (meaning that the pesticide product that you intend to use is soil-applied, or will be applied to an area with less than 50% foliar cover), then you must confirm the non-viability of alternatives, you must apply the pesticide as part of a MDAR approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and you must verify that a Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) for that use pattern has been approved by MDAR. For further information on MDAR notification requirements, MDAR approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs and/or a Pesticide Management Plan (PMP), contact the MDAR Pesticide Program at (617) 626-1771. |
Bentazon (Basagran) is used primarily for the control of yellow nutsedge in turf. Possible alternatives to bentazon include halosulfuron and mesotrione. For more information about bentazon, see the Characteristics of Turf Herbicides section of this guide.
Dimethanamid (Tower) is used primarily for the preemergence control of yellow nutsedge in turf. No other material is currently labeled for preemergence yellow nutsedge control. Postemergence control with halosulfuron or mesotrione is an alternative option. For more information about dimethanamid, see the Characteristics of Turf Herbicides section of this guide.
MCPA (several trade names) is a component of several combination products labeled for postemergence control of broadleaf weeds in turf. MCPP has gained favor over MCPA for many formulations in recent years because of higher activity. Thus, viable alternatives are readily available. For more information about MCPA, see the Characteristics of Turf Herbicides section of this guide.
Sulfentrazone (several trade names) is used primarily for postemergence management of a range of broadleaf weeds in turf. It is formulated alone or in combination with additional herbicides. Possible alternatives to sulfentrazone include halosulfuron and mesotrione. See the Characteristics of Turf Herbicides section of this guide for additional information about sulfentrazone.
Chlorothalonil (Daconil and several other trade names) is labeled for use on several major turfgrass diseases in the Northeastern U.S, including anthracnose, brown patch, copper spot, dollar spot, Microdochium patch (pink snow mold), Helminthosporium leaf spot disease, red thread, rusts, and Typhula blight (gray or speckled snow mold). Many alternative fungicides are available for these diseases (see Table 22 in the Disease Management with Fungicides section of this guide). The primary disadvantage of many of the alternative compounds, however, is the potential for fungicide resistance development with repeated use. Because resistance has not been reported for chlorothalonil, it is an important rotation and tank-mix product for resistance management programs (refer to the Characteristics of Turf Fungicides section of this guide for a discussion of fungicide resistance). Also, the broad spectrum activity of chlorothalonil is part of its value as a fungicide. This value is reflected in the relatively frequent use of chlorothalonil on turf, despite decreased residual control compared to penetrant fungicides. Many of the alternative products do not have the same broad spectrum of activity.
Unfortunately, cultural management may not be sufficient to protect turf in stressful conditions, especially when weather conditions are conducive to the development of a particular disease, and in particular on golf greens and tees. In a good IPM program, no fungicide application should be considered for a specific disease problem without considering secondary problems. Before it is determined that use of an alternative to chlorothalonil will be a sound decision, it is necessary to consider all disease problems in an area and in a particular season. Often, determining a viable alternative is a complex task involving more than a single disease evaluation. At this time, there is no viable alternative to chlorothalonil plus a penetrant fungicide for control of anthracnose on putting greens. See Figure 5 for special considerations about the application of chlorothalonil for anthracnose in Massachusetts.
|
Figure 5. Guidelines for the use of chlorothalonil for anthracnose on putting greens in Massachusetts.
|
Triticonazole (Trinity, Triton) provides good control of a number of turf diseases including anthracnose, dollar spot, necrotic ring spot, red thread, brown patch, and take-all patch. Triticonazole is one of the demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fungicides. If you make a decision to use triticonazole, but are located in a Zone II or IWPA area, several alternatives in the DMI class are available. Alternatives include propiconazole, fenarimol, metconazole, triadimefon, and myclobutanil. Refer to Table 22 in the Disease Management with Fungicides section of this guide for additional information.
Dinotefuran (Zylam) is one of several insecticide compounds in the neonicotinoid class. While it is used more commonly in landscape settings, it is now being marketed for control of annual bluegrass weevils on golf courses. If you wish to control ABW in a Zone II or IWPA area, there are several alternatives to dinotefuran. These include a pyrethroid to target adults; or indoxacarb, spinosad, chlorantraniliprole, or trichlorfon to target larvae.
Thiamethoxam (Meridian) is another insecticide in the neonicotinoid class. Insects on the label include annual bluegrass weevil, black turfgrass ataenius, caterpillars, billbugs, and white grubs. If you wish to make an application for any of these target insects in a Zone II or IWPA area, you should be able to substitute another neonicotinoid. For example, imidacloprid or chlothianidin are viable alternatives and are both somewhat less soluble than thiamethoxam. If the primary target is white grubs, chlorantraniliprole would also be an alternative. See the Insect Management with Insecticides section of this guide for additional information.
Fenamiphos (Nemacur) is a nematicide and is labeled for use on golf course greens (bentgrass) where virtually all nematode problems on turf occur. Fenamiphos has been gradually phased out of the turf market, but any existing stocks can still be used until October 6, 2017. As such, fenamiphos is a highly toxic material and should be used only after high nematode populations have been confirmed by a diagnostic lab (for the UMass Extension Plant Diagnostic Lab, see ag.umass.edu/services/plant-diagnostics-laboratory).
Considerable testing underway at this time seeks to identify viable alternatives to fenamiphos, but an effective replacement has yet to be found. Cultural practices that encourage root system health and development are strongly recommended as a first line of defense against nematode pressure. Cultural management may help to mitigate damage from low nematode populations, but unfortunately may not be sufficient for golf greens with high populations.