February 2011 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Natural Resources Conservation Service Issued February 2011

The U.S. Department of (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Introduction Pest management in conservation planning This technical note is designed to help conservation planners apply the Natural Resources Conservation Conservation planners start by identifying site-specific Service (NRCS) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) natural resource concerns in the conservation plan- Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Code 595 and ning process. For pest management related concerns, other NRCS conservation practices in the conserva- this can include the potential for pest management tion planning process to prevent and/or mitigate pest activities to impact soil, water, air, plants, animals, and management risks to natural resources. humans. Once site-specific natural resource concerns are identified, conservation planners perform NRCS The term “integrated pest management” and its pest management policy roles 1, 2, and 3 in the con- acronym “IPM” are widely used and can refer to servation planning process by evaluating the potential anything from an individual pest management for site-specific pest management risks to identified technique to a complex year-round pest management natural resources and applying appropriate NRCS con- system. This document references IPM techniques, servation practices (including the NRCS IPM conser- elements, strategies, guidelines, systems, and vation practice) to prevent and/or mitigate identified programs, but the NRCS IPM conservation practice is risks. very specifically defined by CPS Code 595 available at: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/ For example, if a conservation planner identified a standards/595.docx. concern about potential impacts on a nearby reservoir, he or she would use the NRCS pest management policy NRCS Windows Pesticide Screening Tool (WIN–PST) to evaluate potential pesticide risks to drinking water from pesticide losses in surface runoff. Based on site- The NRCS pest management policy is contained in specific WIN–PST results, the NRCS IPM conservation GM_190_404_A–D, Amendment 12, dated March practice and other conservation practices could then 2009, available at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ be applied as appropriate to prevent/mitigate hazard- RollupViewer.aspx?hid=17015. ous pesticide losses to the reservoir. The NRCS pest management policy states that conser- Pest management risks can also be associated with the vation planners have four roles in pest management: use of mechanical, biological, or cultural pest suppres- 1. Evaluate environmental risks associated with a sion techniques, but they must be evaluated with other client’s probable pest suppression strategies tools, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equa- tion 2 (RUSLE2), or the professional judgment of the 2. Provide technical assistance to clients to mitigate conservation planner. identified environmental risks 3. Assist clients to adopt IPM techniques that pro- Conservation planners also perform role 4 in the NRCS tect natural resources pest management policy in the conservation planning process, but with the application of the NRCS Brush 4. Assist clients to— Management, CPS Code 314 and NRCS Herbaceous – inventory, assess, and suppress noxious and Weed Control, CPS Code 315. Both of these conserva- invasive weeds on noncropland tion practices are used on noncropland to address – suppress weeds to ensure successful imple- natural resource concerns related to plant pests, mentation and/or maintenance of permanent including invasive, noxious, and prohibited plants. The vegetative conservation practices (e.g., buffer- NRCS IPM conservation practice can also be used to type conservation practices) prevent and/or mitigate pest management environmen-

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st E., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process tal risks associated with the application of the NRCS sion techniques when the economic benefit is greater Brush Management and Herbaceous Weed Control than the cost. These economic pest thresholds must conservation practices. be developed by the Cooperative Extension Service and other IPM experts for each pest in each cropping Applying the NRCS IPM conservation system based on the biology of the crop and pest and practice the pest’s natural enemies. The economic threshold is then dynamically adjusted based on the current cost of The NRCS IPM conservation practice is specifically the pest suppression technique and projected value of designed to document the application of IPM tech- the crop. niques that address site-specific natural resource concerns. The NRCS IPM conservation practice is not A comprehensive IPM system also includes carefully designed to manage pests. Technical assistance for managing the use of different pest suppression tech- managing pests on cropland is not an identified role niques to delay the onset of pest resistance to each for conservation planners, but they must still work suppression technique. Using a combination of dif- closely with the Cooperative Extension Service, pro- ferent techniques including with different ducers, and their crop consultants to appropriately modes of action is critical to maintaining their efficacy integrate all planned pest management activities into and delaying the onset of pest resistance. the conservation planning process. The adoption of a comprehensive IPM system is always preferred, but Finally, a comprehensive IPM system must also miti- the NRCS IPM conservation practice is not designed gate environmental risks that cannot be prevented by to prescribe what constitutes a comprehensive IPM using appropriate IPM techniques that help minimize system. Commodity-specific IPM elements, guidelines, risks to nontarget species in the field and reduce and year-round IPM programs are often available at offsite movement of hazardous pesticides. the State level from land-grant universities and the Cooperative Extension Service to identify what consti- In some cropping systems, a comprehensive IPM tutes a comprehensive IPM system. These guidelines system will not be feasible because appropriate IPM should be used to help document the application of technology has yet to be developed. In these cases, the NRCS IPM conservation practice. Comprehensive the NRCS IPM conservation practice can be used to IPM systems use a site-specific combination of pest support the application of individual IPM techniques if prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression they appropriately mitigate site-specific pest suppres- (PAMS) strategies. For more information, see: sion risks to natural resources and/or humans.

• http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmelements/index. Note: Identified risks associated with planned pest cfm suppression can also be addressed through other • http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops- conservation practices or a system of conservation agriculture.html practices that includes the NRCS IPM conservation practice. • http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposiumv/ posters/142.pdf Pesticide registration versus pesticide While efficacy will always play an important role in risk analysis in conservation planning what IPM techniques are appropriate for each site, the NRCS IPM conservation practice is only used to docu- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ment specific environmental risk prevention and/or regulates pesticides under two major Federal statutes: mitigation benefits, not efficacy. The goal of the NRCS the Federal , , and IPM conservation practice is to prevent environmen- Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic tal risks with an efficient IPM system, if possible, and Act (FFDCA), both amended by the Food Quality Pro- mitigate any environmental risks that cannot be pre- tection Act (FQPA) of 1996. vented. Under FIFRA, pesticides intended for use in the United A comprehensive IPM system will prevent and avoid States must be registered (licensed) by the EPA before pests as much as possible to reduce the need for pest they may be sold or distributed in commerce. The EPA suppression, including the use of hazardous pesticides. will register a pesticide if scientific data provided by the applicant show that when used according to label- A comprehensive IPM system also includes carefully ing directions it will not cause “unreasonable adverse monitoring pest populations and only using suppres- effects on the environment.” FIFRA defines “unreason-

2 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process able adverse effects on the environment” as: “…any supplemented with higher pesticide concentration unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking pulses soon after . into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide…” Mitigating pesticide risks to natural resources is part of the NRCS’s mission, so conservation planners need Under FFDCA, EPA is responsible for setting toler- to coordinate their work with the way risks are miti- ances (maximum permissible residue levels) for any gated with pesticide registration label requirements. pesticide used on human food or animal feed. NRCS technical assistance and financial assistance programs must comply with FIFRA and all pesticide With the passage of FQPA, both major pesticide stat- label requirements including mitigation, but conserva- utes were amended. FQPA mandated a single, health- tion planners can still help producers properly inter- based standard for setting tolerances for pesticides pret the mitigation requirements on pesticide labels in foods, provided special protections for infants and for a particular site and also recommend supplemental children, expedited approval of safer pesticides, and mitigation to protect sensitive natural resources. required periodic reevaluation of pesticide registra- tions. FQPA also limited the consideration of benefits Conservation planners can use the WIN–PST for water when setting tolerances. FQPA did not address the quality pesticide risk analysis. The risk analysis done consideration of ecological risk. with WIN–PST for drinking water and aquatic habitat is not as comprehensive as the risk assessment that The EPA pesticide registration process, including any supports the EPA’s pesticide registration process, but pesticide label use restrictions, is based on a compre- WIN–PST is sufficient to guide site-specific application hensive pesticide risk assessment for typical condi- of mitigation techniques to address natural resource tions under which the pesticide will be used. This risk concerns identified in the conservation planning pro- assessment is designed to address many different risks cess. Conservation planners use WIN–PST to identify to many different species that might be impacted by a soil/pesticide combinations that need mitigation to particular pesticide use, but it does not address how help protect site-specific natural resources. these risks can vary substantially across the land- scape. Even when a pesticide is applied according to pesticide label instructions, site-specific conditions Using WIN–PST may cause that pesticide to pose significant risks to nearby water resources. WIN–PST is the NRCS-supported technical tool that is used to assess relative pesticide leaching, solution The EPA generally only registers pesticides that will runoff, and adsorbed runoff risks to water quality. have substantially more benefits than risks, and they WIN–PST analysis is based on: include appropriate risk mitigation in pesticide label • soil properties guidance. However, there are obvious limitations on how well a pesticide label can address site-specific • pesticide physical properties concerns that often vary widely across the landscape. • pesticide toxicity data

One of the most carefully regulated pesticide concerns • broadcast/banded/spot treatment is preventing drinking water contamination; yet, many • surface-applied/incorporated/foliar public drinking water suppliers must still filter pesti- cide residues out of our drinking water to meet EPA • standard/low rate/ultra low rate guidelines. Pesticide impacts on aquatic life are much • humid/dry (no irrigation) more widespread than drinking water concerns. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality The major components of the NRCS nonpoint source Assessment Program (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/) water quality pesticide risk analysis are: found at least one pesticide in almost every water and fish sample collected from streams and in more than • the potential for pesticide loss in: 50 percent of shallow wells. Most importantly, more – water that percolates below the root zone than 50 percent of the streams in the United States had a least one detection of a pesticide that exceeded – water that runs off the edge of the field a guideline for the protection of aquatic life. Also, – sediment that leaves the field in runoff toxicity tests have not been conducted on the “pesti- cide soup” found in most samples: a mixture of many • chronic (long-term) pesticide toxicity to humans pesticides at low concentrations throughout the year in drinking water and fish in aquatic habitat

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 3 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

• the combination of pesticide loss potential with For example, on the high end of the overall risk spec- pesticide toxicity to humans and fish to provide trum, the flow path from the field to the water body site-specific ratings for offsite pesticide hazards will be shorter and more direct with little opportunity in leaching, solution runoff, and sediment ad- for pesticide degradation or assimilation, the water- sorbed runoff shed will have significant pesticide loading potential from numerous fields that are managed in a similar The final ratings are called WIN–PST Soil/Pesticide fashion as the field being analyzed, and the water body Interaction Hazard Ratings. The term “hazard” is will be sensitive to pesticide contamination due to used even though these ratings include both pesticide limited flushing and dilution. At the other extreme on toxicity and a partial exposure analysis based on field the low end of the overall risk spectrum, the flow path conditions. It is the responsibility of the conservation to the water body will be longer and more arduous planner to put these hazard ratings into proper context with lots of opportunity for pesticide degradation and by using their professional judgment to assess the assimilation, the watershed will have only a few fields potential for pesticide movement below the bottom that are managed in a similar fashion so there will be of the root zone and beyond the edge of the field to limited loading potential for the pesticide in question, identified ground or surface water resources, as well and the water body will not be very sensitive to pesti- as the potential for that pesticide contamination to cide contamination due to lots of flushing and dilution. impact identified water resources based on watershed and water body characteristics. This entire process is The NRCS IPM conservation practice has water quality considered a risk analysis, so the term “hazard” is used mitigation requirements that are based on an average in the final WIN–PST ratings to remind users that they situation in between the high and low extremes de- must put these partial ratings into the proper context scribed. Although the NRCS IPM conservation practice to fully analyze risk to human drinking water and mitigation requirements for water quality will serve aquatic habitat. most situations, the conservation planner may use pro- fessional judgment to determine that more mitigation WIN–PST provides ratings for five different categories is required for a specific site. In some cases, a suite of of resource concerns: conservation practices may be required to provide suf- ficient mitigation to meet NRCS Field Office Technical • Human Hazard Leaching for leaching risk to Guide (FOTG) quality criteria. drinking water • Fish Hazard Leaching for leaching risk to aquatic Appropriate mitigation for water quality should be habitat (lateral flow to streams) chosen based on final WIN–PST hazard ratings for all applicable pesticide loss pathways to all identified • Human Hazard Solution for solution runoff risk water resource concerns. This will require sufficient to drinking water mitigation to be applied for the highest risk(s) identi- • Fish Hazard Solution for solution runoff risk to fied for a given planning area. aquatic habitat • Fish Hazard Adsorbed for adsorbed runoff risk to Conducting a WIN–PST analysis aquatic habitat including benthic organisms Step 1 Choose all the major soil types for the Note: there is no WIN–PST rating for Human field or planning area (generally those that cover Hazard Adsorbed since human exposure to sedi- 10 percent or more of the area). ment is minimal. Step 2 Choose all the pesticides that the client is The final WIN–PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard planning to use. ratings are very low, low, intermediate, high, or extra Note: Each pesticide can be chosen by product high. name, EPA registration number, or active ingredi- ent name, but the final ratings are specific to each To fully evaluate the risk of a pesticide to a human active ingredient. drinking water supply or aquatic habitat, the conser- vation planner must consider the impact of flow path Step 3 Analyze the results for each soil/pesticide characteristics between the field and the water body of interaction. concern (through the vadose zone to or Step 4 Select the highest hazard soil/pesticide overland flow to surface water), watershed character- combination for the identified natural resource istics, and water body characteristics. concern(s) to plan appropriate mitigation.

4 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

In the example below, there is a solution runoff con- Mitigation requirements can be met with other con- cern to aquatic habitat. Pesticides X and Y are planned servation practices as well as IPM techniques applied for a field that contains soils A, B, and C. with the NRCS IPM conservation practice. See table 1 at the end of this technical note for mitigation index In this example, the high rating for the combination values for IPM techniques and table 2 for mitigation of soil C with pesticide Y would be selected to plan an index values for conservation practices. The index appropriate level of mitigation to protect the aquatic values from table 1 can be added to the index values habitat. from table 2 to calculate the total index score for the planned conservation system. Soil/Pesticide WIN–PST Fish Hazard combination Solution rating For example, if Fish Hazard Solution is identified as a Soil A – Pesticide X Very low pathway of concern for an identified water resource (20% of the area) and WIN–PST reports an intermediate rating, IPM Soil B – Pesticide X Low techniques from table 1 or conservation practices from (50% of the area) table 2 that address solution runoff must be applied so Soil C – Pesticide X Intermediate that the sum of the index values from either table in (25% of the area) the solution runoff column for the selected IPM mitiga- Soil A – Pesticide Y Low tion techniques and conservation practices will be 20 (20% of the area) or more. Similarly, a high rating would require a sum Soil B – Pesticide Y Intermediate of 40 or more, and an extra high rating would require (50% of the area) a sum of 60 or more. This will be the case for all natu- Soil C – Pesticide Y High ral resource concerns and all applicable pesticide (25% of the area) loss pathways identified by the conservation planner with the aid of WIN–PST. In some cases, mitigation requirements may be met without applying any IPM Mitigation requirements in the NRCS IPM techniques, so the NRCS IPM conservation practice conservation practice is technically not required, but it can still be used to document that all identified natural resource concerns If a conservation planner identifies natural resource are adequately addressed. concerns related to pest management activities, NRCS conservation practices can be applied to address those As an alternative to mitigation, the conservation plan- concerns. The NRCS IPM CPS Code 595 has specific ner can also work with Cooperative Extension Service mitigation requirements for identified natural resource personnel, published Cooperative Extension Service concerns. recommendations, the producer, or their crop consul- tant to see if there are lower risk alternatives that still For water quality concerns related to pesticide leach- meet the producer’s objectives. A producer can choose ing, solution runoff, and adsorbed runoff, WIN–PST to use a pesticide that has risk if they also apply ap- must be used to evaluate potential hazards to humans propriate mitigation, or they can choose a lower risk and/or fish as appropriate for each pesticide to be pesticide that needs less or no mitigation—pesticide used. Human hazard is represented by the potential for choice is the producer’s decision. chronic impacts to drinking water, and aquatic habitat hazard is represented by the potential for chronic im- has also been identified as a major pacts to fish. The minimum level of mitigation required pesticide loss pathway. Predicting spray drift is diffi- for each resource concern is based on the final WIN– cult because it is influenced by many rapidly changing PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard ratings: site-specific factors including wind speed, relative hu- midity, temperature, and the presence of temperature WIN–PST identified Minimum mitigation inversions. Spray droplet size as determined by nozzle final hazard rating index score level configuration and pressure also plays an important needed role in spray drift. Low or very low None Intermediate 20 Pesticide drift that leaves the application area may im- pact nearby crops that are sensitive, organically grown High 40 crops, and wildlife including pollinators and beneficial Extra High 60 insects, as well as human bystanders.

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 5 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Drift can also be a major pesticide loss pathway to • Shift dates of fumigant application to outside the surface water in some cases, so appropriate mitigation May to October time frame to move VOC emis- for drift may be required in addition to mitigation for sions out of the nonattainment period. pesticide leaching, solution runoff, and adsorbed run- • Use solarization (e.g., irrigate and tarp during off to adequately protect a surface water resource. summer fallow) to kill pests without . If the conservation planner identifies a natural re- • Use biofumigants or other soil treatments (e.g., source concern related to pesticide spray drift, the thiosulfate) instead of pesticides. minimum level of mitigation required is an index score • Use steam fumigation instead of pesticides. of 20. The index values from table 1 can be added to the index values from table 2 to calculate the total • Fallow fields for several years before replanting index score for the planned conservation system. an orchard crop or inoculate young trees (e.g., with yeast) to reduce fumigant use. Pesticide volatilization has been identified as a con- tributor to air quality concerns through volatile organ- Pesticide direct contact can affect pollinators and ic compound (VOC) emissions that are a key precursor other beneficial species in the application area while to ground-level . The State of California has local pesticides are being applied and later when pollinators air shed rules and regulations in place for nonattain- and other beneficial species reenter the treated area. ment areas, and other States may follow. Pollinators that have been exposed in the application area at sublethal concentrations can return to the hive Pesticide-related VOC emissions are influenced by and affect others. Direct exposure to pesticides in the the vapor pressure of the active ingredients and the application area can occur even when spray drift is way pesticide products are formulated. Emulsifiable minimized. concentrates have higher VOC emissions than other formulations. If the conservation planner identifies a Planners can use the steps detailed in Technical Note VOC-related natural resource concern, one or more 190, Agronomy, 9, Preventing or Mitigating Potential of the following VOC mitigation techniques must be Negative Impacts of Pesticides on Pollinators Using applied: Integrated Pest Management and Other Conservation Practices, to determine if pollinators and beneficial • Use lower VOC-emitting pesticide formulations— species are potentially being impacted by the pes- specifically eliminating the use of emulsifiable ticides used by the client. Planners should use the concentrates when other formulations are avail- same document in working with the client and pest able. management professional in determining the minimum • Use precision pesticide application or smart amount of mitigation needed for the identified risk. sprayer technology including: Cultural and mechanical pest management techniques – near-infrared-based weed sensing systems can cause natural resource degradation. For example, – map/GPS-based variable rate application burning for weed control can cause air pollution and tillage for weed control can cause soil erosion. All – sonar-based vegetation sensors natural resource concerns from all forms of pest man- – computer controlled spray nozzles agement should be evaluated, and significant natural resource concerns should be addressed to FOTG qual- – hoods and shields to direct applications ity criteria levels. – wicks – backpacks IPM plans – remote sensing, GIS, or other spatial informa- tion system What constitutes an IPM plan can range from an ef- ficient pesticide recommendation based on monitoring – fumigant delivery with precision application results all the way to a detailed year-round plan that – fumigant delivery with drip irrigation address all facets of pest prevention, pest avoidance, pest monitoring, and pest suppression for an entire – fumigant soil retention using precision water farm or even on an areawide basis. Conservation plan- application ners do not develop IPM plans, but they must carefully • Use impermeable tarps to cover fumigated areas. coordinate the conservation plan with the IPM plan. As long as the IPM plan or the application of individual

6 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

IPM techniques appropriately mitigates site-specific priate IPM system that provides adequate mitigation pest suppression risks to natural resources and/or hu- for the identified resource concerns. A collaborative mans, the requirements of the NRCS IPM conservation effort between the IPM planner and the conservation practice are met. planner to coordinate the IPM system with the conser- vation system will provide the best overall results for Conservation planners can work with existing IPM the producer. plans or work with Cooperative Extension Service producers or their crop consultants to develop new The IPM mitigation techniques in table 1 are included IPM plans. IPM elements and guidelines from the in most land-grant university IPM programs, but NRCS Cooperative Extension Service or the land-grant conservation planners have to be certain that the university should be used where available. A national Cooperative Extension Service or an appropriately listing is available at: http://www.ipmcenters.org/ certified farm advisor supports and recommends the ipmelements/index.cfm. The goal is to develop an site-specific use of these techniques. The NRCS pest efficient IPM system that uses prevention, avoidance, management policy does not support NRCS conserva- monitoring, and judicious suppression when a pest tion planners changing the way a pesticide is applied population exceeds an economic threshold. IPM helps or substituting a different pesticide on their own. The assure that unnecessary environmental risks are NRCS fully supports the conservation benefits of each avoided. The best way to develop a good IPM system of these IPM risk prevention/mitigation techniques is to consider economics, efficacy, and environmental as long as they are recommended by the Cooperative risk all at the same time. Extension Service or an appropriately certified farm advisor. IPM plans have traditionally been developed for ef- ficient including economics, efficacy, and resistance management. Environmental risk reduc- Using tables 1 and 2 tion is an indirect benefit of an efficient IPM system, but with the advent of the National Road Map for Table 1 identifies IPM techniques, and table 2 identifies Integrated Pest Management in 2004, environmental NRCS conservation practices that have the potential to risk reduction became a core principle of IPM and is prevent or mitigate pesticide impacts on water and air now just as important as economics and efficacy. The quality. Pesticide impacts on water quality are divided National Road Map for Integrated Pest Management into four separate pesticide loss pathways: leaching, can be viewed at: http://www.ipmcenters.org/Docs/ solution runoff, adsorbed runoff, and drift. The pesti- IPMRoadMap.pdf. cide drift pathway also applies to pesticide impacts on air quality. Developing an IPM plan as part of the overall conser- vation planning process will allow the IPM plan to Not all IPM techniques and NRCS conservation prac- directly address identified natural resource concerns tices will be applicable to a given situation. Relative ef- as well as provide a broader context to areawide pest fectiveness ratings by pesticide loss pathway are indi- management considerations and habitat management cated with index values of 5, 10, or 15. The tables also for beneficial species. identify how the IPM techniques and NRCS conserva- tion practices function and the performance criteria It may take several passes through the IPM planning that the index values are based on. Effectiveness of process to achieve all of the producer’s goals. The first any IPM technique or NRCS conservation practice can pass through may result in an efficient IPM system, but be highly variable based on site conditions and how there may still be risks to site-specific natural resourc- the technique or conservation practice is designed, es. If a high risk suppression alternative is important implemented, and maintained. The professional judg- to the overall IPM system, a second pass through the ment of the conservation planner will ultimately deter- IPM planning process may reveal additional IPM tech- mine the effectiveness of a particular IPM technique niques that can help to mitigate risks to site-specific or NRCS conservation practice for a particular field or natural resources. planning area.

It is important to note that other NRCS conservation Tables 1 and 2 are based on available research specific practices like Conservation Crop Rotation, Cover to that IPM technique or NRCS conservation practice, Crop, and Field Border can be used to help develop an related research, and the best professional judgment efficient IPM system. The IPM techniques described in of NRCS technical specialists. The ratings are relative table 1 can be used together with the NRCS conserva- index values as opposed to absolute values, much like tion practices described in table 2 to develop an appro- the Conservation Practice Physical Effects (CPPE)

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 7 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process matrix ratings. The index values are intended to help conservation planners choose the best combination of IPM techniques and NRCS conservation practices for identified resource concerns. The ratings are based on the relative potential for IPM techniques or NRCS conservation practices to provide mitigation. The IPM techniques or NRCS conservation practices need to be specifically designed, implemented, and maintained for the mitigation potential to be realized. Varying site conditions can influence mitigation effectiveness, but the relative index values indicate which IPM mitiga- tion techniques or NRCS conservation practices will generally provide more or less mitigation under a given set of conditions.

A general rule of thumb for IPM techniques or NRCS conservation practices having an index value of 5 is that they generally have the potential to reduce losses by 10 to 5 percent. IPM techniques or NRCS conser- vation practices having an index value of 10 gener- ally have the potential to reduce losses by about 25 percent, and IPM techniques or NRCS conservation practices having an index value 15 generally have the potential to reduce losses by 50 percent or more.

States can make adjustments to tables 1 and 2, but any adjustments should be coordinated across State lines through NRCS regional agronomists.

For questions about the information in this publica- tion, contact the NRCS State agronomist, NRCS re- gional agronomist, or NRCS national pest management specialist.

References

Aquatic Dialogue Group. 1994. Pesticide Risk Assess- ment and Mitigation, J.L. Baker, A.C. Barefoot, L.E. Beasley, L.A. Burns, P.P Caulkins, J.E. Clark, R.L. Feulner, J.P Giesy, R.L. Graney, R.H. Griggs, H.M. Jacoby, D.A. Laskowski, A.F. Maciorowski, E.M. Mihaich, H.P Nelson Jr., P.R. Parrish, R.E. Siefert, K.R. Solomon, W.H. van der Schalie, edi- tors. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. pp. 99–111 and table 4–2. Pensacola, FL.

8 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process pesticides OC Reduces exposure—spraying during cooler temperatures (e.g., early morning, evening or at night) can help reduce drift losses spraying in temperatures above 90 ºF Avoid Reduces exposure—delaying application when significant rainfall events are forecast that could produce substantial leaching or runoff can reduce pesticide transport to ground and surface water Reduces exposure—spraying when there is higher relative humidity reduces evaporation of water from spray droplets thus reducing drift losses Reduces exposure—delaying application when wind speed is not optimal can reduce pesticide drift Optimal spray conditions for reducing drift occur when the air is slightly un - stable with a very mild, steady wind between 2 and 9 miles per hour Reduces exposure—specific pesticide formulations and/or adjuvants can in - crease efficacy and allow lower application rates; drift retardant adjuvants can reduce pesticide spray drift Reduces exposure—reduces the amount of pesticide applied with preventative treatments because applications are based on monitoring that determines when a pest population exceeds previously determined economic threshold Reduces exposure—spot treatment, banding and directed spraying reduces amount of pesticide applied Assumes less than 50 percent of the area is treated Reduces exposure—using smart sprayer technology (i.e., green sensors, sonar- based sensors, GPS-based variable rate application, computer controlled spray nozzles, etc.) can substantially reduce the amount of pesticide applied Reduces exposure—reduces overall amount of pesticide applied; reduces offsite pesticide drift Assumes that the setbacks with no application are at least 30 feet wide Reduces exposure—reduces solution and adsorbed runoff losses, but poten - tially increases leaching losses, especially for low K Applicable to shallow mechanical or irrigation incorporation Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natural resource concern Not applicable if soil erosion is not adequately managed

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance 5 5 5 10 15 10 10 10 Drift

4 5 5 15 15 15 10 15 Adsorbed runoff 5 5 Mitigation index value value Mitigation index 15 15 15 10 15 Solution runoff (by pesticide loss pathway) (by 5 5 15 15 15 10 Leaching 2, 3 1 IPM techniques for reducing pesticide environmental risk

2, 3 Application timing—rain Application timing—rela - tive humidity Application timing—wind Formulations and adju - vants Monitoring + economic pest thresholds Partial treatment Precision application using smart sprayers Setbacks Soil incorporation Application timing—ambi - ent temperature IPM techniques Table 1 Table

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 9 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process - - Reduces exposure—selecting appropriate nozzle and pressure for the applica - tion, with an emphasis on higher volume spray nozzles run at lower pressures, will produce larger droplets and a narrower droplet size distribution, which reduces spray drift Proper nozzle spacing, boom height, and suspension, along with frequent calibration and replacement of worn nozzles leaking tubing, can increase efficacy and reduce drift potential Reduces risk—partial substitution of alternative cultural, mechanical, or bio - logical pest suppression techniques reduces the application of a pesticide that poses a hazard to an identified natural resource concern Not applicable if hazards from alternative suppression techniques are not adequately managed Reduces risk—partial substitution of an alternative lower risk pesticide re - duces the application of a pesticide that poses hazard to an identified natural resource concern Not applicable if the alternative pesticide is not explicitly recommended by Ex - tension or an appropriately certified crop consultant because the NRCS cannot make pesticide recommendations Reduces risk—using semiochemicals (e.g., mating disruption pheromones) to decrease reproductive success or control population density/location reduces the application of a pesticide that poses hazard to an identified natural re - source concern

• • • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance 15 15 10 15 Drift

4 15 15 15 Adsorbed runoff Mitigation index value value Mitigation index 15 15 15 Solution runoff (by pesticide loss pathway) (by 15 15 15 Leaching 1 IPM techniques for reducing pesticide environmental risk—Continued 2, 3

Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, manage The pesticide label is the law—all specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may needed to meet NRCS pest manage NRCS does not make pesticide recommendations. All application techniques must be recommended by Extension or an appropriately certified crop consultant and selected Teh the producer. Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of IPM mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pesticide losses through the identified pathways. ment requirements for identified resource concerns. ment consultants, and pesticide labels.

Substitution—cultural, mechanical, or biological controls Substitution—lower risk pesticides Substitution—semiochemi - cals Spray nozzle selection, maintenance, and opera - tion IPM techniques Table 1 Table 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/

10 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface water; reduces soil ero - sion; can provide habitat for beneficial insects, which reduce the need for pesticides; also can reduce pesticide drift to surface water Increases infiltration and deep percolation; reduces soil erosion Increases surface infiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in the root zone Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; and builds organic mat - ter in perennial cropping systems such as orchards, vineyards, berries, and nursery stock Reduces the need for pesticides by breaking pest life cycles Rotation shall consist of at least two crops in the rotation and no crop grown more than once before growing a different crop Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their degradation Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion Increases infiltration and deep percolation; reduces soil erosion Increases infiltration and deep percolation; reduces soil erosion Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; builds organic matter Assumes at least 4,000 pounds per acre of live biomass the time tillage Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; builds organic matter Requires at least 4,000 pounds per acre of live biomass the time tillage and at least 30 percent ground cover the time of pesticide application Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide deposition in surface water Assumes the pesticide is applied while field in ridged state Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide deposition in surface water; traps adsorbed pesticides Increases infiltration and deep percolation Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natu - ral resource concern

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance Drift 10 10 4 3/ runoff 3/ 5 5 5 5 5 Adsorbed 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 15 10 runoff 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Solution 10 10 10 10 Mitigation index value value Mitigation index (by pesticide loss pathway) (by 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 Leaching Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk 1, 2

Alley Cropping (Code 311) Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Control (Code 450) Bedding (Code 310) Conservation Cover (Code 327) Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328) (Code 656) Constructed Wetland Contour Buffer Strips (Code 332) Contour Farming (Code 330) Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (Code 331) Cover Crop (Code 340) that is incorpo - rated into the soil Cover Crop (Code 340) for weed suppres - sion that is mulch tilled or no-tilled into for the next crop Ridges (Code 588) Cross Wind Strips (Code 589C) Trap Cross Wind (Code 324) Deep Tillage mitigation conservation Pesticide practices Table 2 Table

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 11 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process Reduces exposure potential—excludes outside water or captures pesti - cide residues and facilitates their degradation Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natu - ral resource concern Drainage during the growing season increases infiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in the root zone and reduces storm water runoff Managed drainage mode when the field is not being cropped reduces discharge of pesticide residues from the previous growing season Seasonal saturation may reduce the need for pesticides Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natu - ral resource concern Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesticides; often reduces ap - plication area resulting in less pesticide applied; can provide habitat for beneficial insects, which reduces the need for pesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests, which can result in reduced pesticide ap - plication; also can reduce inadvertent pesticide application and drift to surface water Assumes 20-foot minimum width Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesticides; often reduces ap - plication area resulting in less pesticide applied; can provide habitat for beneficial insects,,which reduces the need for pesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests, which can result in reduced pesticide ap - plication; also can reduce inadvertent pesticide application and drift to surface water Assumes 30-foot minimum width Reduces exposure potential—timely harvesting reduces the need for pesticides Reduces adsorbed pesticide deposition in surface water; also can re - duce inadvertent pesticide application and drift to surface water Reduces wind erosion; traps adsorbed pesticides; can provide habitat for beneficial insects, which reduces the need pesticides; can pro - vide habitat to congregate pests, which can result in reduced pesticide application; and can reduce pesticide drift to surface water Reduces exposure potential—efficient and uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport to ground and surface water

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance 5 5 Drift 10 10 10 4 3/ runoff 3/ Adsorbed 10 15 10 5 10 10 10 15 runoff 5 Solution 10 15 10 10 10 Mitigation index value value Mitigation index (by pesticide loss pathway) (by 10 10 Leaching Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk—Continued 1, 2

Dike (Code 356) Drainage Water Management (Code 554) Drainage Water Field Border (Code 386) Filter Strip (Code 393) Forage Harvest Management (Code 511) Hedgerow Planting (Code 442) Barriers (Code 603) Herbaceous Wind Irrigation System, Microirrigation (Code 441) mitigation conservation Pesticide practices Table 2 Table

12 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process Reduces exposure potential—efficient and uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport to ground and surface water Reduces exposure potential—efficient and uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport to ground and surface water Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their degradation Reduces exposure potential—water is applied at rates that minimize promotes healthy pesticide transport to ground and surface water, plants which can better tolerate pests Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, the need for pesti - cides Reduces the need for pesticides. Not applicable if erosion and pesticide runoff from nonmulched areas is not adequately managed Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds organic matter Assumes at least 60 percent ground cover the time of application Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds organic matter Assumes at least 30 percent ground cover the time of application Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds organic matter traps sediment, Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface water, and reduces pesticide drift builds soil organic matter, This assumes 30-foot minimum width and Increases infiltration, traps sediment, builds soil organic matter, reduces pesticide drift. Assumes 30-foot minimum width Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their degradation Not applicable if less than 50 percent of the treatment area drains into the sediment basin Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion and generally will only be treating half the area of concern Increases infiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in the root zone *Note: avoid direct outlets to surface water Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide deposition in surface water

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance 5 5 Drift 10 4 runoff 3/ 5 5 Adsorbed 10 15 10 15 10 10 15 10 10 10 5 15 15 runoff 5 5 5 5 Solution 10 15 10 10 15 10 10 15 15 Mitigation index value value Mitigation index (by pesticide loss pathway) (by 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 10 10 Leaching Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk—Continued 1, 2

Irrigation System, Sprinkler (Code 442) Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Code 443) Recovery Water Irrigation System, Tail (Code 447) Management (Code 449) Irrigation Water Mulching (Code 484) with natural materi - als Mulching (Code 484) with plastic Management, No-till/ Residue and Tillage Seed (Code 329) Strip-Till/Direct Management, Mulch- Residue and Tillage (Code 345) Till Management, Ridge Residue and Tillage (Code 346) Till Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391) Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390) Sediment Basin (Code 350) Stripcropping (Code 585) Subsurface Drainage (Code 606) Surface Roughening (Code 609) mitigation conservation Pesticide practices Table 2 Table

Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014 13 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process - - - Increases infiltration and deep percolation; reduces soil erosion Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natu - ral resource concern Reduces soil erosion; traps sediment; increases infiltration Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their degradation; increases infiltration and deep percolation Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identified natu - ral resource concern Reduces wind erosion; reduces adsorbed pesticide deposition in surface water; traps adsorbed pesticides; reduces pesticide drift

• • • • • • Function and performance criteria Function and performance Drift 10 4 3/ runoff Adsorbed 10 10 15 15 runoff Solution 10 10 Mitigation index value value Mitigation index (by pesticide loss pathway) (by Leaching Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk—Continued 1, 2

Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, manage All pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may needed to meet NRCS pest manage The pesticide label is the law. Mitigation applies to adsorbed pesticide losses being carried surface water by wind. Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of pesticide mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous losses through the identified path ment requirements for identified resource concerns. ment consultants, and pesticide labels. ways.

Terrace (Code 600) Terrace Vegetative Barriers (Code 601) Vegetative and Sediment Control Basin (Code Water 638) Establishment Windbreak/Shelterbelt (Code 380) mitigation conservation Pesticide practices Table 2 Table 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/

14 Agronomy Technical Note No. 5, 1st Ed., Amend. 1, February 2014