Pesticide Mitigation Practices and Techniques
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Agronomy Technical Note XXX: Pesticide Mitigation Practices and Techniques Introduction 4. Field pesticide volatization/drift in This document is intended to be used as a air. supporting document to implement the 5. Determining the toxicological hazard NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (596) posed by the pesticide. Pesticide Risk Mitigation and in general 6. Characterizing risk by combining Integrated Pest Management (IPM) planning pesticide exposure and toxicity. where there is a need to mitigate for potential losses of pesticides that can may Pesticide hazard ratings refer to the WIN- pose offsite risks. PST soil and pesticide interaction ratings for: NOTE: If the identified hazards and risks 1. IARP (fish) – Soil Pesticide associated with the planned pesticides can Interactive Adsorbed Runoff be addressed through planned conservation Potential for Fish practices or system of conservation practices 2. ILP (fish) - Soil Pesticide Interactive then those pesticides do not apply to the Leaching Potential for Fish Conservation Practice Standard – Pesticide 3. ISRP (fish) - Soil Pesticide Risk Mitigation (596). Also, it is not Interactive Solution Runoff for Fish necessary to assess risk or hazard of 4. ILP (human) - Soil Pesticide pesticides that are used for seed treatment Interactive Leaching Potential for and/or banded with seed, or similar Humans pesticides, where the exposure of these 5. ISRP (human) - Soil Pesticide pesticides are very limited. Interactive Solution Runoff for Humans NRCS Pesticide Risk/Hazard Analysis Pesticide registrations and label use WIN-PST is the NRCS technical tool that to restrictions are both based on risk analysis assess pesticide hazard based on: and determining if the benefits of a proposed • Pesticide data pesticide use outweigh the potential risks. A • Soils data risk assessment is a detailed risk analysis • Toxicity data that includes essentially all potential risks to all species that may be impacted by a When using the WIN-PST tool the users particular pesticide use. NRCS pesticide risk enters the client’s planned pesticides and the analysis is a subset of a full risk assessment. soils on which those pesticides will be NRCS focuses on pesticide environmental applied. Identifying the pesticides is very risk screening tools and the data used to straight forward. However, most fields identify sensitive pesticide/soil contain more than one soil type. So which combinations that need mitigation to help soil type should be used for the WIN-PST protect the natural resource base. assessment. The major components of the NRCS Non- Rationale to select the appropriate soil for Point Source Exposure pesticide risk/hazard the soil/pesticide interaction hazard rating. analysis are: To determine the appropriate soil/pesticide 1. Field pesticide leachate in water. combination to use for the assessment and 2. Field pesticide runoff in water. mitigation planning do the following: 3. Field pesticide runoff in sediment. Page 1 of 10 November 7, 2008 Version Agronomy Technical Note XXX: Pesticide Mitigation Practices and Techniques 1. Enter all the soil types into WIN- The following planning process will guide PST that make up roughly more than the planner and the client in the selection of 10% of the field. the appropriate mitigation practice(s) (Table 2. Enter all the client’s planned II) or IPM Techniques (Table I) to address pesticides into WIN-PST. the site specific risks or hazards. 3. Review and analyze the hazards associated with each soil/pesticide One way to mitigate the loss pathways is interaction. Select as your planning through the application of conservation soil/pesticide combination the practices. Table II list several practices and combination that makes up there estimated effect on the loss pathway. approximately 25% of the field (or This should be the first approach. The planning area) that has the highest minimum index score for mitigation for the hazard rating appropriate for the site. given hazard rating is indicated in the chart For example: Soil A occupies below. approximately 50% of the field and has a “High” hazard rating for IARP WIN-PST Identified Minimum Mitigation (fish) – Soil Pesticide Interactive Hazard Rating Score Level Needed Adsorbed Runoff Potential for Fish. Very Low or Low None Needed Soil B occupies approximately 30% Intermediate 3 of the field and has a “High” hazard High 6 rating for ILP (human) - Soil Very High 9 Pesticide Interactive Leaching Potential for Humans. On this If the application of conservation practices particular field there is no nearby will not minimally address the hazard then stream – thus the hazard rating for the application of one or more IPM Soil A does not apply to this site. Mitigation Techniques outlined in Table 1 However, there is a treat to should be used. Many of the techniques in underground drinking water in the Table I below are parts of Land-Grant area from pesticides. In this case University Integrated Pest Management Soil B that occupies 30% of the field (IPM) Programs and form the basis of many would be the appropriate Soil for this producer IPM plans. particular pesticide. NOTE: The scores from Table II can be The planner will need to make a decision added with any scores from Table I to as to which soil/pesticide combination to calculate the minimum score needed for base mitigation planning and is mitigation. dependent upon (1) the soil/pesticide hazard rating, (2) the local field setting, Generally, the higher the identified hazard and (3) the amount of area occupied by the greater the number of techniques that the soil in question. will have to be implemented to mitigate for that risk. Ultimately, the planner with the When a hazard has been identified by aid of pesticide professionals, if necessary, NRCS’ current WIN-PST (Windows-bases will need to determine how much mitigation Pesticide Screening Tool) and the site will be necessary. As a general guide to the setting the planner has several choices of planner, the following minimum level of how to address that hazard. mitigation shall be implemented: Page 2 of 10 November 7, 2008 Version Agronomy Technical Note XXX: Pesticide Mitigation Practices and Techniques Risk Reduction by Pesticide Usage WIN-PST Identified Minimum Mitigation Reduction Hazard Rating Score Level Needed Another alternative to reduce risk/hazard is Very Low or Low None Needed to reduce the usage of pesticides. An Intermediate 3 acceptable level of Pesticide Risk Reduction High 6 is considered achieved if active ingredient Very High 9 usage is reduced by 50% or more. The manner in which the reduction is achieved is For example, if an Intermediate hazard for irrelevant (as long as it is done within label). adsorbed runoff is identified, then practices from Table II or IPM techniques from Table Other Pesticide Risks I that address adsorbed runoff would be In addition to the WIN-PST hazard ratings implemented so that the sum of the index one can also assess the client’s planned values in the “Adsorbed Runoff” column for pesticides’ risk for volatilization and drift. the selected practice(s) or IPM techniques Appropriate mitigation for drift can be will be 3 or more. Similarly, if a High selected form Tables I and II in this hazard for adsorbed runoff is identified, then document. practices from Table II or IPM techniques from Table I that address adsorbed runoff Volatilization Risk. Risk of volatilization would be implemented so that there the sum losses is defined in the Pesticide Risk of the index values in the “Adsorbed Mitigation Standard (596) under “Criteria Runoff” column for the selected practices or Applicable to Reducing Pesticide IPM techniques will be 6 or more. Finally, Volatilization”. The risk reduction with if a Very High hazard for adsorbed runoff is volatilization losses can be achieved by identified, then practices from Table II or using a pesticide with a vapor pressure of IPM techniques from Table I that address less than 10-6 mm Hg. adsorbed runoff would be implemented so that there the sum of the index values in the Drift Risk. Risk from drift losses is difficult “Adsorbed Runoff” column for the selected to determine because many factors are practices or IPM techniques will be 9 or involved from the presence of temperature more. This will be the case for all hazards inversions, wind speed, temperature, identified by WIN-PST. pesticide chemistry, spray nozzle droplet size, etc. If there is evidence of drift, use Other Considerations to Mitigate Table I and Table II as appropriate to Pesticide Hazards and Risks address losses with the best professional Risk Reduction by Using a Low Risk judgment. A minimum index score of 3 Pesticide (sum of Table II plus Table I) is the criteria The client and/or a certified professional to address the risk of drift. (e.g. Certified Crop Advisor, extension agent, etc.) can identify a lower risk/hazard The following tables identify management pesticide that can be used in place of a techniques that have the potential to mitigate higher risk pesticide. The reduced risk pesticide impacts on water quality. Not all associated with each pesticide application techniques/practices will be applicable to a shall be clearly summarized and given situation. Relative effectiveness documented to show that no new risk from ratings by pesticide loss pathway are rated the newly selected pesticide was introduced. from an index value of “0” to an index value Page 3 of 10 November 7, 2008 Version Agronomy Technical Note XXX: Pesticide Mitigation Practices and Techniques of 9. The tables also identify how the The original reference for many of the practices and IPM techniques function and ratings in Tables 1 & 2 is: Aquatic Dialogue the performance level the rating is based Group: Pesticide Risk Assessment and upon. Effectiveness of any mitigation Mitigation, Baker JL, Barefoot AC, Beasley technique/practice can be highly variable LE, Burns LA, Caulkins PP, Clark JE, based on site conditions and how it is Feulner RL, Giesy JP, Graney RL, Griggs designed.