sample plan - nrcs.usda.gov… · sample plan. 2 mn-cpa-024 november 2018 ... joe farmer has a...
Post on 15-Apr-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
USDA United States
??:::77iiz Department of Agriculture
Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Inventory Form
MN-CPA-024
November 2018
Farm contact information: Joe Farmer
3645 Beach Road
Fungicide, MN 55555
jfarmer@email.com
999-999-9999
Owner I Operator: Owner/Operator
Plan Period: 2018 2027
Baseline Integrated Pest Management Plan (CAP 114 1PM) Certification
Owner/Operator
As the decision maker for the operation covered by this integrated pest management plan, I have been involved in the planning process and agree that the items/practices listed in each element of the plan are needed and will accomplish my management and conservation objectives. I understand that I am responsible for keeping all necessary records associated with the implementation of this plan. It is my intention to implemenUaccomplish this integrated pest management plan in a timely manner as described in the plan.
Producer Signal� Date��{ 18
Certified Pest Management Planner
1
I certify that the activities in this plan have been completed to the best of my knowledge as presented to me by the aforementioned producer. I have reviewed all elements of this plan and the documents are technically compatible, reasonable and can be implemented
TSP Signature �
TSP Name: Joe TSP
Lic./Cert. Type & Number: 000000
Certification Credentials CAP 114 1PM Certified TSP
Date 12-IS-IB
Title: Senior Agronomist
TSP# (if applicable): 13-0000
MN-CPA-024
November 2018
SAMPLE PLA
N
2 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
General Information
Brief Description of the Operation Provide an overview of the operation including a description of the crops (rotations, yields, etc.) and crop production practices (tillage, nutrient application practices)
Joe Farmer has a rotation of grain corn and soybeans with a mostly no-till system since 1992. Average yields are 180 bu/ac for corn and 50 bu/ac for soybeans. Urea is generally applied in the spring. Soil testing is conducted every other year prior to corn.
Producer’s Objectives or Goals
Reduce pesticide use by employing scouting and spray techniques to reduce risk of pesticides in surface water.
Attachments 1.1 – Location Map and Directions to Farm
1.2 – General Farm Field Information report
1.3 – Farm and Field Maps See NRCS Conservation Plan Maps
3.1 – Plan Maps (showing location of existing and planned conservation practices and
structures 3.2 – Soil Maps and Applicable Soil Interpretations SAMPLE PLA
N
Map data ©2019 500 ft
0.8 mi
0.2 mi
United States Postal Service to 916 2nd St SE, Drive 1.0 mile, 3 min Dodge Center, MN 55927 (Example - does not match actual location.)
Page 1 of 1United States Postal Service to 916 2nd St SE, Dodge Center, MN 55927 - Google Maps
6/24/2019https://www.google.com/maps/dir/United+States+Postal+Service,+West+Main+Street,+D...
SAMPLE PLA
N
Planning Year 2018Operator/Producer Joe Farmer Date Printed Sep 18, 2018
General Farm Field Information
Field Acres Irrigated Location/DescriptionSoil ProductivityPotential for N
Coffer
East 36.5 T0000High
West 78.2 T0000High
Total Acres 114.7
Page 1 of 1SAMPLE
PLAN
C o f f e r W e s t C o f f e r E a s tT-0000
F 278.2 acCrop
T-0000F 1
36.5 ac Crop
T-0000F 3
0.7 acAssociated Ag Land
T-0000F 4
0.5 acAssociated Ag Land
14
11
13
12
Plan Map
.0 660 1,320330 Feet
1 inch = 605 feet 1:7,257FSA Tract BoundariesSections
NAIP 2017
8/2/2017
Field Office: Mystery Service Center
Agency: USDA-NRCS
Assisted by: Joe TSP
Customer(s): Joe Farmer
District: Mystery SWCD, Mystery County, MN
Minnesota, Mystery County, Mystery Township, Section 13, 14
Prepared with assistance from USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
328 and 345 Existing590, 595, E590119Z, and E595116Z 2018-2021
328 and 345 Existing590, 595, E590119Z, and E595116Z 2018-2021
SAMPLE PLA
N
Soil Map—Mystery County, Minnesota (Joe Farmer (Coffer East & West)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 1 of 3
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS840 300 600 1200 1800
Feet0 50 100 200 300
MetersMap Scale: 1:6,660 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
SAMPLE PLA
N
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
L33A Mystery clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
3.5 3.1%
L33B Mystery clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes
12.6 11.0%
L34A Mystery silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
28.8 25.0%
L164A Lura silty clay, depressional, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
1.4 1.2%
L166C2 Mystery-Strout complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded
5.5 4.8%
L166D2 Mystery-Strout complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, moderately eroded
1.4 1.2%
L185B Strout-Arkton complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
61.7 53.5%
L186A Danielson-Danielson, overwash complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes
0.3 0.2%
L191A Blue Earth, Houghton, and Klossner soils, ponded, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
0.0 0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 115.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 3 of 3
SAMPLE PLA
N
3 MN-CPA-024
November 2018
Resource Concern Assessment
Resource Concern Minimum Treatment Level
Does this meet the minimum treatment before
plan?
Does this meet the minimum treatment after
plan? SOIL QUALITY
Soil Erosion – Sheet, Rill Soil Loss < T + 1 Yes Yes
Soil Erosion - Wind Soil Loss < T + 1 Yes Yes
Soil Erosion – Concentrated Flow
Concentrated flow erosion is stabilized Yes Yes
WATER QUALITY
Win-PST Hazard Rating Intermediate and higher rating requires mitigation. No Yes
AIR QUALITY
Drift
Pesticide applicator follows the labor
instructions and warnings that prevent drift.
Yes Yes
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emission
VOC nonattainment areas must reduce emission by
20% - California Only
OTHER RESOURCE CONCERNS
Attachments
3.3 – Other Resource Maps (Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC), Wetlands, etc.)
3.4 – Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2) or most current NRCS water erosion tool
3.5 – Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) or most current NRCS wind erosion tool
4.13 – “Fields with Sensitive Features and Conditions” report (MN-CPA-039)
4.14 – Maps Identifying Sensitive Features and Setbacks
4.15 – Maps Identifying Sensitive Soil Features
4.16 – Surficial Aquifer Assessment Map
4.17 – 4.24 – Identification of Additional Considerations (if applicable – Impaired Waters, etc.) See Setbacks Maps
See Setbacks Maps
See Setbacks MapsSAMPLE PLA
N
Legend Property Boundery \Netland -
Stream -Open Intake •
\/\fell 300 Foot Setback
0
Setback Map
0.13 0.25
mles
Sensitive Features Provisions No application within 25 feet of open tile
intake and drainage ditch. All manure must be incorporated within 24 hours when
applied to an SPA. Manure may not be applied within 300 feet of open intake when ground is frozen.
09/18/2018
Customer(s): Joe FarmerDistrict: Mystery SWCD, Mystery County, MN Minnesota, Mystery County, Mystery Township, Section 13,14
Field Office: Mystery Service Center Agency: USDA-NRCSAssisted by: Joe TSP
Prepared with assistance from USDA-NaturalResources Conservation Service
SAMPLE PLA
N
1 9/18/2018
RUSLE2 Profile Erosion Calculation Record
Info: Joe Farmer-Coffer East & West
Inputs: File: profiles\default Location: USA\Minnesota\Mystery County Soil: Mystery Co. MN 2016\L34A Mystery silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes\Mystery Silty clay 85% T value: 5.0 t/ac/yr Slope length (horiz): 40 ft Avg. slope steepness: 1.0 %
Management Vegetation Yield units # yield units, #/ac managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Farmer, Joe vegetations\Corn, grain bushels 180.00 managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Farmer,Joe vegetations\Soybean, mw 30 in rows bu 50.000
Contouring: a. rows up-and-down hill Strips/barriers: (none) Diversion/terrace, sediment basin: (none) Adjust res. burial level: Normal res. burial
Outputs: Soil loss for cons. plan: 0.36 t/ac/yr Sediment delivery: 0.36 t/ac/yr Net C factor: 0.090 Net K factor: 0.27 US
Date Operation Vegetation Surf. res. cov. after op, % 4/20/0 Fert applic. surface broadcast 65 4/20/0 Cultivator, field 6-12 in sweeps 65 4/22/0 Sprayer, pre-emergence 64 4/22/0 Planter, double disk opnr w/fluted coulter Corn, grain 64 10/20/0 Harvest, killing crop 60pct standing stubble 79 11/1/0 Coulter caddy, dbl gang w/ fluted coulters 93 5/10/1 Cultivator, field 6-12 in sweeps 80 5/10/1 Sprayer, pre-emergence 80 5/10/1 planter, double disk opnr Soybean, mw 30 in rows 80 6/7/1 Sprayer, post emergence 77 8/1/1 Sprayer, insecticide post emergence 58 10/10/1 Harvest, killing crop 20pct standing stubble 88 SAMPLE
PLAN
2 9/18/2018
Soil conditioning index (SCI): 0.848 Wind & irrigation-induced erosion for SCI: 0 t/ac/yr SCI OM subfactor: 1.1 SCI FO subfactor: 0.64 SCI ER subfactor: 0.86 Avg. annual slope STIR: 36.8
The SCI is the Soil Conditioning Index rating. If the calculated index is a negative value, soil organic matter levels are predicted to decline under that production system. If the index is a positive value, soil organic matter levels are predicted to increase under that system.
The STIR value is the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating. It utilizes the speed, depth, surface disturbance percent and tillage type parameters to calculate a tillage intensity rating for the system used in growing a crop or a rotation. STIR ratings tend to show the differences in the degree of soil disturbance between systems. The kind, severity and number of ground disturbing passes are evaluated for the entire cropping rotation as shown in the management description.
SAMPLE PLA
N
Field(s)
Planning Year 2018Operator/Producer Joe Farmer Date Printed Sep 24, 2018
Fields With Sensitive Features or Conditions
CofferEast
West
See the reports "Nutrient Application Restrictions In Sensitive Areas" and "Management Practice Considerations for Nitrogen and Phosphorus" for guidance on practices used in sensitive areas.
Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE PLA
N
Sensitive Soils for Nutrient Management (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota (Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 1 of 5
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS840 300 600 1200 1800
Feet0 50 100 200 300
MetersMap Scale: 1:6,660 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
SAMPLE PLA
N
Sensitive Soils for Nutrient Management (MN)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)
Rating reasons (numeric values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
L33A Mystery clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Sensitive Mystery (80%) Soil moisture (1.00)
3.5 3.1%
Mystery (10%) Soil moisture (1.00)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
L33B Mystery clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Sensitive Mystery (80%) Soil moisture (1.00)
12.6 11.0%
Mystery (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
L34A Mystery silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Sensitive Mystery (85%) Soil moisture (1.00)
28.8 25.0%
Corvuso (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
Mystery (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
L164A Lura silty clay, depressional, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Sensitive Lura, firm substratum, depressional (90%)
Ponding (1.00) 1.4 1.2%
Soil moisture (1.00)
Corvuso (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
Mystery (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
L166C2 Mystery-Strout complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Sensitive Strout, moderately eroded (45%)
Slope (1.00) 5.5 4.8%
Mystery, moderately eroded (45%)
Slope (1.00)
Danielson, overwash (10%)
Soil moisture (1.00)
L166D2 Mystery-Strout complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes,
Sensitive Mystery, moderately eroded (65%)
Slope (1.00) 1.4 1.2%
Sensitive Soils for Nutrient Management (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 3 of 5
SAMPLE PLA
N
Map unit symbol
Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)
Rating reasons (numeric values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
moderately eroded
Strout, moderately eroded (25%)
Slope (1.00)
Danielson, overwash (10%)
Soil moisture (1.00)
L185B Strout-Arkton complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Not sensitive Strout (70%) 61.7 53.5%
Arkton (20%)
L186A Danielson-Danielson, overwash complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes
Sensitive Danielson (70%) Soil moisture (1.00)
0.3 0.2%
Danielson, overwash (20%)
Soil moisture (1.00)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
Mystery (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
L191A Blue Earth, Houghton, and Klossner soils, ponded, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Sensitive Houghton, firm substratum, ponded (30%)
Ponding (1.00) 0.0 0.0%
Soil moisture (1.00)
Klossner, firm substratum, ponded (30%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
Blue Earth, firm substratum, ponded (30%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
Corvuso (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)
Lura, firm substratum, ponded (5%)
Ponding (1.00)
Soil moisture (1.00)
Totals for Area of Interest 115.2 100.0%
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Not sensitive 61.7 53.5%
Sensitive 53.5 46.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 115.2 100.0%
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Sensitive Soils for Nutrient Management (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 4 of 5
SAMPLE PLA
N
Aquifer Assessment (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota (Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West)
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 1 of 4
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS840 300 600 1200 1800
Feet0 50 100 200 300
MetersMap Scale: 1:6,660 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
SAMPLE PLA
N
Aquifer Assessment (MN)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)
Rating reasons (numeric values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
L33A Mystery clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Not sensitive Mystery (80%) 3.5 3.1%
Mystery(10%)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
Arkton (5%)
L33B Mystery clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Not sensitive Mystery (80%) 12.6 11.0%
Strout (10%)
Mystery (5%)
Arkton (5%)
L34A Mystery silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Not sensitive Mystery (85%) 28.8 25.0%
Corvuso (5%)
Mystery (5%)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
L164A Lura silty clay, depressional, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Not sensitive Lura, firm substratum, depressional (90%)
1.4 1.2%
Corvuso (5%)
Mystery (5%)
L166C2 Mystery-Strout complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Not sensitive Strout, moderately eroded (45%)
5.5 4.8%
Mystery, moderately eroded (45%)
Danielson, overwash (10%)
L166D2 Mystery-Strout complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Not sensitive Mystery, moderately eroded (65%)
1.4 1.2%
Strout, moderately eroded (25%)
Aquifer Assessment (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 3 of 4
SAMPLE PLA
N
Map unit symbol
Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)
Rating reasons (numeric values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Danielson, overwash (10%)
L185B Strout-Arkton complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Not sensitive Strout (70%) 61.7 53.5%
Arkton (20%)
Mystery (5%)
Mystery (5%)
L186A Danielson-Danielson, overwash complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes
Not sensitive Danielson (70%) 0.3 0.2%
Danielson, overwash (20%)
Lura, firm substratum, depressional (5%)
Mystery (5%)
L191A Blue Earth, Houghton, and Klossner soils, ponded, firm substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Sensitive Houghton, firm substratum, ponded (30%)
Organic soil (1.00)
0.0 0.0%
Klossner, firm substratum, ponded (30%)
Organic soil (1.00)
Totals for Area of Interest 115.2 100.0%
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Not sensitive 115.1 100.0%
Sensitive 0.0 0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 115.2 100.0%
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Aquifer Assessment (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
8/9/2018Page 4 of 4
SAMPLE PLA
N
5 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Pesticide Handling Practices
Are pesticides stored, mixed or loaded on the farm? No
If “YES”:
• Describe the pesticide handling practices on your farm (Application, Transportation, Storage, Loading, and Disposal).
Tank is loaded on the farm and transported to the field for mixing and appilcation. Pesticides are stored under cover in a shop. All products are applied with an adjuvant and drift reduction nozzles. Pesticides are handled in containers that are triple rinsed and returned to the Co-op for disposal.
• Have the Farm-A-Syst Evaluation Worksheet and Fact Sheet #2 (Pesticide Storage and Handling) been completed? Yes
• Is a fixed airgap or other MDA or MDH approved device used to prevent backsiphoning into wells? Yes
• Pesticides are not loaded and application equipment is not cleaned within 150 feet of a well without safeguards? Yes
• Pesticides are not loaded and application equipment is not cleaned within 150 from a sinkhole, stream, lake, wetland, water impoundment, or similar area? Yes
• Pesticides are only stored in the original container, separated from other products (food, feed, seed) and in a locked building having appropriate warning signs? Yes
• Rigid plastic containers are triple or pressure rinsed and recycled through the Empty Containers Collection and Recycling Program? Yes
• Has pesticide application equipment been calibrated for rate and uniformity (boom sprayer, granular applicators, planting equipment, etc.)? Yes
Application Equipment Date(s) Application Equipment Date(s)
Sprayer In spring before 1st use
Spray Drift Pesticide drift that leaves the application area may impact nearby crops that are sensitive, organically grown crops, and wildlife including pollinators and beneficial insects, as well as human bystanders.
Drift can also be a major pesticide loss pathway to surface water in some cases, so appropriate mitigation for drift may be required in addition to mitigation for pesticide leaching, solution runoff, and adsorbed runoff to adequately protect a surface water resource.
Is Pesticide Spray Drift a Natural Resource Concern? Yes
If the conservation planner identifies a natural resource concern related to pesticide spray drift, the minimum level of mitigation required is an index score of 20.
SAMPLE PLA
N
5 MN-CPA-024 November2018
Pesticide Direct Contact with PollinatorsPesticide direct contact can affect pollinators and other beneficial species in the application area while pesticides are being applied and later when pollinators and other beneficial species reenter the treated area.
Pollinators that have been exposed in the application area at sublethal concentrations can return to the hive and affect others. Direct exposure to pesticides in the application area can occur even when spray drift is minimized.
Is Pesticide Direct Contact with Pollinators and Other Beneficial Species a Concern? No
If the conservation planner identifies a pesticide direct contact concern to pollinators and other beneficial species, two or more of the following mitigation techniques must be applied:
Time pesticide applications when pollinators are least active (e.g., at night or when temperatures are low). Note that dewy nights may cause an insecticide to remain wet on the foliage and still be active the following morning, so exercise caution.
Time pesticide applications when crops are not in bloom and keep fields weed free to discourage pollinators from venturing into the crop.
Use pesticides that are less toxic to pollinators and beneficial species. Note: all pesticide recommendations must come from the Cooperative Extension Service or an appropriately certified crop consultant.
Use selective insecticides that target a narrow range of insects (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for moth caterpillars) to reduce harm to beneficial insects like bees.
Use liquid or granular formulations instead of dusts and fine powders that may become trapped in the pollen, collecting hairs of bees and consequently fed to developing larvae.
Use alternatives to insecticides such as pheromones for mating disruption and kaolin clay barriers for fruit crops.
SAMPLE PLA
N
6 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Current Pest Control Practices
Crop Corn Tract 0000 Field(s) Coffer East
Specific Target Pest(s)
including Weeds, Insects and Diseases Non-Chemical Control
Chemical Control
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
Grass, Lambsquarter, Giant Ragweed,
Crop Rotation Synchrony 0.375 fl oz Pre-emerge Broadcast
Row Spacing Fierce 0.225 fl oz Pre-emerge Broadcast
Stering Blue 1 pts Pre-emerge Broadcast
Triple Flex 1 qts Post-emerg Broadcast
Status 3.125 fl oz Post-emerg Broadcast
Weather Max 1 qts Post-emerg Broadcast
Corn Borer, Corn Rootworm
Crop Rotation Smart Stax
Row Spacing
Select Resistant Varietie
Crop Soybeans Tract 0000 Field(s) Coffer West
Specific Target Pest(s)
including Weeds, Insects and Diseases Non-Chemical Control
Chemical Control
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
Water Hemp, Giant Ragweed
Crop Rotation Extend 22 fl oz Post-emerge Broadcast
Row Spacing Power Max 28 fl oz Post-emerge Broadcast
Aphids
Crop Rotation Lorsban 1 pts Post-emerge Broadcast
Row Spacing
Herbicides cont.
SAMPLE PLA
N
7 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Crop Tract Field(s)
Specific Target Pest(s)
including Weeds, Insects and Diseases Non-Chemical Control
Chemical Control
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
Crop Tract Field(s)
Specific Target Pest(s)
including Weeds, Insects and Diseases Non-Chemical Control
Chemical Control
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
SAMPLE PLA
N
8 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Ratings and Required Mitigation
Product Name / Formulation
WI-PST Loss Rating and Minimum Mitigation Score Required ILP ISRP IARP
Human Fish Human Fish Fish
Rating Min. Score Rating Min.
Score Rating Min. Score Rating Min.
Score Rating Min. Score
Synchrony L None L None L None L None V None
Extend L None V None L None L None L None
Lorsban I 20 H 40 H 40 X 60 I 20
Mon78270-WM V None V None L None L None L None
RD1617-PM V None V None L None L None L None
Status V None V None L None L None V None
Sterling Blue V None V None L None L None V None
Triple Flex L None L None I 20 L None V None
V-10233--Fierce V None L None L None I 20 L None ILP - Soil / Pesticide Interaction Leaching Potential, ISRP - Soil / Pesticide Interaction Solution Runoff Potential, IARP - Soil / Pesticide Interaction Adsorbed Runoff Potential. X-Extra high, H–High, I–Intermediate, L–Low, V-Very low
Mitigation Requirements for Planned Chemical Control Options WIN-PST Human or Fish Hazard
Rating Minimum Mitigation Index Score Required for the Pesticide Loss
Pathway LOW or VERY LOW None
INTERMEDIATE 20
HIGH 40
EXTRA HIGH 60
Additional requirements for common detect chemicals (acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor and metribuzin)
LOW or VERY LOW 20 plus one or more State Water Quality BMPs
Within the boundaries of Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) with: MODERATE vulnerability to contamination
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH Human Hazard 60
HIGH or VERY HIGH vulnerability to contamination
INTERMEDIATE Human Hazard 40
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH Human Hazard Select chemical control options with intermediate or lower WIN-PST human toxicity ratings plus 40
Within vulnerable Source Water Assessment Areas (SWAAs), areas with sensitive aquifer assessments, or within other areas, drinking water sources or wells identified in the sensitive area evaluation as vulnerable to
contamination HIGH or EXTRA HIGH Human Hazard 60
SAMPLE PLA
N
9 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Attachments
5.1 – Win-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Reports 5.2 – Applicable Minnesota Department of Agriculture Pesticide Best Management Practices
Sheets
Water Quality Best Management Practices for All Agricultural Herbicides
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Acetochlor
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Alachlor
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Atrazine
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Metolachlor
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Metribuzin
Water Quality Best Management Practices for All Agricultural Insecticides
Water Quality Best Management Practices for Chlorpyrifos
BMPs to prevent drift and minimize volatilization of potato fungicides
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 1 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C C C
6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%
L34A Mystery85% SIC Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Strout
70% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Arkton
20% CL Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth: H1 Depth: H1 Depth:
DUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDEDUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDE
21.5% Chlorimuron-ethyl
I
H
I
V
L
L
L
V
Reg No: 352-648
I
H
L
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
L
L
V
L
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Chlorimuron-ethyl
6.9% Thifensulfuron methyl
L
H
I
L
L
V
L
V
L
H
L
L
H
I
L
L
L
L
V
L
V
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Thifensulfuron methyl
EXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATEEXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE
7.5% Bromacil, lithium salt
I
H
H
L
L
V
L
L
Reg No: 10088-82
I
H
I
I
H
H
L
L
L
L
V
L
V
V
L
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Bromacil, lithium salt
LORSBAN ADVANCEDLORSBAN ADVANCED
40.2% Chlorpyrifos
L
I
H
I
H
H
X
I
Reg No: 62719-591
L
I
I
L
I
H
I
H
I
H
H
X
I
H
X
I
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Chlorpyrifos
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 2 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C C C
6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%
L34A Mystery85% SIC Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Strout
70% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Arkton
20% CL Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth: H1 Depth: H1 Depth:
MON 78270 HERBICIDEMON 78270 HERBICIDE
48.8% Glyphosate, potassium salt
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
Reg No: 524-537
V
H
H
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
V
L
L
V
L
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Glyphosate, potassium salt
RD 1617 HERBICIDERD 1617 HERBICIDE
48.7% Glyphosate, potassium salt
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
Reg No: 524-549
V
H
H
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
V
L
L
V
L
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Glyphosate, potassium salt
STATUS HERBICIDESTATUS HERBICIDE
44% Dicamba, sodium salt
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
Reg No: 7969-242
I
H
L
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Dicamba, sodium salt
17.1% Sodium diflufenzopyr
L
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
L
H
I
L
H
H
V
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Sodium diflufenzopyr
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 3 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C C C
6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%
L34A Mystery85% SIC Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Strout
70% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Arkton
20% CL Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth: H1 Depth: H1 Depth:
STERLING BLUE HERBICIDESTERLING BLUE HERBICIDE
58.1% Dicamba, diglycolamine salt
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
Reg No: 7969-137
I
H
L
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Dicamba, diglycolamine salt
TRIPLEFLEX HERBICIDETRIPLEFLEX HERBICIDE
41.67% Acetochlor
L
H
I
L
I
L
L
V
Reg No: 62719-570
L
H
L
L
H
I
L
I
L
I
L
L
V
L
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Acetochlor
4.27% Clopyralid
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
I
H
L
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Clopyralid
1.3% Flumetsulam
I
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
I
H
I
I
H
H
V
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Flumetsulam
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 4 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C C C
6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%
L34A Mystery85% SIC Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Strout
70% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
L185B Arkton
20% CL Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth: H1 Depth: H1 Depth:
V-10233 HERBICIDEV-10233 HERBICIDE
33.5% Flumioxazin
L
H
H
V
L
L
I
L
Reg No: 59639-193
L
H
I
L
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
I
V
L
I
L
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Flumioxazin
42.5% Pyroxasulfone
L
H
I
V
L
L
L
V
L
H
L
L
H
I
V
L
V
L
L
L
V
L
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Pyroxasulfone
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 5 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C
5.5 10OM%
L33B Mystery80% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth:
DUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDEDUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDE
21.5% Chlorimuron-ethyl
I
H
L
V
L
L
L
V
Reg No: 352-648
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Chlorimuron-ethyl
6.9% Thifensulfuron methyl
L
H
L
L
L
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Thifensulfuron methyl
EXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATEEXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE
7.5% Bromacil, lithium salt
I
H
I
L
L
V
L
V
Reg No: 10088-82
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Bromacil, lithium salt
LORSBAN ADVANCEDLORSBAN ADVANCED
40.2% Chlorpyrifos
L
I
I
I
H
H
X
I
Reg No: 62719-591
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Chlorpyrifos
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 6 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C
5.5 10OM%
L33B Mystery80% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth:
MON 78270 HERBICIDEMON 78270 HERBICIDE
48.8% Glyphosate, potassium salt
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
Reg No: 524-537
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Glyphosate, potassium salt
RD 1617 HERBICIDERD 1617 HERBICIDE
48.7% Glyphosate, potassium salt
V
H
H
V
L
V
L
L
Reg No: 524-549
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Glyphosate, potassium salt
STATUS HERBICIDESTATUS HERBICIDE
44% Dicamba, sodium salt
I
H
L
V
L
V
L
V
Reg No: 7969-242
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Dicamba, sodium salt
17.1% Sodium diflufenzopyr
L
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Sodium diflufenzopyr
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 7 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C
5.5 10OM%
L33B Mystery80% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth:
STERLING BLUE HERBICIDESTERLING BLUE HERBICIDE
58.1% Dicamba, diglycolamine salt
I
H
L
V
L
V
L
V
Reg No: 7969-137
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Dicamba, diglycolamine salt
TRIPLEFLEX HERBICIDETRIPLEFLEX HERBICIDE
41.67% Acetochlor
L
H
L
L
I
L
L
V
Reg No: 62719-570
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Acetochlor
4.27% Clopyralid
I
H
L
V
L
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Clopyralid
1.3% Flumetsulam
I
H
I
V
L
V
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Flumetsulam
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 8 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
C
5.5 10OM%
L33B Mystery80% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:
MN000
H1 Depth:
V-10233 HERBICIDEV-10233 HERBICIDE
33.5% Flumioxazin
L
H
I
V
L
L
I
V
Reg No: 59639-193
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Flumioxazin
42.5% Pyroxasulfone
L
H
L
V
L
L
L
V
Leaching:
Solution:
Adsorbed:
Loss
Potential
Human
Hazard
Fish
Hazard
Pyroxasulfone
SAMPLE PLA
N
Page 9 of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018
Soil / Pesticide Interaction Loss Potential and Hazard Rating Report
L E G E N D
X -- eXtra high
H -- High
I -- Intermediate
L -- Low
V -- Very low
Conditions that affect ratings:
(none) -- Broadcast application (default); applied to more than 1/2 the field
b -- Banded application; applied to 1/2 the field or less
p -- Spot application; applied to 1/10th of the field or less
(none) -- Surface applied (default); applied to the soil surface
i -- Soil incorporated; with light tillage or irrigation
f -- Foliar application; directed spray at nearly full crop/weed canopy
(none) -- Standard application rate (default); greater than 1/4 lb/acre
l -- Low rate of application; 1/10 to 1/4 lb/acre
<ul> -- Ultra Low rate of application; 1/10 lb/acre or less
m -- There are surface connected macropores (cracks) that go at least 24 inches deep.
w -- The high water table comes within 24" of the surface during the growing season.
s -- The field slope is greater than 15%.
<none> -- Default condition for all climates that have rainfall/irrigation after pesticide application
<dry> -- Exception for arid climates that have a low probability of rainfall and no irrigation afer pesticide application
SPISP II I-Ratings:
Leaching -- Soil / Pesticide Interaction Leaching Potential
Solution -- Soil / Pesticide Interaction Solution Runoff Potential
Adsorbed -- Soil / Pesticide Interaction Adsorbed Runoff Potential
SAMPLE PLA
N
9/24/2018 7:55PM Page 1 of 3
Active Ingredient
Common Name
pH Solubility
in Water
(ppm)
Half
Life
(days)
KOC
(mL/g)
Human
Toxcicity
(ppb)
MATC*
(ppb)
STV
Fish Toxicity
Leaching
Solution
SPISP II Pesticde Ratings
Adsorbed Human Fish Fish
Exposure Adjusted
Toxicity Category
Sediment
Pesticide Active Ingredient Rating Report
Runoff Water
DUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDE
21.5% Chlorimuron-ethyl
Reg No: 00035200648
VLV40 7.00 110 140.00 29,700.00270.001200 LHHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
6.9% Thifensulfuron methyl
Reg No: 00035200648
VVL12 6.00 45 91.00 477,000.0010,600.002400 LIIPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
EXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE
7.5% Bromacil, lithium salt
Reg No: 01008800082
VVL60 32 70.00 638,496.0019,953.00700 IHHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
LORSBAN ADVANCED
40.2% Chlorpyrifos
Reg No: 06271900591
IXH30 6070 2.00 121.40.02.4 ILLPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
MON 78270 HERBICIDE
48.8% Glyphosate, potassium salt
Reg No: 00052400537
VVV47 24000 700.00 198,960,000.008,290.00900000 HHVPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
RD 1617 HERBICIDE
48.7% Glyphosate, potassium salt
Reg No: 00052400549
VVV47 24000 700.00 198,960,000.008,290.00900000 HHVPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
Weather Max
Power MaxSAMPLE PLA
N
9/24/2018 7:55PM Page 2 of 3
Active Ingredient
Common Name
pH Solubility
in Water
(ppm)
Half
Life
(days)
KOC
(mL/g)
Human
Toxcicity
(ppb)
MATC*
(ppb)
STV
Fish Toxicity
Leaching
Solution
SPISP II Pesticde Ratings
Adsorbed Human Fish Fish
Exposure Adjusted
Toxicity Category
Sediment
Pesticide Active Ingredient Rating Report
Runoff Water
STATUS HERBICIDE
44% Dicamba, sodium salt
Reg No: 00796900242
VVV14 2 4,000.00 264,440.00132,220.00400000 LIHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
17.1% Sodium diflufenzopyr
Reg No: 00796900242
VVV55 5.00 292 1,820.00 526,476.001,803.0063 IHIPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
STERLING BLUE HERBICIDE
58.1% Dicamba, diglycolamine salt
Reg No: 00796900137
VVV14 2 4,000.00 183,356.0091,678.00400000 LIHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
TRIPLEFLEX HERBICIDE
41.67% Acetochlor
Reg No: 06271900570
VLI14 156 11.00 29,172.00187.00282 LIIPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
4.27% Clopyralid
Reg No: 06271900570
VVV30 5 3,500.00 104,160.0020,832.00143000 LIHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
1.3% Flumetsulam
Reg No: 06271900570
VVV47 7.00 28 7,000.00 5,516,000.00197,000.005650 IHHPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
V-10233 HERBICIDE FierceSAMPLE PLA
N
9/24/2018 7:55PM Page 3 of 3
Active Ingredient
Common Name
pH Solubility
in Water
(ppm)
Half
Life
(days)
KOC
(mL/g)
Human
Toxcicity
(ppb)
MATC*
(ppb)
STV
Fish Toxicity
Leaching
Solution
SPISP II Pesticde Ratings
Adsorbed Human Fish Fish
Exposure Adjusted
Toxicity Category
Sediment
Pesticide Active Ingredient Rating Report
Runoff Water
33.5% Flumioxazin
Reg No: 05963900193
VIV14.7 2242 140.00 24,662.0011.001.79 IILPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
42.5% Pyroxasulfone
Reg No: 05963900193
VLV21 129 140.00 38,700.00300.003.48 LIIPC_Code:
Surface Applied
StandardRate:
BroadcastArea:
Method:
L E G E N D
X -- eXtra high
H -- High
I -- Intermediate
L -- Low
V -- Very low
Conditions that affect ratings:
(none) -- Broadcast application (default); applied to more than 1/2 the field
b -- Banded application; applied to 1/2 the field or less
p -- Spot application; applied to 1/10 of the field or less
(none) -- Surface applied (default); applied to the soil surface
i -- Soil incorporated; with light tillage or irrigation
f -- Foliar application; directed spray at nearly full crop/weed canopy
(none) -- Standard application rate (default); greater than 1/4 lb/acre
l -- Low rate of application; 1/10 to 1/4 lb/acre
<ul> -- Ultra Low rate of application; 1/10 lb/acre or less
SPISP II P-Ratings:
Leaching -- Pesticide Leaching Potential
Runoff Solution -- Pesticide Solution Runoff Potential
Runoff Adsorbed -- Pesticide Adsorbed Runoff Potential
SAMPLE PLA
N
9/24/2018 7:55PM Page 1 of 1
Soil Sensitivity to Pesticide Loss Rating Report
Mystery County, Minnesota: MN000
Name%SeqMusym OM%DepthKfactorHydroTexture AdsorbedSolution
Leaching Runoff
L34A 1 SIC85 Mystery C 0.28 15 6 L H H
Cracks (macropores) deeper than 24": False
Slope greater than 15%: False
High Water Table within 24": False
L185B 1 Strout C70 C 0.2 10 4.5 L H I
Cracks (macropores) deeper than 24": False
Slope greater than 15%: False
High Water Table within 24": False
L185B 2 Arkton CL20 C 0.24 9 3.5 L H H
Cracks (macropores) deeper than 24": False
Slope greater than 15%: False
High Water Table within 24": False
L33B 1 C80 Mystery C 0.2 10 5.5 L H I
Cracks (macropores) deeper than 24": False
Slope greater than 15%: False
High Water Table within 24": False
L E G E N D
H -- High
I -- Intermediate
L -- Low
V -- Very Low
Conditions that affect ratings:
m -- There are surface connected macropores (cracks) that go at least 24 inches deep.
w -- The high water table comes within 24" of the surface during the growing season.
s -- The field slope is greater than 15%.
SPISP II Soil Ratings:
Leaching -- Soil Leaching Potential
Runoff - Solution -- Soil Solution Runoff Potential
Runoff - Adsorbed -- Soil Adsorbed Runoff Potential
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
SAMPLE PLA
N
10 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk
IPM Techniques Tract Land Unit(s) Existing
or Planned
Date Implemented
Application Timing - Rain 0000 All Existing 1980
Application Timing - Wind 0000 All Existing 1980
Formulations and Adjuvants 0000 All Existing 2017
Monitoring and Economic Pest Thresholds 0000 All Planned 2018
Partial Treatment 0000 All Existing 1995
Setbacks 0000 All Existing 1995
Spray Nozzle Selection, Maintenance and Operation 0000 All Existing 2011
SAMPLE PLA
N
11 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk For all the planned practices develop the appropriate specifications to implement the conservation in the appropriate Implementation Requirements (previously Job Sheet) document found in Section IV of the Electronic Field Office Technical Guide.
The following practices do not require a Jobsheet or Implementation Requirements document because additional technical qualifications are needed to complete those documents (590 Nutrient Management, 338 Prescribed Burning, and practices that require Engineering Approval (Engineers License).
Practice Job Sheet or
Practice Specifications
Attached Tract Land Unit(s)
Existing or
Planned Date
Implemented
Conservation Crop Rotation 328 0000 All Existing 1980
Residue and Tillage Mgmt, Reduced Till 345 0000 All Existing 1992
Attachments 3.7 – Conservation Practice Plans and Job Sheets / Implementation Requirements
SAMPLE PLA
N
13 MN-CPA-024 November 2018
Conservation Practices to Address Additional Resource Concerns
Practice Job Sheet or
Practice Specifications
Attached Tract Land Unit(s)
Existing or
Planned Date
Implemented
Nutrient Management 590 0000 Coffer East & West Planned 2018
Integrated Pest Management 0000 Coffer East and West Planned 2018
Attachments 3.7 – Conservation Practice Plans and Job Sheets / Implementation Requirements
Integrated Pest Management Plan
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan Form (MN-CPA-047)
• Multiple forms must be completed to represent management units where practices will bedifferent due to crops, targeted pests, control techniques, resource concerns, and mitigationpractices.SAMPLE
PLAN
MN NRCS Page 1 of 3 March 2019 USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Producer: Project or Contract:
Location: County:
Farm Name: Tract Number:
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies such as Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring and Suppression (PAMS) are employed to prevent or mitigate pest management risks for identified natural resource concerns.
Gopher State One Call Utility Service 651-454-0002 or 800-252-1166
Index Cover Sheet
Location of approved Baseline Integrated Pest Management Plan (CAP 114 or equivalent) including all documentation shown on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) checklist for plan developers (MN-ECS-16)
Field Maps (showing detailed aerial view of where practice is to be installed on farm/site, showing all major components, stationing, relative location to any landmarks, and sensitive features with setbacks)
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan Form (MN-CPA-047)
Windows Pesticide Screening Tool (Win-PST) Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Rating
Scouting and Monitoring Reports, and Recommendations Based on Scouting
Practice Certification and Record Keeping Form (MN-CPA-046)
Practice Purpose(s)
Operation and Maintenance
Certification Statement
This practice is being implemented as part of a soil health management system. By applying the Integrated Pest Management (595) practice, you are managing pests by following an ecological approach that promotes the growth of healthy plants with strong defenses, while increasing stress on pests and enhancing the habitat for beneficial organisms. Other practices that can be applied as part of a soil health management system are Conservation Crop Rotation (328), Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till (329), Cover Crop (340) and Nutrient Management (590).
595 – Integrated Pest Management Implementation Requirements
SAMPLE PLA
N
595 – Integrated Pest Management Implementation Requirements
MN NRCS Page 2 of 3 March 2019 USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Practice Purpose (check all that apply) Prevent or mitigate off-site pesticide risks to water quality from leaching, solution runoff and adsorbed runoff losses.
Prevent or mitigate off-site pesticide risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals, and humans from drift and volatilization losses.
Prevent or mitigate on-site pesticide risks to pollinators and other beneficial species through direct contact.
Prevent or mitigate cultural, mechanical, and biological pest suppression risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals, and humans.
Operation and Maintenance (check all that apply) Review and update the plan annually to incorporate new IPM and pesticide management technology, respond to cropping system and pest complex changes, and avoid the development of pest resistance.
Maintain mitigation techniques identified in the plan to ensure continued effectiveness.
Calibrate application equipment according to UMES and/or manufacturer recommendations before each season of use and with each major chemical change.
Keep pesticide application records for a minimum of 2 years when these pesticides are applied by private applicators, and a minimum of 5 years when pesticides are applied by commercial or non-commercial applicators.
SAMPLE PLA
N
595 – Integrated Pest Management Implementation Requirements
MN NRCS Page 3 of 3 March 2019 USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Provided Practice Cost information Site-specific cost estimate, or specifications for the producer to develop a cost estimate or obtain the bid themselves.
Design Installation and Layout Approval Designed by: Date: Job Approval Authority:
Approved by: Date: Job Approval Authority:
Record of Completion and Check Out Certification Treated Acres Date Completed by Client Date Certified Approver’s Initials
Additional documentation to support practice certification is located in the Case File.
Certification Statement I certify that implementation of this conservation practice is complete, meets criteria for the stated purpose(s), and meets the NRCS conservation practice standard and specifications.
Printed Name: Date:
Title: Job Approval Authority:
Signature:
Notes:
Practice Specifications Approval and Completion Certification
SAMPLE PLA
N
MN-CPA-047 March 2018
595-1
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan Form
Producer: Joe Farmer. Planner: Planner Name Date 9/24/18
Year 2018 Crop Corn Tract 0000 Field(s) East
Target Pests
Weeds Insects Diseases
G. ragweed Corn rootworms
W. cupgrass E. corn borers
Giant foxtail
Green foxtail
Lambsquarter
Prevention Techniques Keeping a pest population from infesting a field or site using multiple modes of action
Using Pest Free Seed Using Pest Free Seed Using Pest Free Seed
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Prevent Weeds from Reproducing Eliminating Alternative Hosts Eliminating Alternative Hosts
Irrigation Scheduling Avoidance Techniques
Pests populations exist in a field but their impact on the crop can be avoided through cultural practices Crop Rotation Crop Rotation Crop Rotation
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Pest Resistant Varieties Pest Resistant Varieties
Refuge Management Refuge Management
Monitoring Techniques Proper identification of pests and determining if levels warrant control (economic thresholds if applicable)
Pest Scouting Pest Scouting and Traps Pest Scouting
Degree-Day Modeling Degree-Day Modeling Degree Day Modeling
Weather Forecasting Weather Forecasting Weather Forecasting SAMPLE
PLAN
595-2 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Suppression Techniques Reducing or eliminating a pest population when necessary to avoid economic loss if prevention and avoidance tactics are not successful, while minimizing risks to non-target organisms.
Weeds Insects Diseases
Cultural, Mechanical and Biological Controls
Row Spacing Row Spacing Row Spacing
Chemical Control (Herbicides, Insecticides, Fungicides, Etc.) Read and follow all label requirements.
Follow recommended BMPs when using pesticides designated by MDA as common detection.
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
Win-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Rating
ILP ISRP IARP Human Fish Human Fish Fish
Synchrony 0.375 fl oz Pre-plant Broadcast L L L L V
Fierce 0.225 fl oz Pre-plant Broadcast V L L I L
Sterling Blue 1 pts Pre-plant Broadcast V V L L V
Triple Flex 1 qts Post-emerge Broadcast L L I L V
Status 3.125 fl oz Post-emerge Broadcast V V L L V
Weather Max 1 qts Post-emerge Broadcast V V L L V
ILP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION LEACHING POTENTIAL, ISRP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION SOLUTION RUNOFF POTENTIAL,IARP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION ADSORBED RUNOFF POTENTIAL. X-EXTRA HIGH, H–HIGH, I–INTERMEDIATE, L–LOW, V-VERY LOW
Attachments 5.1 – Win-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Reports
Pesticide Spray Drift Pesticide drift that leaves the application area may impact nearby crops that are sensitive, organically grown crops,
and wildlife including pollinators and beneficial insects, as well as human bystanders.
Has pesticide spray drift been identified by the conservation planner as a natural resource concern? Yes, the minimum level of mitigation required for drift is an index score of 20. No
See NRCS National Agronomy Technical Note No. 5 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process and NRCS National Agronomy Technical Note No. 9 Preventing or Mitigating Potential Negative Impacts of
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-3 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Pesticides on Pollinators Using Integrated Pest Management and Other Conservation Practices for additional guidance on pesticide spray drift.
Mitigation Required For water quality concerns related to pesticide leaching, solution runoff, and adsorbed runoff, WIN-PST must be used to evaluate potential hazards to humans and/or fish as appropriate for each pesticide to be used. The minimum level of mitigation required for each resource concern is based on the final WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard ratings. Mitigation index values can be found on the following pages.
Mitigation Requirements for Planned Chemical Control Options
Planned Pesticides in this Hazard
Rating Category
WIN-PST Human or Fish Hazard Rating
Mitigation Loss Pathway
Minimum Mitigation Index Score Required for the Pesticide Loss
Pathway
Planned Pesticides
LOW or VERY LOW
Leaching
None
Weather Max
Adsorbed Runoff Synchrony, Sterling Blue
INTERMEDIATE
Leaching
20
Fierce
Solution Runoff Sterling Blue, Fierce
Adsorbed Runoff Status, Triple Flex, Fierce
HIGH
Leaching
40
Synchrony, Status, Sterling Blue, Triple Flex
Solution Runoff Synchrony, Weather Max, Status, Triple Flex
Adsorbed Runoff Weather Max
EXTRA HIGH 60
Additional requirements for Common Detection Pesticides in Minnesota Ground Water (acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor and metribuzin)
LOW or VERY LOW
Leaching 20 plus one or more State Water Quality
BMPs
Triple Flex
Within the boundaries of Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) with: MODERATE vulnerability to contamination
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH
Human Hazard 60
HIGH or VERY HIGH vulnerability to contamination
INTERMEDIATE Human Hazard 40
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH
Human Hazard
Select chemical control options with
intermediate or lower WIN-PST human
toxicity ratings plus 40 Within vulnerable Source Water Assessment Areas (SWAAs),
Areas with sensitive aquifer assessments, or Other areas, drinking water sources or wells identified in the sensitive area evaluation as vulnerable to contamination
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-4 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH Human Hazard
60
Pesticide Mitigation Index Values
Table 1. IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk
Mitigation Practice(s) Selected IPM Techniques1
Mitigation Index Value4 by Pesticide Loss Pathway
Function and Performance Criteria Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Application timing – ambient temperature 5
• Reduces exposure—spraying during coolertemperatures (e.g., early morning, evening or atnight) can help reduce drift losses• Avoid spraying in temperatures above 90 ºF
Application timing—rain 15 15 15
• Reduces exposure—delaying application whensignificant rainfall events are forecast that couldproduce substantial leaching or runoff can reducepesticide transport to ground and surface water
Application timing—relative humidity 5
• Reduces exposure—spraying when there ishigher relative humidity reduces evaporation ofwater from spray droplets thus reducing drift losses
Application timing—wind 10
• Reduces exposure—delaying application whenwind speed is not optimal can reduce pesticide drift• Optimal spray conditions for reducing drift occurwhen the air is slightly unstable with a very mild,steady wind between 2 and 9 miles per hour
Formulations and adjuvants 2, 3 5 5 5 5
• Reduces exposure—specific pesticideformulations and/or adjuvants can increase efficacyand allow lower application rates; drift retardantadjuvants can reduce pesticide spray drift
Monitoring + economic pest thresholds 15 15 15 15
• Reduces exposure—reduces the amount ofpesticide applied with preventative treatmentsbecause applications are based on monitoring thatdetermines when a pest population exceeds apreviously determined economic threshold
Partial treatment 15 15 15 10
• Reduces exposure—spot treatment, banding anddirected spraying reduces amount of pesticideapplied• Assumes less than 50 percent of the area istreated
Precision application using smart sprayers 10 10 10 10
• Reduces exposure—using smart sprayertechnology (i.e., green sensors, sonarbasedsensors, GPS-based variable rate application,computer controlled spray nozzles, etc.) cansubstantially reduce the amount of pesticideapplied
Setbacks 5 5 5 10
• Reduces exposure—reduces overall amount ofpesticide applied; reduces offsite pesticide drift• Assumes that the setbacks with no applicationare at least 30 feet wideSAMPLE PLA
N
595-5 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Soil incorporation 2, 3 15 15
• Reduces exposure—reduces solution andadsorbed runoff losses, but potentially increasesleaching losses, especially for low KOC pesticides• Applicable to shallow mechanical or irrigationincorporation • Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern• Not applicable if soil erosion is not adequatelymanaged
Spray nozzle selection, maintenance, and operation
10
• Reduces exposure—selecting appropriate nozzleand pressure for the application, with an emphasison higher volume spray nozzles run at lowerpressures, will produce larger droplets and anarrower droplet size distribution, which reducesspray drift• Proper nozzle spacing, boom height, and boomsuspension, along with frequent calibration andreplacement of worn nozzles and leaking tubing,can increase efficacy and reduce drift potential
Substitution — cultural, mechanical, or biological controls
15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—partial substitution of alternativecultural, mechanical, or biological pest suppressiontechniques reduces the application of a pesticidethat poses a hazard to an identified naturalresource concern• Not applicable if hazards from alternativesuppression techniques are not adequatelymanaged
Substitution — lower risk pesticides 2, 3
15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—partial substitution of analternative lower risk pesticide reduces theapplication of a pesticide that poses a hazard to anidentified naturalresource concern• Not applicable if the alternative pesticide is notexplicitly recommended by Extension or anappropriately certified crop consultant because theNRCS cannot make pesticide recommendations
Substitution — semiochemicals 15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—using semiochemicals (e.g.,mating disruption pheromones) to decreasereproductive success or control populationdensity/location reduces the application of apesticide that poses a hazard to an identifiednatural resource concern
Total Mitigation Index Value for IPM Techniques 35 35 35 45 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 1
above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
1/ Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, pest management consultants, and pesticide labels.
2/ The pesticide label is the law. All pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may be needed to meet NRCS pest management requirements for identified resource concerns.
3/ Mitigation applies to adsorbed pesticide losses being carried to surface water by wind.
4/ Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of pesticide mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pesticide losses through the identified pathways.
NOTE: Mitigation practices already accounted for in the respective WIN-PST rating cannot be counted again when developing mitigation alternatives. Mitigation practices for common detect chemicals should include at least one state water quality pest management BMP for the respective chemical. SAMPLE
PLAN
595-6 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Pesticide Mitigation Index Values
Table 2. Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk
Mitigation Practice(s) Selected
Pesticide Mitigation Conservation Practices 1,2
Mitigation Index Value4 by Pesticide Loss Pathway
Function and Performance Criteria Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Alley Cropping (Code 311) 5 5 10 10
• Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurfacewater; reduces soil erosion; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects, which can reduce the need forpesticides; also can reduce pesticide drift tosurface water
Conservation Cover (Code 327) 10 10 10
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; andbuilds soil organic matter in perennial croppingsystems such as orchards, vineyards, berries, andnursery stock
Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328)
10 10 10
• Reduces the need for pesticides by breaking pestlife cycles• Rotation shall consist of at least two crops in therotation and no crop grown more than once beforegrowing a different crop
Constructed Wetland (Code 656) 5 5 10 • Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their
degradation
Contour Buffer Strips (Code 332) 10 10 • Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion
Contour Farming (Code 330) 5 5 • Increases infiltration and deep percolation;
reduces soil erosion
Cover Crop (Code 340) that is incorporated into the soil
5 5 5
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 4,000 pounds per acre of livebiomass at the time of tillage
Cover Crop (Code 340) for weed suppression that is mulch tilled or no-tilled into for the next crop
10 10 10 10
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; buildssoil organic matter• Requires at least 4,000 pounds per acre of livebiomass at the time of tillage and at least 30percent ground cover at the time of the pesticideapplication
Cross Wind Ridges (Code 588) 53/
• Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticidedeposition in surface water• Assumes the pesticide is applied while the field isin the ridged state
Cross Wind Trap Strips (Code 589C)
103/ • Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticidedeposition in surface water; traps adsorbedpesticides
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-7 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Deep Tillage (Code 324) 5 5
• Increases infiltration and deep percolation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Dike (Code 356) 10 10
• Reduces exposure potential—excludes outsidewater or captures pesticide residues and facilitatestheir degradation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Drainage Water Management (Code 554)
10 10
• Drainage during the growing season increasesinfiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in theroot zone and reduces storm water runoff• Managed drainage mode when the field is notbeing cropped reduces discharge of pesticide residues from the previous growing season • Seasonal saturation may reduce the need forpesticides• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Field Border (Code 386) 5 10 5
• Increases infiltration and traps adsorbedpesticides; often reduces application area resultingin less pesticide applied; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects, which reduces the need forpesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests,which can result in reduced pesticide application;also can reduce inadvertent pesticide applicationand drift tosurface water• Assumes 20-foot minimum width
Filter Strip (Code 393) 10 15 10
• Increases infiltration and traps adsorbedpesticides; often reduces application area resultingin less pesticide applied; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects,,which reduces the need forpesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests,which can result in reduced pesticide application;also can reduce inadvertent pesticide applicationand drift tosurface water• Assumes 30-foot minimum width
Forage Harvest Management (Code 511)
10 10 10 10 • Reduces exposure potential—timely harvestingreduces the need for pesticides
Hedgerow Planting (Code 422) 103/ 10
• Reduces adsorbed pesticide deposition in surfacewater; also can reduce inadvertent pesticideapplication and drift to surface water
Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Code 603)
53/ 5
• Reduces wind erosion; traps adsorbed pesticides;can provide habitat for beneficial insects, whichreduces the need for pesticides; can providehabitat to congregate pests, which can result inreduced pesticide application; and can reducepesticide drift to surface water
Irrigation System, Sprinkler (Code 442)
10 10 10 • Reduces exposure potential—efficient anduniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport toground and surface water
Irrigation Water Management (Code 449)
15 15 15
• Reduces exposure potential—water is applied atrates that minimize pesticide transport to groundand surface water, promotes healthy plants whichcan better tolerate pests
Mulching (Code 484) with natural materials
10 10 10 • Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,reduces the need for pesticides
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-8 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Mulching (Code 484) with plastic
10 5 5 • Reduces the need for pesticides. Not applicable iferosion and pesticide runoff from nonmulchedareas is not adequately managed
Residue and Tillage Management, No-till (Code 329)
5 10 15
• Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 60 percent ground cover at thetime of application
Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345)
5 5 10
• Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 30 percent ground cover at thetime of application
Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391) 5 15 15 10
• Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurfacewater, traps sediment, builds soil organic matter,and reduces pesticide drift• This assumes 30-foot minimum width
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390)
5 10 10 5 • Increases infiltration, traps sediment, builds soilorganic matter, and reduces pesticide drift.• This assumes 30-foot minimum width
Sediment Basin (Code 350) 10
• Captures pesticide residues and facilitates theirdegradation• Not applicable if less than 50 percent of thetreatment area drains into the sediment basin
Stripcropping (Code 585) 15 15 5
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion andgenerally will only be treating half the area ofconcern
Subsurface Drainage (Code 606) 5 10 10
• Increases infiltration and aerobic pesticidedegradation in the root zone• *Note: avoid direct outlets to surface water
Terrace (Code 600) 10 15
• Increases infiltration and deep percolation;reduces soil erosion• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Vegetative Barriers (Code 601) 10 • Reduces soil erosion; traps sediment; increases
infiltration
Water and Sediment Control Basin (Code 638)
10 15
• Captures pesticide residues and facilitates theirdegradation; increases infiltration and deeppercolation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (Code 380)
103/ 10 • Reduces wind erosion; reduces adsorbedpesticide deposition in surface water; trapsadsorbed pesticides; reduces pesticide drift
Total Mitigation Index Value for Conservation Practices 10 10 10 0 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 2
above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
1/ Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, pest management consultants, and pesticide labels.
2/ The pesticide label is the law. All pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may be needed to meet NRCS pest management requirements for identified resource concerns.
3/ Mitigation applies to adsorbed pesticide losses being carried to surface water by wind.
4/ Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of pesticide mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pesticide losses through the identified pathways.
NOTE: Mitigation practices already accounted for in the respective WIN-PST rating cannot be counted again when developing mitigation alternatives. Mitigation practices for common detect chemicals should include at least one state water quality pest management BMP for the respective chemical. SAMPLE
PLAN
595-9 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Table 3. Sum of Mitigation Index Values and Amount of Mitigation Required
Mitigation Index Value
Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Total Mitigation Index Value for IPM and Conservation Practices 45 45 45 45 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 1 and
Table 2 above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
Amount of Mitigation Required 40 40 40 40 From Page 3 for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
SAMPLE PLA
N
MN-CPA-047 March 2018
595-1
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan Form
Producer:Joe Farmer Planner: Planner Name Date 9/24/18
Year 2018 Crop Soybeans Tract 0000 Field(s) West
Target Pests
Weeds Insects Diseases
G. ragweed Aphids White mold
W. cupgrass
Giant foxtail
Green foxtail
Lambsquarter
Waterhemp
Prevention Techniques Keeping a pest population from infesting a field or site using multiple modes of action
Using Pest Free Seed Using Pest Free Seed Using Pest Free Seed
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Cleaning Tillage and Harvesting Equipment Between Fields or Operations
Prevent Weeds from Reproducing Eliminating Alternative Hosts Eliminating Alternative Hosts
Irrigation Scheduling Avoidance Techniques
Pests populations exist in a field but their impact on the crop can be avoided through cultural practices Crop Rotation Crop Rotation Crop Rotation
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Maintaining Healthy and Diverse Plant Communities
Pest Resistant Varieties Pest Resistant Varieties
Refuge Management Refuge Management
Monitoring Techniques Proper identification of pests and determining if levels warrant control (economic thresholds if applicable)
Pest Scouting Pest Scouting and Traps Pest Scouting
Degree-Day Modeling Degree-Day Modeling Degree Day Modeling
Weather Forecasting Weather Forecasting Weather Forecasting SAMPLE
PLAN
595-2 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Suppression Techniques Reducing or eliminating a pest population when necessary to avoid economic loss if prevention and avoidance tactics are not successful, while minimizing risks to non-target organisms.
Weeds Insects Diseases
Cultural, Mechanical and Biological Controls
Row Spacing Row Spacing Row Spacing
Chemical Control (Herbicides, Insecticides, Fungicides, Etc.) Read and follow all label requirements.
Follow recommended BMPs when using pesticides designated by MDA as common detection.
Product Name / Formulation Rate Timing Placement
Win-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Rating
ILP ISRP IARP Human Fish Human Fish Fish
Extend 22 fl oz Post-emerge Broadcast L V L L L
Power Max 28 fl oz Post-emerge Broadcast V V L L L
Lorsban 1 pts Post-emerge Broadcast I H H X I
ILP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION LEACHING POTENTIAL, ISRP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION SOLUTION RUNOFF POTENTIAL,IARP - SOIL / PESTICIDE INTERACTION ADSORBED RUNOFF POTENTIAL. X-EXTRA HIGH, H–HIGH, I–INTERMEDIATE, L–LOW, V-VERY LOW
Attachments 5.1 – Win-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard Reports
Pesticide Spray Drift Pesticide drift that leaves the application area may impact nearby crops that are sensitive, organically grown crops,
and wildlife including pollinators and beneficial insects, as well as human bystanders.
Has pesticide spray drift been identified by the conservation planner as a natural resource concern? Yes, the minimum level of mitigation required for drift is an index score of 20. No
See NRCS National Agronomy Technical Note No. 5 Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process and NRCS National Agronomy Technical Note No. 9 Preventing or Mitigating Potential Negative Impacts of
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-3 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Pesticides on Pollinators Using Integrated Pest Management and Other Conservation Practices for additional guidance on pesticide spray drift.
Mitigation Required For water quality concerns related to pesticide leaching, solution runoff, and adsorbed runoff, WIN-PST must be used to evaluate potential hazards to humans and/or fish as appropriate for each pesticide to be used. The minimum level of mitigation required for each resource concern is based on the final WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction Hazard ratings. Mitigation index values can be found on the following pages.
Mitigation Requirements for Planned Chemical Control Options
Planned Pesticides in this Hazard
Rating Category
WIN-PST Human or Fish Hazard Rating
Mitigation Loss Pathway
Minimum Mitigation Index Score Required for the Pesticide Loss
Pathway
Planned Pesticides
LOW or VERY LOW
Leaching
None
Lorsban
Solution Runoff Lorsban
Adsorbed Runoff
INTERMEDIATE
Leaching
20 Solution Runoff
Adsorbed Runoff Extend, Lorsban, Power Max
HIGH
Leaching
40
Extend, Power Max
Solution Runoff Extend, Power Max
Adsorbed Runoff
EXTRA HIGH 60
Additional requirements for Common Detection Pesticides in Minnesota Ground Water (acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor and metribuzin)
LOW or VERY LOW
20 plus one or more State Water Quality
BMPs
Within the boundaries of Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) with: MODERATE vulnerability to contamination
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH
Human Hazard 60
HIGH or VERY HIGH vulnerability to contamination
INTERMEDIATE Human Hazard 40
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH
Human Hazard
Select chemical control options with
intermediate or lower WIN-PST human
toxicity ratings plus 40 Within vulnerable Source Water Assessment Areas (SWAAs),
Areas with sensitive aquifer assessments, or Other areas, drinking water sources or wells identified in the sensitive area evaluation as vulnerable to contamination
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-4 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
HIGH or EXTRA HIGH Human Hazard
60
Pesticide Mitigation Index Values
Table 1. IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk
Mitigation Practice(s) Selected IPM Techniques1
Mitigation Index Value4 by Pesticide Loss Pathway
Function and Performance Criteria Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Application timing – ambient temperature 5
• Reduces exposure—spraying during coolertemperatures (e.g., early morning, evening or atnight) can help reduce drift losses• Avoid spraying in temperatures above 90 ºF
Application timing—rain 15 15 15
• Reduces exposure—delaying application whensignificant rainfall events are forecast that couldproduce substantial leaching or runoff can reducepesticide transport to ground and surface water
Application timing—relative humidity 5
• Reduces exposure—spraying when there ishigher relative humidity reduces evaporation ofwater from spray droplets thus reducing drift losses
Application timing—wind 10
• Reduces exposure—delaying application whenwind speed is not optimal can reduce pesticide drift• Optimal spray conditions for reducing drift occurwhen the air is slightly unstable with a very mild,steady wind between 2 and 9 miles per hour
Formulations and adjuvants 2, 3 5 5 5 5
• Reduces exposure—specific pesticideformulations and/or adjuvants can increase efficacyand allow lower application rates; drift retardantadjuvants can reduce pesticide spray drift
Monitoring + economic pest thresholds 15 15 15 15
• Reduces exposure—reduces the amount ofpesticide applied with preventative treatmentsbecause applications are based on monitoring thatdetermines when a pest population exceeds apreviously determined economic threshold
Partial treatment 15 15 15 10
• Reduces exposure—spot treatment, banding anddirected spraying reduces amount of pesticideapplied• Assumes less than 50 percent of the area istreated
Precision application using smart sprayers 10 10 10 10
• Reduces exposure—using smart sprayertechnology (i.e., green sensors, sonarbasedsensors, GPS-based variable rate application,computer controlled spray nozzles, etc.) cansubstantially reduce the amount of pesticideapplied
Setbacks 5 5 5 10
• Reduces exposure—reduces overall amount ofpesticide applied; reduces offsite pesticide drift• Assumes that the setbacks with no applicationare at least 30 feet wideSAMPLE PLA
N
595-5 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Soil incorporation 2, 3 15 15
• Reduces exposure—reduces solution andadsorbed runoff losses, but potentially increasesleaching losses, especially for low KOC pesticides• Applicable to shallow mechanical or irrigationincorporation • Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern• Not applicable if soil erosion is not adequatelymanaged
Spray nozzle selection, maintenance, and operation
10
• Reduces exposure—selecting appropriate nozzleand pressure for the application, with an emphasison higher volume spray nozzles run at lowerpressures, will produce larger droplets and anarrower droplet size distribution, which reducesspray drift• Proper nozzle spacing, boom height, and boomsuspension, along with frequent calibration andreplacement of worn nozzles and leaking tubing,can increase efficacy and reduce drift potential
Substitution — cultural, mechanical, or biological controls
15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—partial substitution of alternativecultural, mechanical, or biological pest suppressiontechniques reduces the application of a pesticidethat poses a hazard to an identified naturalresource concern• Not applicable if hazards from alternativesuppression techniques are not adequatelymanaged
Substitution — lower risk pesticides 2, 3
15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—partial substitution of analternative lower risk pesticide reduces theapplication of a pesticide that poses a hazard to anidentified naturalresource concern• Not applicable if the alternative pesticide is notexplicitly recommended by Extension or anappropriately certified crop consultant because theNRCS cannot make pesticide recommendations
Substitution — semiochemicals 15 15 15 15
• Reduces risk—using semiochemicals (e.g.,mating disruption pheromones) to decreasereproductive success or control populationdensity/location reduces the application of apesticide that poses a hazard to an identifiednatural resource concern
Total Mitigation Index Value for IPM Techniques 35 35 35 45 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 1
above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
1/ Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, pest management consultants, and pesticide labels.
2/ The pesticide label is the law. All pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may be needed to meet NRCS pest management requirements for identified resource concerns.
3/ Mitigation applies to adsorbed pesticide losses being carried to surface water by wind.
4/ Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of pesticide mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pesticide losses through the identified pathways.
NOTE: Mitigation practices already accounted for in the respective WIN-PST rating cannot be counted again when developing mitigation alternatives. Mitigation practices for common detect chemicals should include at least one state water quality pest management BMP for the respective chemical. SAMPLE
PLAN
595-6 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Pesticide Mitigation Index Values
Table 2. Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk
Mitigation Practice(s) Selected
Pesticide Mitigation Conservation Practices 1,2
Mitigation Index Value4 by Pesticide Loss Pathway
Function and Performance Criteria Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Alley Cropping (Code 311) 5 5 10 10
• Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurfacewater; reduces soil erosion; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects, which can reduce the need forpesticides; also can reduce pesticide drift tosurface water
Conservation Cover (Code 327) 10 10 10
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; andbuilds soil organic matter in perennial croppingsystems such as orchards, vineyards, berries, andnursery stock
Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328)
10 10 10
• Reduces the need for pesticides by breaking pestlife cycles• Rotation shall consist of at least two crops in therotation and no crop grown more than once beforegrowing a different crop
Constructed Wetland (Code 656) 5 5 10 • Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their
degradation
Contour Buffer Strips (Code 332) 10 10 • Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion
Contour Farming (Code 330) 5 5 • Increases infiltration and deep percolation;
reduces soil erosion
Cover Crop (Code 340) that is incorporated into the soil
5 5 5
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 4,000 pounds per acre of livebiomass at the time of tillage
Cover Crop (Code 340) for weed suppression that is mulch tilled or no-tilled into for the next crop
10 10 10 10
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion; buildssoil organic matter• Requires at least 4,000 pounds per acre of livebiomass at the time of tillage and at least 30percent ground cover at the time of the pesticideapplication
Cross Wind Ridges (Code 588) 53/
• Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticidedeposition in surface water• Assumes the pesticide is applied while the field isin the ridged state
Cross Wind Trap Strips (Code 589C)
103/ • Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticidedeposition in surface water; traps adsorbedpesticides
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-7 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Deep Tillage (Code 324) 5 5
• Increases infiltration and deep percolation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Dike (Code 356) 10 10
• Reduces exposure potential—excludes outsidewater or captures pesticide residues and facilitatestheir degradation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Drainage Water Management (Code 554)
10 10
• Drainage during the growing season increasesinfiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in theroot zone and reduces storm water runoff• Managed drainage mode when the field is notbeing cropped reduces discharge of pesticide residues from the previous growing season • Seasonal saturation may reduce the need forpesticides• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Field Border (Code 386) 5 10 5
• Increases infiltration and traps adsorbedpesticides; often reduces application area resultingin less pesticide applied; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects, which reduces the need forpesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests,which can result in reduced pesticide application;also can reduce inadvertent pesticide applicationand drift tosurface water• Assumes 20-foot minimum width
Filter Strip (Code 393) 10 15 10
• Increases infiltration and traps adsorbedpesticides; often reduces application area resultingin less pesticide applied; can provide habitat forbeneficial insects,,which reduces the need forpesticides; can provide habitat to congregate pests,which can result in reduced pesticide application;also can reduce inadvertent pesticide applicationand drift tosurface water• Assumes 30-foot minimum width
Forage Harvest Management (Code 511)
10 10 10 10 • Reduces exposure potential—timely harvestingreduces the need for pesticides
Hedgerow Planting (Code 422) 103/ 10
• Reduces adsorbed pesticide deposition in surfacewater; also can reduce inadvertent pesticideapplication and drift to surface water
Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Code 603)
53/ 5
• Reduces wind erosion; traps adsorbed pesticides;can provide habitat for beneficial insects, whichreduces the need for pesticides; can providehabitat to congregate pests, which can result inreduced pesticide application; and can reducepesticide drift to surface water
Irrigation System, Sprinkler (Code 442)
10 10 10 • Reduces exposure potential—efficient anduniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport toground and surface water
Irrigation Water Management (Code 449)
15 15 15
• Reduces exposure potential—water is applied atrates that minimize pesticide transport to groundand surface water, promotes healthy plants whichcan better tolerate pests
Mulching (Code 484) with natural materials
10 10 10 • Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,reduces the need for pesticides
SAMPLE PLA
N
595-8 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Mulching (Code 484) with plastic
10 5 5 • Reduces the need for pesticides. Not applicable iferosion and pesticide runoff from nonmulchedareas is not adequately managed
Residue and Tillage Management, No-till (Code 329)
5 10 15
• Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 60 percent ground cover at thetime of application
Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345)
5 5 10
• Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, buildssoil organic matter• Assumes at least 30 percent ground cover at thetime of application
Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391) 5 15 15 10
• Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurfacewater, traps sediment, builds soil organic matter,and reduces pesticide drift• This assumes 30-foot minimum width
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390)
5 10 10 5 • Increases infiltration, traps sediment, builds soilorganic matter, and reduces pesticide drift.• This assumes 30-foot minimum width
Sediment Basin (Code 350) 10
• Captures pesticide residues and facilitates theirdegradation• Not applicable if less than 50 percent of thetreatment area drains into the sediment basin
Stripcropping (Code 585) 15 15 5
• Increases infiltration; reduces soil erosion andgenerally will only be treating half the area ofconcern
Subsurface Drainage (Code 606) 5 10 10
• Increases infiltration and aerobic pesticidedegradation in the root zone• *Note: avoid direct outlets to surface water
Terrace (Code 600) 10 15
• Increases infiltration and deep percolation;reduces soil erosion• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Vegetative Barriers (Code 601) 10 • Reduces soil erosion; traps sediment; increases
infiltration
Water and Sediment Control Basin (Code 638)
10 15
• Captures pesticide residues and facilitates theirdegradation; increases infiltration and deeppercolation• Not applicable if pesticide leaching togroundwater is an identified natural resourceconcern
Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (Code 380)
103/ 10 • Reduces wind erosion; reduces adsorbedpesticide deposition in surface water; trapsadsorbed pesticides; reduces pesticide drift
Total Mitigation Index Value for Conservation Practices 10 10 10 0 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 2
above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
1/ Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management publications including IPM Guidelines and Crop Profiles, pest management consultants, and pesticide labels.
2/ The pesticide label is the law. All pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitigation may be needed to meet NRCS pest management requirements for identified resource concerns.
3/ Mitigation applies to adsorbed pesticide losses being carried to surface water by wind.
4/ Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of pesticide mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pesticide losses through the identified pathways.
NOTE: Mitigation practices already accounted for in the respective WIN-PST rating cannot be counted again when developing mitigation alternatives. Mitigation practices for common detect chemicals should include at least one state water quality pest management BMP for the respective chemical. SAMPLE
PLAN
595-9 MN-CPA-047 March 2018
Table 3. Sum of Mitigation Index Values and Amount of Mitigation Required
Mitigation Index Value
Leac
hing
Solu
tion
Run
off
Ads
orbe
d R
unof
f
Drif
t
Total Mitigation Index Value for IPM and Conservation Practices 45 45 45 45 Sum the Mitigation Index Values from Table 1 and
Table 2 above for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
Amount of Mitigation Required 40 40 40 40 From Page 3 for each Pesticide Loss Pathway
SAMPLE PLA
N
top related