sample plan - nrcs.usda.gov… · sample plan. 2 mn-cpa-024 november 2018 ... joe farmer has a...

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

[email protected]

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

aahop

Highlight

aahop

Highlight

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



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

aahop

Highlight

aahop

Highlight

aahop

Highlight

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)



8/9/2018Page 1 of 5

N


Feet0 50 100 200 300



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


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)



12.6 11.0%




28.8 25.0%

Corvuso (5%) Soil moisture (1.00)



Ponding (1.00)



Sensitive Lura, firm substratum, depressional (90%)

Ponding (1.00) 1.4 1.2%





Sensitive Strout, moderately eroded (45%)

Slope (1.00) 5.5 4.8%

Mystery, moderately eroded (45%)

Slope (1.00)

Danielson, overwash (10%)


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



8/9/2018Page 3 of 5

SAMPLE PLA

N

Map unit symbol




moderately eroded

Strout, moderately eroded (25%)

Slope (1.00)




Not sensitive Strout (70%) 61.7 53.5%

Arkton (20%)


Sensitive Danielson (70%) Soil moisture (1.00)

0.3 0.2%




Ponding (1.00)




Sensitive Houghton, firm substratum, ponded (30%)

Ponding (1.00) 0.0 0.0%


Klossner, firm substratum, ponded (30%)

Ponding (1.00)


Blue Earth, firm substratum, ponded (30%)

Ponding (1.00)



Lura, firm substratum, ponded (5%)

Ponding (1.00)



Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Not sensitive 61.7 53.5%

Sensitive 53.5 46.5%


Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Sensitive Soils for Nutrient Management (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West



8/9/2018Page 4 of 5

SAMPLE PLA

N

Aquifer Assessment (MN)—Mystery County, Minnesota (Joe Farmer: Coffer East & West)



8/9/2018Page 1 of 4

N


Feet0 50 100 200 300



SAMPLE PLA

N

Aquifer Assessment (MN)

Map unit symbol





Not sensitive Mystery (80%) 3.5 3.1%

Mystery(10%)


Arkton (5%)



Strout (10%)

Mystery (5%)

Arkton (5%)



Corvuso (5%)

Mystery (5%)



Not sensitive Lura, firm substratum, depressional (90%)

1.4 1.2%

Corvuso (5%)

Mystery (5%)


Not sensitive Strout, moderately eroded (45%)

5.5 4.8%

Mystery, moderately eroded (45%)


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



8/9/2018Page 3 of 4

SAMPLE PLA

N

Map unit symbol






Not sensitive Strout (70%) 61.7 53.5%

Arkton (20%)

Mystery (5%)

Mystery (5%)


Not sensitive Danielson (70%) 0.3 0.2%



Mystery (5%)


Sensitive Houghton, firm substratum, ponded (30%)

Organic soil (1.00)

0.0 0.0%

Klossner, firm substratum, ponded (30%)

Organic soil (1.00)


Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Not sensitive 115.1 100.0%

Sensitive 0.0 0.0%


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



8/9/2018Page 4 of 4

SAMPLE PLA

N


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


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



Chemical Control


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


Crop Tract Field(s)



Chemical Control


Crop Tract Field(s)



Chemical Control


SAMPLE PLA

N


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


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

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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C C C

6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%


MN000

L185B Strout


MN000

L185B Arkton


MN000


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


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


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C C C

6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%


MN000

L185B Strout


MN000

L185B Arkton


MN000


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C C C

6 15 4.5 10 3.5 9OM% OM% OM%


MN000

L185B Strout


MN000

L185B Arkton


MN000


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C

5.5 10OM%

L33B Mystery80% C Hydro: Mystery County, Minnesota:

MN000

H1 Depth:

DUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDEDUPONT SYNCHRONY XP HERBICIDE


I

H

L

V

L

L

L

V

Reg No: 352-648

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard

Chlorimuron-ethyl


L

H

L

L

L

V

L

V

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard

Thifensulfuron methyl

EXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATEEXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C

5.5 10OM%


MN000

H1 Depth:

MON 78270 HERBICIDEMON 78270 HERBICIDE


V

H

H

V

L

V

L

L

Reg No: 524-537

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard


RD 1617 HERBICIDERD 1617 HERBICIDE


V

H

H

V

L

V

L

L

Reg No: 524-549

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard


STATUS HERBICIDESTATUS HERBICIDE


I

H

L

V

L

V

L

V

Reg No: 7969-242

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard

Dicamba, sodium salt


L

H

I

V

L

V

L

V

Leaching:

Solution:

Adsorbed:

Loss

Potential

Human

Hazard

Fish

Hazard

Sodium diflufenzopyr

SAMPLE PLA

N

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C

5.5 10OM%


MN000

H1 Depth:

STERLING BLUE HERBICIDESTERLING BLUE HERBICIDE


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


C

5.5 10OM%


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

of 9 7:55PM9/24/2018


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


Reg No: 00035200648

VLV40 7.00 110 140.00 29,700.00270.001200 LHHPC_Code:

Surface Applied

StandardRate:

BroadcastArea:

Method:


Reg No: 00035200648

VVL12 6.00 45 91.00 477,000.0010,600.002400 LIIPC_Code:

Surface Applied

StandardRate:

BroadcastArea:

Method:

EXTEND HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE


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


Reg No: 00052400537

VVV47 24000 700.00 198,960,000.008,290.00900000 HHVPC_Code:

Surface Applied

StandardRate:

BroadcastArea:

Method:

RD 1617 HERBICIDE


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

aahop

Highlight

aahop

Highlight

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



Exposure Adjusted

Toxicity Category

Sediment


Runoff Water

STATUS HERBICIDE


Reg No: 00796900242

VVV14 2 4,000.00 264,440.00132,220.00400000 LIHPC_Code:

Surface Applied

StandardRate:

BroadcastArea:

Method:


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


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

aahop

Highlight

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



Exposure Adjusted

Toxicity Category

Sediment


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


(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




L185B 2 Arkton CL20 C 0.24 9 3.5 L H H




L33B 1 C80 Mystery C 0.2 10 5.5 L H I




L E G E N D

H -- High

I -- Intermediate

L -- Low

V -- Very Low


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


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


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


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



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



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



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



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.


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.


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


HIGH or EXTRA HIGH

Human Hazard 60



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


Table 2. Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk

Mitigation Practice(s) Selected

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation Practices 1,2



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


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







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


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




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




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.


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.


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


HIGH or EXTRA HIGH

Human Hazard 60



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


Table 1. IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk

Mitigation Practice(s) Selected IPM Techniques1



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







PLAN

595-6 MN-CPA-047 March 2018


Table 2. Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk

Mitigation Practice(s) Selected

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation Practices 1,2



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


Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345)

5 5 10


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







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

sample plan - nrcs.usda.gov… · sample plan. 2 mn-cpa-024 november 2018 ... joe farmer has a...

Documents