595 - 1 

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically and updated if needed. To obtain 

the current version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources Conservation Service 

State Office or visit the Field Office Technical Guide. 

][-NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD 

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) 

(Ac.) 

CODE 595 

DEFINITION 

A site-specific combination of pest prevention, 

pest avoidance, pest monitoring, and pest 

suppression strategies. 

PURPOSE 

1. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to water 

quality through leaching, solution runoff 

and adsorbed runoff. 

2. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to soil, 

water, air, plants, animals and humans 

through drift and volatilization. 

3. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to 

pollinators and other beneficial species 

through direct contact. 

4. Prevent or mitigate cultural pest 

suppression risks to soil, water, air, plants, 

animals and humans. 

CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES 

On all lands where pests will be managed. 

CRITERIA 

General Criteria Applicable to All Purposes 

IPM strategies (Prevention, Avoidance, 

Monitoring and Suppression or “PAMS”) shall 

be employed to prevent or mitigate pest 

management risks for identified natural 

resource concerns. 

An IPM plan utilizing PAMS strategies will be 

developed in accordance with this standard to 

document how specific pest management 

risks will be prevented or mitigated. The IPM 

plan must be crop and/or land use specific and 

adhere to applicable elements and guidelines 

accepted by the local Land Grant University or 

Extension. 

If a full IPM system is not feasible, appropriate 

IPM techniques must still be utilized to 

adequately prevent or mitigate pest 

management risks for identified natural 

resource concerns. 

Additional criteria to prevent or mitigate 

pesticide risks to water quality through 

leaching, solution runoff and adsorbed 

runoff

For identified water quality concerns related to 

pesticide leaching, solution runoff and 

adsorbed runoff, the current version of the 

USDA-NRCS WIN-PST program will be used 

to evaluate potential risks 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 

risk ratings in the “WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide 

Interaction Hazard Ratings” Table below: 

WIN-PST Identified 

Hazard Rating 

Minimum 

Mitigation Index 

Score Level 

Needed 

Low or Very Low None Needed 

Intermediate 20 

High 40 

Extra High 60 or more 

Use Agronomy Technical Note 3, Pest 

Management in the Conservation Planning 

Process - Table II to determine if planned 

conservation practices provide adequate 

mitigation. If they do not, use Agronomy 

Technical Note 3 - Table I to apply appropriate 
2 – 595 

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

IPM techniques with this practice. 

Additional criteria to prevent or mitigate 

pesticide risks to soil, water, air, plants, 

animals and humans through drift and 

volatilization

For identified natural resource concerns 

related to pesticide drift, use Agronomy 

Technical Note 3, Pest Management in the 

Conservation Planning Process – Table II to 

determine if planned conservation practices 

provide adequate mitigation. If they do not, 

use Agronomy Technical Note 3 - Table I to 

apply appropriate IPM techniques with this 

practice. The minimum level of mitigation 

required for drift is an index score of 20. 

For Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 

emission concerns, apply at least one IPM 

mitigation technique from the Pesticide 

Volatilization section of Agronomy Technical 

Note 3 - Pest Management in the 

Conservation Planning Process. 

Additional criteria to prevent or mitigate 

pesticide risks to pollinators and other 

beneficial species through direct contact 

For direct contact pesticide risks to pollinators 

and other beneficial species, apply at least two 

IPM mitigation techniques from the Pesticide 

Direct Contact section of Agronomy Technical 

Note 3 - Pest Management in the 

Conservation Planning Process. 

Additional criteria to prevent or mitigate 

cultural pest suppression risks to soil, 

water, air, plants and animals

For identified natural resource concerns 

related to cultural pest suppression, (e.g. soil 

erosion concerns with tillage for weed control 

or air quality concerns with burning for weed 

control), natural resource concerns shall be 

addressed to eFOTG quality criteria levels. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

IPM strategies that keep pest populations 

below economically damaging levels and 

minimize pest resistance should be utilized 

because they also help prevent unnecessary 

pest management risks to natural resources 

and humans. 

For noxious weed and invasive species 

control, the minimum level of pest suppression 

necessary to meet natural resource objectives 

should be used, however, for the eradication 

of invasive species, the acceptable pest 

threshold may be zero. 

 

IPM Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring, and 

Suppression (PAMS) techniques include: 

• Prevention – Activities such as cleaning 

equipment and gear when leaving an 

infested area, using pest-free seeds and 

transplants, and irrigation scheduling to 

limit situations that are conducive to 

disease development. 

• Avoidance – Activities such as maintaining 

healthy and diverse plant communities, 

using pest resistant varieties, crop 

rotation, and refuge management. 

• Monitoring – Activities such as pest 

scouting, degree-day modeling, and 

weather forecasting to help target 

suppression strategies and avoid routine 

preventative treatments. 

• Suppression – Activities such as the 

judicious use of cultural, biological and 

chemical control methods that reduce or 

eliminate a pest population or its impacts 

while minimizing risks to non-target 

organisms. 

IPM guidelines from the local Land Grant 

University or Extension may be supplemented 

with information from appropriately certified 

professionals. 

When providing technical assistance to 

organic producers, the IPM approach to 

managing pests should be consistent with the 

USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service National 

Organic Program standard which includes: 

• A diverse crop rotation that reduces 

habitat for major pests and increases 

habitat for natural enemies 

• Use of “farmscaping” principles to 

create borders of beneficial species 

habitat 
 595 - 3 

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

• Farming techniques to improve soil 

quality 

• Planting of locally adapted, pest 

resistant crop cultivars. 

Adequate plant nutrients and soil moisture, 

including favorable pH and soil quality, can 

reduce plant stress, improve plant vigor and 

increase the plant's overall ability to tolerate 

pests. 

On irrigated land, irrigation water management 

should be designed to avoid conditions 

conducive to disease development and 

minimize offsite contaminant movement. 

Producers should be reminded that they are 

responsible for following all pesticide label 

instructions and complying with all applicable 

Federal, state and local regulations, including 

those that protect Threatened and 

Endangered Species. 

Enhancement Considerations

1. A more intensive level of IPM focused 

primarily on prevention and avoidance 

strategies can further minimize pest 

management risks to natural resources 

and humans. 

2. Precision pesticide application techniques 

in an IPM system can further minimize 

pesticide risks to natural resources and 

humans. 

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 

The IPM plan shall be prepared in accordance 

with the criteria of this standard and shall 

describe the requirements for applying the 

practice to achieve its intended purpose. 

The IPM plan shall include at a minimum: 

1. Plan map and soil map of site/affected 

area, if applicable (use conservation 

plan maps if available). 

2. Location of sensitive resources and 

setbacks, if applicable (use 

conservation plan maps if available). 

3. Interpretation of the environmental risk 

analysis. Note: all pesticide label 

requirements and federal, state, and 

local regulations must be followed for 

all pesticide applications. 

4. Identification of appropriate mitigation 

techniques. See Agronomy Technical 

Note 3 - Table I for pesticide risk 

mitigation management techniques. 

5. A list of pest prevention and 

avoidance strategies that will be 

implemented, if applicable. 

6. A scouting plan and threshold levels 

for each pest, if applicable. 

7. Other monitoring plans, if applicable, 

such as weather monitoring to indicate 

when pesticide application for 

prevention is warranted. 

8. A list of accepted pest thresholds or 

methods to determine thresholds that 

warrant treatment, if applicable. 

Note: Items 5, 6, 7 and 8 are required to 

document a full IPM system, but they may not 

be applicable when only a limited number of 

mitigation techniques are sufficient to address 

identified natural resource concerns. 

Record Keeping. The following records, 

where applicable, shall be maintained by the 

producer: 

1. Monitoring or scouting results including 

the date, pest population/degree of 

infestation, and the crop or plant 

community condition. 

2. When and where each pest suppression 

technique was implemented. 

3. When and where special IPM techniques 

were implemented to mitigate site-specific 

risks (e.g. soil incorporation of a pesticide 

to reduce its surface runoff to a nearby 

stream). 

Note: Applicability will depend on the level of 

IPM adoption and mitigation requirements. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

The IPM plan shall include appropriate 

operation and maintenance items for the 

client. These may include: 

• Review and update the plan periodically in 

order to incorporate new IPM strategies, 

respond to cropping system and pest 
4 – 595 

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

complex changes, and avoid the 

development of pest resistance. 

• Maintain mitigation techniques identified in 

the plan in order to ensure continued 

effectiveness. 

• Calibrate application equipment according 

to Extension and/or manufacturer 

recommendations before each season of 

use and with each major chemical change. 

• Maintain records of pest management for 

at least two years. Pesticide application 

records shall be in accordance with USDA 

Agricultural Marketing Service’s Pesticide 

Recording Keeping Program and site 

specific requirements. 

REFERENCES 

National Information System for the Regional 

IPM Centers – IPM Elements and Guidelines: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmelements/index.

cfm

USDA-AMS National Organic Program, 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances: 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetch

TemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navI

D=NationalListLinkNOPNationalOrganicProgr

amHome&rightNav1=NationalListLinkNOPNati

onalOrganicProgramHome&topNav=&leftNav=

NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNational

List&resultType=&acct=nopgeninfo

USDA-NRCS GM-190-404 Pest Management 

Policy: 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewe

r.aspx?hid=17015

Using Farming Bill Programs for Pollinator 

Conservation: 

http://plants.usda.gov/pollinators/Using_Farm_

Bill_Programs_for_Pollinator_Conservation.pd

f

Note: The Attached NRCS Technical Note 

will be filed in the NRCS eDirectives 

system after the public review is completed 

and final comments incorporated. It is 

attached here for the reviewer’s 

convenience
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically and updated if needed. To obtain 

the current version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources Conservation Service 

State Office or visit the Field Office Technical Guide. 

Introduction

This technical note is designed to help conservation 

planners address pest management concerns in the 

conservation planning process. 

NRCS Pest Management Policy is contained in 

GM_190_404_A-D, Amendment 12, dated March 

2009.http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer

.aspx?hid=17015

NRCS Pest Management Policy states that we have 

four roles in pest management: 

(1) Evaluate environmental risks associated with a 

client’s probable pest suppression strategies. 

(2) Provide technical assistance to clients to mitigate 

identified environmental risks. 

(3) Assist clients to adopt IPM techniques that protect 

natural resources. 

(4) Assist clients to: 

 (i) Inventory, assess, and suppress noxious and 

invasive weeds on non-cropland. 

 (ii) Suppress weeds to ensure successful 

implementation and/or maintenance of permanent 

vegetative conservation practices (e.g., buffer type 

practices). 

Roles 1, 2 and 3 are addressed in the conservation 

planning process with the application of Integrated 

Pest Management (IPM) (Code 595) and other 

conservation practices. Even though NRCS does not 

provide technical assistance for managing pests on 

cropland, NRCS can work with Extension, producers 

and their crop consultants to integrate IPM into the 

conservation planning process to prevent and/or 

mitigate pest management environmental risks. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Code 595) is 

designed to support the adoption of a full IPM 

system: a site-specific combination of pest 

Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring, and Suppression 

strategies, or IPM ‘PAMS’ strategies. 

The two primary goals of the 595 standard are to 

prevent environmental risks if possible and then to 

mitigate environmental risks that cannot be 

prevented. 

A full IPM system prevents and avoids pests as much 

as possible to reduce the need for pest suppression, 

including the use of hazardous pesticides. 

A full IPM system also includes carefully monitoring 

pest populations and only utilizing suppression 

techniques when the economic benefit is greater than 

the cost. These economic pest thresholds must be 

developed for each pest in each cropping system 

based on the biology of the crop, the pest, and the 

pest’s natural enemies. The economic threshold is 

then dynamically adjusted based on the cost of the 

pest suppression technique and the projected value of 

the crop. 

And finally, a full IPM system must also mitigate 

environmental risks that cannot be prevented by 

utilizing application techniques that minimize risks to 

non-target species in the field and reduce off-site 

movement of hazardous pesticides. 

In some cropping systems a full IPM system will not 

be feasible because appropriate IPM technology has 

not been developed. The 595 standard can be used 

to support the application of individual IPM 

techniques if they appropriately mitigate sitespecific pest suppression risks to natural resources 

and/or humans. 

 NOTE: Identified risks associated with planned pest 

suppression can also be addressed through other 

conservation practices or a system of conservation 

practices that includes 595. 

Role 4 in our Pest Management Policy is addressed in 

the conservation planning process with the 

application of Brush/Shrub Control (Code 314) and
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

Herbaceous Weed Control (Code 315) on noncropland to address natural resource concerns related 

to plant pests, including invasive, noxious and 

prohibited plants. Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) (Code 595) should be used to prevent 

and/or mitigate pest management environmental 

risks associated with the application of 314 and 

315. 

NRCS Pesticide Risk Analysis in the Conservation 

Planning Process

The United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) regulates pesticides under two major federal 

statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), both amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. 

Under FIFRA, pesticides intended for use in the 

United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA 

before they may be sold or distributed in commerce. 

EPA will register a pesticide if scientific data 

provided by the applicant show that, when used 

according to labeling directions, it will not cause 

“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment”. 

FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment” as “...any unreasonable risk to man or 

the environment, taking into account the economic, 

social and environmental costs and benefits of the use 

of any pesticide...”. 

Under FFDCA, EPA is responsible for setting 

tolerances (maximum permissible residue levels) for 

any pesticide used on human food or animal feed. 

With the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act 

(FQPA) in 1996, both major pesticide statutes were 

amended. FQPA mandated a single, health-based 

standard for setting tolerances for pesticides in foods; 

provided special protections for infants and children; 

expedited approval of safer pesticides; and required 

periodic re-evaluation of pesticide registrations. 

FQPA also limited the consideration of benefits when 

setting tolerances. FQPA did not address the 

consideration of ecological risk. 

The EPA pesticide registration process, including any 

pesticide label use restrictions, is based on a 

comprehensive pesticide risk assessment for typical 

conditions under which the pesticide will be used. 

This risk assessment is designed to address many 

different risks to many different species that might be 

impacted by a particular pesticide use, but it does not 

include how these risks can vary substantially across 

the landscape. Even when a pesticide is applied 

according to pesticide label instructions, sitespecific conditions may cause that pesticide to 

pose significant risks to nearby water resources. 

NRCS utilizes the Windows Pesticide Screening Tool 

(WIN-PST) for water quality pesticide risk analysis. 

The risk analysis done with WIN-PST for drinking 

water and aquatic habitat is not as comprehensive as 

the risk assessment that supports the EPA pesticide 

registration process, but it is sufficient to guide the 

site-specific application of mitigation techniques to 

address identified natural resource concerns. NRCS 

uses WIN-PST to identify sensitive soil/pesticide 

combinations and what type of mitigation will 

help protect site-specific natural resources.

Utilizing WIN-PST in the Conservation Planning 

Process

WIN-PST is the NRCS supported technical tool that 

is used to assess relative pesticide leaching, solution 

runoff, and adsorbed runoff risk to water quality. 

WIN-PST analysis is based on: 

 

• Soil properties 

• Pesticide physical properties 

• Pesticide toxicity data 

The major components of the NRCS non-point 

source water quality pesticide risk analysis are: 

1. The potential for pesticide loss in 

- water that leaches below the 

rootzone; 

- water that runs off the edge of the 

field; 

- sediment that leaves the field in run 

off; 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 7 of 20 July 2009 

2. Chronic (long term) pesticide toxicity to 

human drinking water and aquatic habitat; 

3. And finally, the combination of pesticide 

loss potential with pesticide toxicity to 

provide site-specific ratings for pesticide 

hazards in leaching, solution runoff, and 

sediment adsorbed runoff. 

The final ratings are called WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide 

Interaction Hazard Ratings. The term “hazard” is 

used even though these ratings include both pesticide 

toxicity and a partial exposure analysis based on field 

conditions. It is the responsibility of the planner to 

put these hazard ratings into proper context by using 

their professional judgment to assess the potential for 

pesticide movement below the bottom of the rootzone 

and beyond the edge of the field to identified ground 

or surface water resources, as well as the potential for 

that pesticide contamination to impact the water 

resources based on watershed and waterbody 

characteristics. This entire process is considered a 

“risk” analysis, so the term “hazard” is used in the 

final WIN-PST ratings to remind users that they must 

put these “partial” ratings into the proper context to 

fully analyze risk to human drinking water and 

aquatic habitat. 

WIN-PST provides ratings for 5 different categories 

of resource concerns: 

- ‘Human Hazard Leaching’ for leaching 

risk to drinking water 

- ‘Fish Hazard Leaching’ for leaching risk to 

aquatic habitat 

(lateral flow to streams) 

- ‘Human Hazard Solution’ for solution 

runoff risk to drinking water 

- ‘Fish Hazard Solution’ for solution runoff 

risk to aquatic habitat 

- ‘Fish Hazard Adsorbed’ for adsorbed 

runoff risk to aquatic habitat including 

benthic organisms. 

Note: there is no WIN-PST rating for 

‘Human Hazard Adsorbed’ since human 

exposure to sediment is minimal. 

The final “WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction 

Hazard Ratings” are ‘Very Low’, ‘Low’, 

‘Intermediate’, ‘High’ or ‘Extra High’. 

To fully analyze the risk of a pesticide to a human 

drinking water supply or aquatic habitat, the user 

must consider the impact of: flow path characteristics 

between the field and the waterbody of concern 

(through the vadose zone to groundwater or overland 

flow to surface water); watershed characteristics; and 

waterbody characteristics. 

On the higher end of the overall risk spectrum, the 

flow path from the field to the waterbody will be 

short and direct with little opportunity for pesticide 

degradation or assimilation. The watershed will have 

significant pesticide loading potential from numerous 

fields that are managed in a similar fashion as the 

field being analyzed. And finally, the waterbody will 

be sensitive to pesticide contamination due to limited 

flushing and dilution. 

On the lower end of the overall risk spectrum, the 

flow path to the waterbody will be long and arduous 

with lots of opportunity for pesticide degradation and 

assimilation. The watershed will have only a few 

fields that are managed in a similar fashion so there 

will be limited loading potential for the pesticide in 

question. And finally, the waterbody will not be very 

sensitive to pesticide contamination due to lots of 

flushing and dilution. 

If the overall risk is low, the conservation planner 

will not identify a water quality concern related to the 

use of pesticides, so no mitigation will be needed. If 

the overall risk is high, a suite of conservation 

practices may be required to provide enough 

mitigation to meet eFOTG quality criteria. 

Appropriate mitigation should be chosen based on 

final WIN-PST hazard ratings for applicable 

pesticide loss pathways to identified water resource 

concerns. 

To conduct a WIN-PST analysis: 

1. Choose all the major soil types that cover 

10% or more of the field or planning area 

2. Choose all the pesticides that the client is 

planning to use 

(Note that each pesticide can be chosen by 

product name, EPA registration number, or 

active ingredient name, but the final ratings 

are specific to each active ingredient) 

3. Analyze the results for each soil/pesticide 

interaction 

4. Select the highest hazard soil/pesticide 

combination for the identified natural 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

resource concern(s) to plan appropriate 

mitigation

 

In the example below, there is a solution runoff 

concern to aquatic habitat. Pesticides X and Y are 

planned for a field that contains Soils A, B and C. 

Soil/Pesticide 

Combination 

WIN-PST 

Fish Hazard 

Solution Rating 

Soil A - Pesticide X 

(20% of the area) 

Very Low 

Soil B - Pesticide X 

(50% of the area) 

Low 

Soil C - Pesticide X 

(25% of the area) 

Intermediate 

Soil A - Pesticide Y 

(20% of the area) 

Low 

Soil B - Pesticide Y 

(50% of the area) 

Intermediate 

Soil C - Pesticide Y 

(25% of the area)

High 

In this example, the “High” rating for the 

combination of Soil C with Pesticide Y would be 

selected to plan an appropriate level of mitigation to 

protect the aquatic habitat. 

Applying the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

(Code 595) Standard

If a conservation planner identifies natural resource 

concerns related to pest management activities, 595 

may be applied to address those concerns. 

If a pesticide related water resource concern is 

identified, the 595 standard requires a specific 

level of mitigation based on WIN-PST results. 

For identified 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” Table below: 

WIN-PST Identified 

Final Hazard Rating 

Minimum Mitigation 

Index Score Level 

Needed 

Low or Very Low None Needed 

Intermediate 20 

High 40 

Extra High 60 or more 

Mitigation requirements can be met with IPM 

techniques and/or conservation practices. See 

Table I at the end of this technical note for mitigation 

index values for IPM techniques and Table II for 

mitigation index values for conservation practices. 

The index values from Table I can be added to the 

index values from Table II to calculate the total index 

score for the planned conservation system. 

For example, if “Fish Hazard Solution” is identified 

as a pathway of concern for an identified water 

resource and WIN-PST reports an ‘Intermediate’ 

rating, IPM techniques from Table I or conservation 

practices from Table II that address solution runoff 

must be applied so that the sum of the index values 

from either table in the ‘Solution Runoff’ column for 

the selected IPM mitigation techniques and 

conservation practices will be 20 or more. Similarly, 

a ‘High’ rating would require a sum of 40 or more, 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 9 of 20 July 2009 

and an ‘Extra High’ rating would require a sum of 60 

or more. This will be the case for all natural resource 

concerns and all applicable pesticide loss pathways 

identified by the conservation planner with the aid of 

WIN-PST. 

As an alternative to mitigation, the conservation 

planner can work with Extension personnel, 

published Extension recommendations, the producer 

or their crop consultant to see if there are lower risk 

alternatives that still meet the producer’s objectives. 

A producer can choose to use a pesticide that has 

risk if they also apply appropriate mitigation, or they 

can substitute a low risk pesticide that needs no 

mitigation – pesticide choice is the producer’s 

decision. 

Pesticide drift has also been identified as a major 

pesticide loss pathway. Note that drift can be a 

major pesticide loss pathway to surface water in 

some cases. Appropriate mitigation for drift may be 

required in addition to mitigation for leaching, 

solution and adsorbed pesticide loss pathways in 

order to adequately protect a surface water resource.

Predicting spray drift is very difficult because it is 

influenced by many rapidly changing site-specific 

factors including wind speed, relative humidity, 

temperature and the presence of temperature 

inversions. Spray droplet size as determined by 

nozzle configuration and pressure also plays an 

important role in spray drift. 

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. The index values from Table I can 

be added to the index values from Table II to 

calculate the total index score for the planned 

conservation system.

Pesticide Volatilization has been identified as a 

contributor to air quality concerns through Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC) emissions that are a key 

precursor to ground-level ozone. The state of 

California has local air shed rules and regulations in 

place for non-attainment areas, and other states may 

follow. 

Pesticide related VOC emissions are influenced by 

the vapor pressure the active ingredient and the way 

the pesticide product is formulated. Emulisifiable 

concentrates have higher VOC emissions than other 

formulations. If the conservation planner identifies a 

VOC related natural resource concern, one or more of 

the following VOC mitigation techniques must be 

applied: 

1. Use lower VOC emitting pesticide 

formulations - specifically eliminating the 

use of emulsifiable concentrates when other 

formulations are available; 

2. Use precision pesticide application or 

“Smart Sprayer” technology including: 

- Near-infrared-based weed sensing 

systems 

- Map/GPS-based variable rate 

application 

- Sonar-based vegetation sensors 

- Computer controlled spray nozzles 

- Hoods and shields to direct applications 

- Wicks 

- Backpacks 

- Remote sensing, GIS, or other spatial 

information system 

- Steam desiccation systems 

- Fumigant delivery with precision 

application 

- Fumigant delivery with drip irrigation 

- Fumigant soil retention using precision 

water application; 

3. Use impermeable tarps to cover fumigated 

areas; 

4. Shift dates of fumigant application to 

outside the May - October timeframe to 

move VOC emissions out of the nonattainment period; 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

5. Use solarization (e.g. irrigate and tarp during 

summer fallow to kill pests without 

fumigation; 

6. Use biofumigants or other soil treatments 

(e.g. thiosulfate) instead of pesticides. 

7. Fallow fields for several years before 

replanting an orchard crop or inoculate 

young trees (e.g. with yeast) to reduce 

fumigant use; 

Pesticide Direct Contact can affect pollinators and 

other beneficial species while pesticides are being 

applied and later when pollinators and other 

beneficial species reenter the treated area. This direct 

exposure to pesticides can occur even when spray 

drift is minimized. 

For more information, see How to Reduce Bee 

Poisoning from Pesticides available at: 

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/pnw/pnw

591.pdf

If the conservation planner identifies a pesticide 

direct contact concern to pollinators and other 

beneficial species, choose two or more of the 

following mitigation techniques: 

1. 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 be more 

toxic to bees the following morning, so 

exercise caution; 

2. Time pesticide applications when crops are 

not in bloom and keep fields weed free to 

discourage pollinators from venturing into 

the crop; 

3. Use pesticides that are less toxic to 

pollinators and beneficial species. Note: all 

pesticide recommendations must come 

from Extension or an appropriately certified 

crop consultant. 

4. 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; 

5. Use liquid formulations instead of dusts 

and fine powders that may become trapped 

in the pollen collecting hairs of bees and 

consequently fed to developing larvae; 

6. Use alternatives to insecticides such as 

pheromones for mating disruption and 

kaolin clay barriers for fruit crops; 

Cultural pest management techniques can cause 

natural resource degradation. For example, tillage for 

weed control can cause soil erosion and burning for 

weed control can cause air pollution. All natural 

resource concerns from all forms of pest management 

should be evaluated, and significant natural resource 

concerns should be addressed to eFOTG quality 

criteria levels. 

Developing the IPM Plan

IPM elements and guidelines from Extension or the 

Land Grant University should be utilized where 

available. A national listing is available at: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmelements/index.cfm. 

The goal is to develop an efficient IPM system that 

uses prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and then 

finally judicious suppression when a pest population 

exceeds an economic threshold. IPM helps assure 

that unnecessary environmental risks are avoided. 

The best way to develop a good IPM system is to 

consider economics, efficacy, and environmental risk 

all at the same time. 

Traditionally, IPM plans used to focus on economics 

and efficacy (including resistance management). 

Environmental risk reduction was an indirect benefit 

of an efficient IPM system. 

With the advent of the National IPM Roadmap in 

2004, environmental risk reduction became a core 

principle of IPM and is now just as important as 

economics and efficacy. The National IPM Roadmap 

can be viewed at: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/Docs/IPMRoadMap.pdf. 

Developing an IPM plan for a producer as part of the 

conservation planning process will allow the IPM 

Plan to directly address identified natural resource 

concerns as well as provide a broader context to areawide pest management considerations and habitat 

management for beneficial species. 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 11 of 20 July 2009 

It may take several passes through the IPM planning 

process to achieve all of the producer’s goals. An 

efficient IPM system may still have risks to sitespecific natural resource concerns. Some of the risky 

suppression alternatives may be critical to the 

function of the overall system. A second pass through 

the IPM planning process may reveal some additional 

or alternative IPM techniques that can help mitigate 

those site-specific risks to natural resources. 

It is important to note that other conservation 

practices like Crop Rotation, Cover Crop, and Field 

Borders can also be used to develop an efficient IPM 

system. And additional conservation practices like 

Filter Strips, Residue Management and Irrigation 

Water Management can be used in the conservation 

system along with the 595 conservation practice to 

provide adequate mitigation. 

 The IPM mitigation techniques in Table I below are 

included in most Land Grant University IPM 

Programs, but we have to be careful because NRCS 

cannot make pesticide recommendations ourselves. 

We must be certain that Extension or an 

appropriately certified farm advisor supports and 

recommends the use of these techniques, because 

changing the way a pesticide is applied or 

substituting a different pesticide is making a pesticide 

recommendation, and that is not supported by NRCS 

Pest Management Policy. However, NRCS can and 

should fully support the conservation benefits of 

these IPM mitigation techniques.

Using Table I - IPM Techniques for Reducing 

Pesticide Environmental Risk and Table II -

Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide 

Environmental Risk 

Table I identifies IPM techniques and Table II 

identifies conservation practices that have the 

potential to prevent or mitigate pesticide impacts on 

water and air quality. Water quality is addressed 

through four separate pesticide loss pathways: 

leaching, solution runoff, adsorbed runoff, and drift. 

The pesticide drift pathway also applies to air quality. 

Not all IPM techniques and conservation practices 

will be applicable to a given situation. Relative 

effectiveness ratings by pesticide loss pathway are 

indicated with an index value of 5, 10, or 15. The 

tables also identify how the IPM techniques and 

conservation practices function and the performance 

level that the index value is based on. Effectiveness 

of any IPM technique or conservation practice can be 

highly variable based on site conditions and how it is 

designed and maintained. The professional judgment 

of the planner will ultimately determine the 

effectiveness of a particular IPM technique or 

conservation practice for a particular field or 

planning area. 

Tables I and II are based on available research 

specific to IPM technique or conservation practice, 

related research, and the best professional judgment 

of NRCS technical specialists. The ratings are 

relative index values as opposed to absolute values, 

much like the Conservation Practice Physical Effects 

(CPPE) matrix ratings. The index values are intended 

to help planners choose the best combination IPM 

techniques and conservation practices for their 

identified resource concerns. The ratings are based on 

the relative potential for IPM techniques or 

conservation practices to provide mitigation. The 

IPM techniques or conservation practices need to be 

specifically designed, implemented and maintained 

for the mitigation potential to be realized. Varying 

site conditions can influence mitigation effectiveness, 

but the relative index values indicate which 

conservation practices or IPM mitigation techniques 

will generally provide more or less mitigation under a 

given set of conditions. 

A general rule of thumb for IPM techniques or 

conservation practices having an index value of 5 is 

that they generally have the potential to reduce losses 

by 10 -15%. IPM techniques or conservation 

practices having an index value of 10 generally have 

the potential to reduce losses by about 25%, and IPM 

techniques or conservation practices having an index 

value 15 generally have the potential to reduce losses 

by 50% or more. 

The original reference for many of the ratings in 

Tables I & II is: Aquatic Dialogue Group: Pesticide 

Risk Assessment and Mitigation, Baker JL, Barefoot 

AC, Beasley LE, Burns LA, Caulkins PP, Clark JE, 

Feulner RL, Giesy JP, Graney RL, Griggs RH, 

Jacoby HM, Laskowski DA, Maciorowski AF, 

Mihaich EM, Nelson Jr HP, Parrish PR, Siefert RE, 

Solomon KR, van der Schalie WH, editors. 1994. 

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP 

July 2009 

Pensacola, FL., pages 99-111 and Table 4-2. This 

reference provides ranges of effectiveness for various 

mitigation techniques. 

If you have any questions about the material in this 

publication, please contact the National Pest 

Management Specialist or your respective State or 

Regional Agronomist. 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically and updated if needed. To obtain the current version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources Conservation Service State Office or visit the Field Office Technical Guide. 

Table I – IPM Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk 

Mitigation Index Value6

(by Pesticide Loss Pathway) 

IPM Techniques1, 2, 5

Leaching Solution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

Application Timing – 

Ambient Temperature 

 5 

Reduces exposure - spraying during cooler temperaevening or at night) can help reduce drift losses. Avtemperatures above 90o F. 

Application Timing – 

Rain 10 10 10 

Reduces exposure - delaying application when signforecast that could produce substantial runoff or leatransport to ground and surface water. 

Application Timing – 

Relative Humidity 5 Reduces exposure - spraying when there is higher r

evaporation of water from spray droplets thus reduc

Application Timing – 

Wind 5 

Reduces exposure - delaying application when wind accordance with label requirements can reduce pesconditions for reducing drift occur when the air is slimild steady wind between 2 and 9mph. 

Formulations/Adjuvants 

5 5 5 5 

Reduces exposure – formulations and/or adjuvants lower application rates or formulations that have lowdecrease atmospheric losses or use of appropriate reduce drift when conditions are less than ideal. 

IPM applications based on monitoring and economic pest 

15 15 15 15 

Reduces exposure - reduces the amount of pesticidtreatments because applications are based on monwhen a pest population exceeds a previously determ
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value6

(by Pesticide Loss Pathway) 

IPM Techniques1, 2, 5

Leaching Solution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

thresholds. Partial Treatment 15 15 15 5 

Reduces exposure - spot treatment, banding and diamount of pesticide applied. (Assumes no more tha

treated). 

Precision Application – Using “Smart Sprayers” 

10 10 10 10 

Reduces exposure - using “Smart Sprayer” technolosonar-based sensors, GPS-based variable rate appcontrolled spray nozzles, etc.) can substantially reduingredient applied. 

Set-backs – 30 feet or more with no application 

 5 5 5 Reduces exposure – reduces inadvertent pesticide 

surface water and reduces the overall amount of pe

Soil Incorporation – mechanical or irrigation 

 10 10 Reduces exposure – reduces solution and adsorbed 

increases leaching losses, especially for low KOC pe

Spray Nozzle Selection, Maintenance and Operation. 

 10 

Reduces exposure – selecting appropriate nozzle aapplication, with an emphasis on higher volume sprpressures, will produce larger droplets and a narrowwhich reduces spray drift. Proper nozzle spacing, bosuspension, along with frequent calibration and repland leaking tubing, can increase efficacy and reduc
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 15 of 20 July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value6

(by Pesticide Loss Pathway) 

IPM Techniques1, 2, 5

Leaching Solution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

Use of alternative cultural or biological suppression techniques4

15 15 15 15 Reduces risk - substituting cultural (including burnin

and biological controls can reduce or replace pestic

Use of alternative, lower risk pesticides3 15 15 15 15 

Reduces risk - using alternative pesticides with lowemitigating higher risk pesticides. Note: alternative perecommended by Extension or an appropriately cer

Use of Semiochemicals to manage a pest population4

15 15 15 15 

Reduces risk – using semiochemicals (e.g., mating decrease reproductive success or control population reduce or replace pesticide applications. 

1Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management 

 publications, pest management consultants and pesticide labels. 

2 The pesticide label is the law - all pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additio

for NRCS identified natural resource concerns. 

3 A specific pesticide risk is not actually reduced, but it is avoided by using an alternative pesticide that has less risk. 4 Similar to note 3 above, a specific pesticide risk is not actually reduced, but it is avoided by using a different technique to help m5 NRCS does not make pesticide recommendations. All pesticide application techniques must be recommended by Extension or a

consultant and selected by the producer. 

6 Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of IPM mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous pestic

pathways. 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP July 2009 Table II – Conservation Practices for Reducing Pesticide Environmental Risk

Mitigation Index Value4

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation (by Pesticide Loss Pathway) Practices1, 2

LeachingSolution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

Alley Cropping (311) 5 5 10 10 

Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface wprovide habitat for beneficial insects which can ralso can reduce pesticide drift to surface water. 

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control (450) 5 15 Increases infiltration and deep percolation, reducConservation Cover (327) 15 15 15 Retiring land from annual crop production into pe

the need for pesticides, builds soil organic matte

Conservation Crop Rotation (328) 10 10 10 

Reduces the need for pesticides by breaking pesconsist of at least 2 crops in the rotation and no before growing a different crop. 

Contour Buffer Strips (332) 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion. Contour Farming (330) 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation, reducContour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (Ac.) (331) 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation, reducContour Stripcropping (585) 15 15 5 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion and ge

half the area of concern. 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 17 of 20 July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value4

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation (by Pesticide Loss Pathway) Practices1, 2

LeachingSolution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

Cover Crop (340) that is incorporated into the soil 5 5 5 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds 

Assumes at least 4000 lbs/ac of live biomass at 

Cover Crop (340) for weed suppression that is mulch tilled or notilled into for the next crop. 10 10 10 10 

Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds Assumes at least 4000 lbs/ac of live biomass at 30-100% ground cover at the time of the pesticid

Cross Wind Ridges (589A) 53/ Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide d

Assumes the pesticide was applied while the fiel

Cross Wind Stripcropping (589B) 5 5 103/ 5 

Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide dtraps adsorbed pesticides. Different pesticides mthe field. 

Cross Wind Trap Strips (589C) 103/ Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide d

traps adsorbed pesticides. 

Deep Tillage (324) 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation. Field Border (386) 5 10 5 

Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesticidarea resulting in less pesticide applied, can provinsects which reduces the need for pesticides, ccongregate pests which can result in reduced pereduce inadvertent pesticide application and drif20 foot minimum width. 

Filter Strip (393) 10 15 10 Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesticid

area resulting in less pesticide applied, can provinsects which reduces the need for pesticides, c
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value4

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation (by Pesticide Loss Pathway) Practices1, 2

LeachingSolution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria congregate pests which can result in reduced pereduce inadvertent pesticide application and drif30 foot minimum width. 

Forage Harvest Management (511) 10 10 10 10 Reduces exposure potential - timely harvesting r

pesticides. 

Herbaceous Wind Barriers (1003) 53/ 5 

Reduces wind erosion, traps adsorbed pesticidebeneficial insects which reduces the need for pecongregate pests which can result in reduced pereduce pesticide drift to surface water. 

Irrigation System, Microirrigation (441) 10 15 15 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and unifo

transport to ground and surface water. 

Irrigation System, Sprinkler (442) 10 10 10 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and unifo

transport to ground and surface water. 

Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (443) 5 5 5 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and unifo

transport to ground and surface water. 

Irrigation System Tail Water Recovery (447) 10 10 Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their Irrigation Water Management (449) 15 15 15 Reduces exposure potential - water is applied at 

transport to ground and surface water, promotes 
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

Page 19 of 20 July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value4

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation (by Pesticide Loss Pathway) Practices1, 2

LeachingSolution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria better tolerate pests. 

Mulching (484) 5 5 5 

Often reduces the need for pesticides, natural mreduce soil erosion. Assumes plastic mulch is noto prevent excess pesticide runoff from plastic m

Residue Management, No-till and Strip-Till (329) 5 10 15 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds 

Assumes at least 60% ground cover at the time 

Residue Management, Mulch-Till (345) 5 5 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds 

Assumes at least 30% ground cover at the time 

Residue Management, Ridge Till (346) 5 5 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, builds Riparian Forest Buffer (391) 5 15 15 10 

Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface wsoil organic matter, and reduces pesticide drift. minimum width. 

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390) 5 10 10 5 Increases infiltration, traps sediment, builds soil 

pesticide drift. This assumes 30 foot minimum w

Sediment Basin (350) 10 Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their 

least 50% of the treatment area drains into the s

Stripcropping, Field (586) 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion and g

half the area of concern.
Agronomy Technical Note 3: 

Pest Management in the Conservation Planning Process

NRCS, NHCP July 2009 

Mitigation Index Value4

Pesticide Mitigation Conservation (by Pesticide Loss Pathway) Practices1, 2

LeachingSolution Runoff Adsorbed Runoff Drift 

Function and Performance Criteria 

Subsurface Drainage (10010) 5 10 10 Increases infiltration and aerobic pesticide degra

*Note – avoid direct outlets to surface water 

Terrace (600) 10 15 Increases infiltration and deep percolation, reducVegetative Barriers (601) 10 Reduces soil erosion, traps sediment, increases Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380) 103/ 10 Reduces wind erosion, reduces adsorbed pestic

water, traps adsorbed pesticides, and reduces p

1/ Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from Extension pest management 

 publications, pest management consultants and pesticide labels. 

2/ Thee pesticide label is the law - all pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Add

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 

identified pathways.