Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Consequences
Pest Management
The effects to water quality of continuing to use Aquamaster and Glyphosate Pro 4 (active
ingredient glyphosate), Surflan AS (active ingredient oryzalin), Habitat (active ingredient
imazapyr), Altosid Briquets and Altosid Pellets WSP (active ingredient methoprene), VectoBac
12AS and VectoBac G (active ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis), and VectoLex WDG
(active ingredient Bacillus sphaericus) would be similar to those described under Alternative A.
The difference between Alternatives A and B is that under Alternative B, the use of these products
would be implemented in accordance with the IPM Plan, presented in Appendix C, and the
Mosquito Management Plan, presented in Appendix D. These plans address a number of BMPs
that would be implemented to minimize any adverse effects of pesticide application to water
quality.
As described in Appendix C, along with the selective use of pesticides, IPM involves the
implementation of a number of other strategies for eradicating, controlling, and containing pest
species. These strategies include prevention, mechanical and physical methods, cultural methods,
biological control methods, and habitat maintenance, enhancement, and restoration. The effects of
these non-pesticide IPM strategies (e.g., the physical removal of invasive plants with hand tools,
possible use of biological controls to eliminate tamarisk, restoration of native species in disturbed
areas) to address pest species on the Refuge would be similar to those effects described elsewhere
within this chapter, where they are discussed specifically as habitat management techniques to
achieve resource management objectives.
All pesticides considered for use on the Refuge, including any new pesticides that may be applied
following the approval of this CCP, are evaluated through the PUP review process using scientific
information and analyses that is documented in “Chemical Profiles” of the IPM (Appendix C,
Attachment B). These profiles, which are described in detail in Section 7 of the IPM Plan, provide
quantitative assessment/screening tools and threshold values to evaluate potential effects to water,
soil, and air. The use of specific pesticides on the Refuge is approved when the Chemical Profiles
prepared for each active ingredient indicate sufficient scientific evidence that potential impacts to
the Refuge’s physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized in nature.
This analysis, which is conducted by the Regional IPM Coordinator, may indicate the need to
adjust application timing and/or quantities and/or the need for specific BMPs to protect water
quality.
A number of BMPs intended to protect water quality are included in the IPM Plan that would be
implemented on the Refuge whenever pesticide application occurs. Some of these BMPs include:
As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks will not be left unattended during filling.
Refuge staff will consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are
important to ensure the greatest efficacy, when specified on the pesticide label.
All pesticide spills will be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the
Refuge’s spill respond plan.
A one-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge will be used, where applicable, and
when it does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species.
Refuge staff will use low impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment,
cut stump, oil basal, Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar
applications (e.g., boom sprayer, other larger tank wand applications), where practical.
Equipment will be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is
applied to the target area or species.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-17