PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nick Frey, President, Sonoma County Winegrape Commission

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 9 Strategic Agriculture Initiative Program 2008 Final Report PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Approach for Vine Mealybug Control EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Cindy Wire PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nick Frey, President, Sonoma County Winegrape Commission CONTACT INFORMATION: Sonoma County Winegrape Commission 420 Aviation Blvd., Suite 106 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 frey@sonomwinegrape.org 707-522-5861 PARTICIPATING FARMERS: Cooperator on VMB research with UCCE Sandra Henson, PCA, Jackson Enterprises sandy.henson@kjmail.com (707) 431-1845 IPM Meeting Hosts Dana Grande - Jordan Vineyards & Winery dgrande@jordanwinery.com (707) 431-5248 Dennis Devitt - Gallo Family Vineyards Dennis.Devitt@ejgallo.com (707) 824-8664 Tom Gore - Simi Winery tom.gore@simiwinery.com (707) 310-2181 Richard Rued - Rued Vineyards dee@ruedvineyards.com (707) 433-1569 ASSISTANCE ID NUMBER: X-00934501-0 PROJECT PERIOD: 07/01/2007 through 10/30/2008 GRANT RECIPIENTS: Sonoma County District 3 Local Winegrape Commission GRANT AMOUNT: $28,000.0 1

COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS: University of California Cooperative Extension Jackson Enterprises LEVERAGED FUNDS: Sonoma County Winegrape Commission: $ 9,000 Grower Cooperators $ 6,000 Jackson Enterprises $ 5,000 UCCE Lucia Varela $15,000 Total In-Kind $45,000 ABSTRACT: In 2000, with funds from CA Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association, predecessor to the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission (SCWC), initiated an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program with the goal of encouraging the adoption of integrated pest management practices, reducing the use of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides and encouraging the use of reduced-risk pesticides. The program has grown through the years providing outreach in different venues to reach growers, vineyard managers, pest control advisers, organic producers and vineyard employees. By 2007, the use of 9-targeted pesticides under FQPA review was reduced by 67% from 1999 usage, despite an increase of 19,500 grape acres. The detection of the exotic pest Vine Mealybug (VMB) in Sonoma County in 2002 caused the gradual increase in the use of chlorpyrifos, one of the pesticides we have targeted for reduction. Continued increases are likely as VMB infests new vineyards. The increase is due in part to initial efforts to eradicate VMB. UC IPM Program Pest Management Guidelines for VMB control have been developed primarily in the San Joaquin Valley. The cornerstone of these guidelines is the use of chlorpyrifos at both delayed-dormant and post-harvest periods and the use of imidacloprid through the drip irrigation system in the spring. These guidelines are not effective in the North Coast for three reasons: the location of the insect under vine bark in early spring (delayed-dormant period) prevents the material from reaching the target insects; the region can receive high amounts of precipitation at that time increasing the risk of chlorpyrifos runoff into streams; and many soils are high in clay which results in poor uptake of soil applied imidacloprid. We developed and promoted an integrated pest management approach for VMB control that relies on good sanitation practices, conservation of natural enemies, ant control to reduce disruption of natural enemies, use of reduced-risk insecticides, and if necessary, use of chlorpyrifos only at appropriate timings. We also encourage communications among neighboring growers with infested vineyards to promote management at an area-wide level. The principal goal is to deliver a strong educational program to affect grower VMB management programs. Sustainable control measures for VMB are promoted at four IPM Grower Appellation Meetings held monthly throughout the growing season; the monthly Pest Control Advisers' (PCA) Breakfast Meetings; the monthly Organic Producers Group (OPG) Meetings; and to vineyard employees through the Employee Development Program, which is taught in Spanish. 2

Information is also made available through the Commission's Vine Times newsletters and on the SCWC website. UCCE evaluated populations of VMB at three different appellations throughout the year to determine the most effective timing for control of the VMB crawlers and the most susceptible stages for control with reduced-risk insecticides under North Coast conditions. The survey conducted demonstrated that a substantial portion of the VMB population is under the bark in February and early March, thus the use of chlorpyrifos at the delayed- dormant period is not recommended for the North Coast. Also, post-harvest application of chlorpyrifos should only be done if harvest is completed when VMB crawlers remain in the canopy. If neighboring vineyards are not harvested, chlorpyrifos applications should be delayed to ensure no drift into unharvested grapes. Measurable environmental results include developing a management program that reduces use of chlorpyrifos in infested vineyards. This is essential to increasing biological controls for VMB and for preserving natural enemies of VMB as well as predators of spider mites and grape leafhopper. All are critical to sustain IPM practices that growers have adopted since 2000. Reducing chlorpyrifos applications also benefits air quality by reducing VOC emissions. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: OUTREACH: To conduct a strong outreach program on sustainable approaches for the control of Vine Mealybug. Objective 2: RESEARCH: To determine the best timing of chemical applications for the control of Vine Mealybug in order to minimize chlorpyrifos use while increasing parasitism. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The outreach objective included two components. The first was to share information on VMB detection and IPM control strategies at monthly grower meetings held April July. In addition, we created neighborhood groups that included growers who farm near known infestations. These groups share information on VMB spread and controls. Some groups also implemented mating disruption using pheromones as part of their IPM programs. The research objective was completed by Lucia Varela, UCCE, with collaboration by Sandy Henson, Jackson Enterprises. It was determined that post- harvest applications of chlorpyrifos were effective as long as crawlers were in the canopy and had not moved under the bark or soil. Delayed dormant applications were projected to be less effective because many VMB had moved under the bark. Alternatives to chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid were tested during the growing season. These included the insect growth regulator, Applaud (buprofezin); the neonicotinoid compounds of Platinum (thiamethoxam) and Venom (dinotrefuran) as alternatives to imidacloprid and a new product, Movento (spirotetramat). We estimate VMB has infested 2000-3000 grape acres in Sonoma County based upon PUR data for both buprofezin and chlorpyrifos usage. Spread of VMB threatens the 60,928 grape acres in Sonoma County. 3

The research and resulting education programs reduced chlorpyrifos usage substantially. Postharvest treated acreage increased from 2006 levels, but there were significant reductions in chlorpyrifos usage in months when VMB were under the vine bark or soil. The percentage of chlorpyrifos applied when optimally effective compared to treatments in months when efficacy is less likely increased from 56% of treated acres and 48% of pounds applied in 2005 to 256% of treated acres and 289% of pounds applied in 2008. Growers drastically reduced chlorpyrifos for usage when it was least efficacious. The high risk insecticide targeted in this project was chlorpyrifos. This study shows that under North Coast conditions the use of chlopyrifos at the delayed dormant period is not necessary and can be eliminated. More recently, research has documented the effectiveness of reduced-risk insecticides, such as the neonicotinoid Platinum (thiamethoxam), and the insect growth regulator Applaud (buprofezin). (Venom (dinotefuran) is also used and has similar results to imidacloprid, but may be more effective on heavier clay soils.) There were no problems during the project period that prevented us from achieving our objectives. The EPA funding was further leveraged during this period by Suterra who provided VMB traps to aid detection, and Jackson Wine Estates who hosted the Alexander Valley neighborhood group communications and meetings in addition to providing vineyards for the UCCE research. Other stakeholders and project partners included the following: Lucia Varela, IPM Specialist, UCCE Rhonda Smith, Farm Advisor, UCCE Sandra Henson, PCA, Jackson Enterprises sandy.henson@kjmail.com (707) 431-1845 Dana Grande - Jordan Vineyards & Winery dgrande@jordanwinery.com (707) 431-5248 Dennis Devitt - Gallo of Sonoma Dennis.Devitt@ejgallo.com (707) 824-8664 Tom Gore - Simi Winery tom.gore@simiwinery.com (707) 310-2181 Richard Rued - Rued Vineyards dee@ruedvineyards.com (707) 433-1569 Grapegrowers who attended the IPM and OPG meetings and who joined neighborhood VMB groups. Over 130 growers participated in these programs. OUTCOMES: A survey of vine mealybug was conducted throughout the year in three vineyards, each in different appellations. Monthly in winter and bi-monthly during the growing season, 10 vines were selected in each vineyard and the numbers of all VMB stages and the vine location per 10- minute counts were recorded. Results are presented in Tables 1 and 2. In Sonoma County in February and early March, approximately 30 to 55% of the population is found under the bark (Table 1). This is when delayed dormant sprays of chlopyrifos are applied. The data suggest that under North Coast conditions delayed dormant applications are not the most effective timing for control. The Petaluma vineyard (A) had the lowest percentage of the population under the bark throughout the season. One explanation is that in this vineyard the variety was Pinot Noir that has much less bark than do other varieties, thus there is fewer places to hide under the bark. 4

Table 1. Percent vine mealybug distribution on the vine per sampling date in three vineyards: A) Petaluma, B) Carneros and C) Alexander Valley 5

6

The most susceptible stage for control is the crawlers. Crawlers are exposed in the canopy from mid-may through October (Table 2). The data shows that post-harvest application of chlopyrifos would be effective only if harvest is before the end of October. Any application late in the season (from late October on) is not recommended. Table 2. Percent vine mealybug stages per sampling date in three vineyards: A) Petaluma, B) Carneros and C) Alexander Valley 7

8

A neighborhood group was organized in southern Sonoma and Napa Counties when VMB were first found in local vineyards. That group continues to meet under the leadership of Lucia Varela and has served as a model to create similar groups in other regions of Sonoma County. In 2007 a group was formed in Alexander Valley. In 2008, groups were formed on Starr Road and Vine Hill Road in Russian River Valley. Growers in the Cotati area have an informal network to share information on infestations and treatment efficacy. Preliminary conversations have also begun to create a group in the town of Sonoma. These groups share trap results and discuss IPM strategies that minimize chlorpyrifos use and avoid chlorpyrifos use when VMB are not exposed on the canopy or vine surface. These groups also enable implementation of pheromone mating disruption in infested regions. POSSIBLE LONG TERM OUTCOMES: IPM that minimizes or avoids chlorpyrifos usage is needed for long-term management of VMB. This will increase natural predator populations needed to suppress VMB. Reduced risk insecticides or insect growth regulators will be used during the growing season to further suppress VMB populations if needed. And pheromone mating disruption will likely be a critical technology for VMB management. SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES THAT COULD BE MORE BROADLY IMPLEMENTED: Effective IPM strategies to reduce use of chlorpyrifos have been developed. Those include limiting chlorpyrifos use to only the post-harvest period when VMB are still present in the vine canopy. No other use of chlorpyrifos is recommended under North Coast conditions. Control strategies during the growing season include use of imidacloprid in sandy soils, thiamethoxam on heavier soils, and foliar applications of spirotetramat if tolerances are established for this product in countries where Sonoma County wines are likely to be exported. Mating disruption has been implemented on a small scale in 2008 and it will likely be expanded in 2009. Release of VMB natural enemies may be implemented in vineyards where IPM practices eliminate the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, like chlorpyrifos, that kill predator populations. VMB Neighborhood Groups The first VMB Neighborhood Group was in Carneros and it continues to be a model we are applying in other parts of Sonoma County. The second group formed was Alexander Valley. In 2008, we added groups on Starr Road and Vine Hill Road in the Russian River Valley, and took initial steps to create a group in Sonoma. There is also collaboration in the Cotati area. The purpose of the groups is to identify infested vineyards, coordinate trapping around the infestation, and share information on VMB management strategies. These venues provide opportunities to discuss alternatives to chlorpyrifos and when its use will not be effective, e.g. delayed dormant treatments when VMB are under the bark or underground. These groups have also implemented mating disruption using pheromone treatments. One infested vineyard is attempting to manage VMB using organic pest management. JMS Stylet Oil treatments in 2008 did not provide effective control, however. Each group has an e-mail distribution list where VMB trap results are shared as well as successful management strategies. Many growers use one or two applications of Applaud 9

(buprofezin) as part of a VMB management program. Movento (spirotetramat) has been used in research trials and in limited commercial applications with good success. It will be used more widely if foreign countries approve its use and create a tolerance for the material in food products. Vine Mealybug Trap and Map Program Sonoma County Winegrape Commission's VMB Trap & Map Program was begun for early detection of new infestations. An article introducing this program was published in the SCWC Fall 2008 newsletter, Vine Times. To keep vine mealybug from seriously impacting our industry, we need to slow the spread and implement effective IPM strategies. This requires that known sites be mapped, growers continue to trap for VMB males and share their results through neighborhood VMB grower groups as mentioned above. Communications are keys to implementing effective control measures with the least environmental impact. The SCWC will support those efforts by facilitating neighborhood group meetings, sharing information and by supporting trapping efforts. The Commission encourages all growers to participate in our new "Trap and Map Program" from June through October. They may set up VMB traps in their vineyards; notify the Commission of their trap sites and results. If they have trouble getting traps read or want to read their own traps, SCWC can help. We will have a microscope available before IPM Meetings for those wanting to read their own traps. We have also arranged for trap reading as an additional fee-for-service option. OUTREACH / OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES: Grower outreach was the first objective of this grant. We have effectively achieved this objective through our IPM meetings (100 growers/month x 4 months); Organic Producer Group meetings (over 60/month x 4 months); monthly PCA Breakfast meetings from March August with over 10 PCAs who make pest management recommendations to a number of growers; yearlong Employee Development Program classes in Spanish for vineyard employees; formation of 4 neighborhood groups that share trapping information through the season; SCWC Fall 2008 newsletter, Vine Times article on VMB Trap and Map Program that is sent to over 3000 vineyard owners, vineyard managers and winery employees, and through the website, http://www.sonomawinegrape.org/vine-mealy-bug-info that includes links to related websites, VMB Best Management Practices, and locations to purchase traps and lures. NEW TECHNOLOGIES: Some growers use electrostatic sprayers to better cover vine leaf and trunk tissues and to minimize drift to non-target tissues. Pheromone mating disruption has been implemented on a small scale in 2008, and its use is likely to expand. The possible use of Movento (spirotetramat) as a systemic insecticide that is more efficacious than imidocloprid or dinotefuran will require tolerances to be established for wine exports. The systemic neonicotinoid insecticide Platinum (thiamethoxam) shows promise in trials conducted by UC under Sonoma County soil conditions. Finally releases of natural predators will be possible if broad-spectrum insecticides are not used in the IPM program. 10

TECHNOLOGIES TRANSFERABLE: The technologies developed will be transferable to other regions infested with VMB and are directly applicable to other North Coast counties, i.e. Napa, Marin, Mendocino, and Lake. The basic concepts of IPM that include trapping to detect infestations and applications of reduced risk insecticides and insect growth regulators as alternatives to broad spectrum insecticides like chlorpyrifos, use of mating disruption with pheromones and rearing natural enemies of VMB for release are transferable and can provide efficacious alternatives to broad spectrum insecticides. IF BIOPESTICIDES/REDUCED RISK ALTERNATIVES WERE USED, WERE THEY EFFICACIOUS? In this project we did not test reduced-risk insecticides, although growers are evaluating and using several alternatives to chlorpyrifos that have less environmental impacts. We investigated the validity of early recommendations to use a delayed dormant spray of chlorpyrifos before budbreak. This treatment is effective for grape mealybug, but not vine mealybug under North Coast conditions because VMB crawlers and nymphs remain under the bark at that time. In addition, post harvest treatments must be done early, before VMB retreat under the bark or soil. Post-harvest applications after mid-october are not recommended for North Coast vineyards unless crawlers are present in the canopy. Growers were encouraged to monitor for VMB before making a post harvest treatment. Table 3 shows acres treated with chlorpyrifos from 2006-2008. Post harvest treatments increased in 2007 and 2008, while treatments from December June declined substantially. This indicates two things, i.e. VMB infested acres likely increased between 2006 and 2007, but growers reduced treatments that were unlikely to be efficacious because VMB were not present outside the bark or on leaves. Table 4 shows pounds a.i. of chlorpyrifos applied. While post harvest applications increased each year, the increase for post harvest applications in 2008 compared to 2007 is due to a higher use rate, i.e. ~2 lbs a.i./a instead of 1.5 lb a.i./a. There was a steady decline in lbs a.i./a applied during months not optimal for VMB control. These data demonstrate the educational efforts with growers were effective in reducing applications of chlorpyrifos to control VMB during times of the year when those treatments were unlikely to be efficacious. This change in application timing saved growers money by eliminating ineffective delayed dormant chlorpyrifos applications and reduced environmental impacts. By avoiding delayed dormant and spring applications, there were fewer impacts on beneficial insects that are important to biological control of VMB and other pests, e.g. spider mites and grape leafhoppers, consistent with our objectives to use Integrated Pest Management in Sonoma County vineyards. 11

ECONOMIC VIABILITY: TACTIC / PRACTICE ADOPTION COST SAVINGS / ACRE MOVENTO + 1 PLATINUM $55 + $52/A = $107/A -$43/A 2 MOVENTO $55/A X 2 = $110/A -$46/A PHEROMONE MD + NE RELEASES $150/A -$86/A Comment [LXV1]: I would compare the cost of replacing chlorpyrifos with two applications of Applaud + 1 Platinum. Call a PCA and ask the prize of Lorsban and the prize of Platinum, Applaud and Movento and see which costs more Presently chlorpyrifos is used once or twice a year (delayed dormant and post harvest) plus two applications of Applaud. The cost of 2 chlorpyrifos applications is $64/A. A substitute for chlorpyrifos would be an application of Movento + Platinum, or two applications of Movento. If mating disruption is used it may need supplemental releases of natural enemies. These alternatives to chlorpyrifos cost $43 - $86/A more, but there may be savings if natural predators of VMB and other pests, e.g. spider mites and grape leafhopper, are preserved in sufficient numbers so that those pests do not require treatment with miticides or insecticides. Our goal was to develop an IPM strategy for VMB control, so it is appropriate to consider the costs that result from IPM program disruption by chlorpyrifos. Mating disruption and natural enemy releases are likely important alternatives for organic producers, although these methods still may not provide adequate VMB control. STATE(S) IMPACTED: California or any state with Vine Mealybug in grapes KEY CROPS: Winegrapes KEY PESTS: COMMON NAME VINE MEALYBUG SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANOCOCCUS FICUS DOES THE PROJECT IMPACT THE FOLLOWING? Groundwater: The recommendation obtained from this study of not applying Chlorpyrifos at delay dormant reduces the risk of run off in the spring. Soil applied insecticides pose some risk of groundwater contamination, however all soil applications will be through drip irrigation after the rainy season is over. As a result, the materials should be confined to the root zone and have time for uptake or degradation before the rainy season begins in November. Surface water: There is some risk of surface water contamination with chlorpyrifos applied postharvest. However, the new recommendation of only applying chlorpyrifos before mid- 12

October, reduces the risk of late season applications when it is more likely to rain. Delayed dormant applications pose the greatest risk of surface water contamination and this project has reduced those applications significantly. All new vineyards in Sonoma County and many older vineyards do have cover crops and 25-ft grass buffers along streams that reduce the risks of surface water contamination. Soil: Most chemicals used will degrade over the summer and before winter rains. Air: Reducing or eliminating chlorpyrifos use will decrease VOC releases from treated vineyards. WHAT PRACTICES WERE ADOPTED/WHAT CHANGED ON THE GROUND AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT AND WHY DID GROWERS ADOPT THIS PRACTICE? This project has provided the data to show that delayed-dormant applications of chlorpyrifos are not efficacious and not recommended. Post-harvest applications are only recommended if harvest occurs before mid-october. New practices became available and were evaluated during the grant period. Those were pheromone mating disruption and the systemic insecticides, spirotetramat and thiamethoxam. All are promising additions to IPM programs to control VMB and reduce chlorpyrifos use. Natural enemies are now available commercially, and will likely be implemented as part of IPM control programs for VMB. WHAT, IF ANY, WORKER SAFETY ISSUES DOES THIS PROJECT ADDRESS? The reduction in use of chlorpyrifos, especially when vineyard employees will be working in the vineyard, did reduce worker exposure. The delayed dormant application of chlorpyrifos could increase exposure during late pruning, frost protection, or early canopy management. The elimination of lannate applications during the growing season after 2006 also enhanced worker safety. WHAT, IF ANY, ENDANGERED SPECIES DOES THIS PROJECT ADDRESS? COMMON NAME COHO SALMON STEELHEAD CHINOOK SALMON TIGER SALAMANDER SCIENTIFIC NAME Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Ambystoma mavortium PROJECT WEB ADDRESSES: http://www.sonomawinegrape.org/search/node/vine+mealybug; Vine mealybug o Article: UC helps vineyard crews to identify invasive pest o Pest Management Guideline: Vine Mealybug on grape RESULTS OF DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: 13

The greatest environmental impact was greatly reducing delayed dormant applications of chlorpyrifos (Tables 3 & 4). There were reductions in total acres treated with chlorpyrifos and pounds applied from 2006-2008, in delayed dormant applications. Total treated acreage decreased even though infested acreage was increasing. There was a reduction in pounds applied, but the biggest shift was in applications during months when chlorpyrifos was most likely to be efficacious in reducing VMB population post harvest. The pounds applied when likely to be efficacious as a percentage of pounds applied when less efficacious increased from 56% in 2006 to 289% in 2008. These data are evidence of the effectiveness of grower outreach programs that this grant supported. 14

Table 3: Chlorpyrifos treated acres post harvest (Sept Nov) when likely to be efficacious and delayed dormant (Dec June) when efficacy is minimal. Chlorpyrifos Use Trends Acres Treated Month 2006 2007 2008 Optimal for VMB September 0 90 7 October 333 1188 1223 November 446 84 0 Total 779 1362 1230 Not Optimal for VMB December 0 0 February 775 8 March 620 611 446 April/May/June 6 6 34 Total 1401 625 480 Grand Total 2180 1987 1710 % Optimal/Not Optimal 56% 218% 256% Table 4: Chlorpyrifos pounds applied post harvest (Sept Nov) when likely to be efficacious and delayed dormant (Dec June) when efficacy is minimal. Chlorpyrifos Use Trends Pounds a.i. Applied Month 2006 2007 2008 Optimal for VMB September 160 16 October 544 1676 2432 November 852 140 Total 1396 1816 2432 Not Optimal for VMB December 88 February 1544 16 March 1236 1224 782 April/May/June 12 12 60 Total 2880 1252 842 Grand Total 4276 3068 3274 % Optimal/Not Optimal 48% 145% 289% 15

RESULTS OF SURROGATE ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: Tables 3 and 4 above are the surrogate environmental measures. Acres treated and pounds of chlorpyrifos applied both declined from 2006 levels while infested acres were increasing. And importantly, delayed dormant applications that are not likely to be efficacious and pose the greatest risks to surface water contamination that might affect endangered and threatened salmonid species were greatly reduced. NUMBER OF DOCUMENTED ACRES WHERE NEW TACTICS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED: Acres Estimate 1500 infested acres 2006 Estimate 2000 infested acres or more 2008 Year POTENTIALLY IMPACTED ACRES: The results should be applicable to all VMB-infested acres on the North Coast, and likely the Central Coast. They may be also applicable to Northern San Joaquin Valley (eg. Lodi region) since the conditions in this area may be different from the warmer Central Valley. In Sonoma County, we estimate VMB-infested acres total 2000-3000 and further increases are expected. NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING FARMERS: There were four cooperating growers who hosted monthly IPM meetings. In addition, over 100 growers and PCAs per month attended monthly IPM, PCA and Organic Producer Group meetings during the growing season (April-July). PCAs consult with growers and the 10/month who regularly attend PCA Breakfast meetings impact thousands of grape acres in Sonoma County as well as other North Coast counties. In the neighborhood groups approximately 60 growers have been impacted by this program. HOW MANY GROWERS INDICATE THEY WILL CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? We do not have numbers of growers, but the data in Tables 3 and 4 suggest growers are willing to change their behavior. Also, 100 % of the 77 growers surveyed were willing to adopt new management approaches for VMB control. They are interested in using beneficial insects and in setting VMB traps. Eighty-five percent were willing to eliminate untimely and ineffective insecticide treatments, thereby saving money and reducing potential adverse environmental impacts. Fifteen percent said they preferred to continue using broad-spectrum insecticides with an approach of eradication. Overwhelmingly they requested more information on VMB identification, monitoring, management strategies (insecticide use and timing, sanitation), and how to limit spread, with 50% responding that they needed to gain more knowledge to treat VMB infestations effectively. Sixty percent responded that they do use VMB traps while 28% do not. Twenty-one percent were aware of a VMB infestation in their neighborhood while 56% were not. If they knew of an infestation in their neighborhood, 50% knew if there were neighbors working together. If they did not know of a group, 92% stated they would be interested in a neighborhood group to share information and management strategies. 16

In addition, growers have implemented other IPM strategies over the years as evidenced by the use patterns shown in Table 5. The use trends for most of the dangerous chemical groupings show significant decreases in pounds applied and treated acreage (exception is myclobutanil, a fungicide). The use of reduced-risk materials, including oils, has increased. These are clear indicators that our grower-outreach through grower meetings, formation of neighborhood groups, newsletter articles and participation in the Sustainable Winegrowing Program are effective. 17

Table 5: Pesticide Use Data for Sonoma County. Prop 65 Chemical usage 1999 1999 2000 2000 2006 2006 2007 2007 Sonoma County Grape Usage Acres Acres Lbs Trtd Lbs Trtd Lbs Acres Trtd Lbs Acres Trtd Reproductive Toxicity Usage Benomyl 931 3,449 1,266 4,110 260 628 112 255 2,4-D 3 170 2 40 24 5 0 0 Metam Sodium 1,587 25 4,780 15 0 0 0 0 Methyl Bromide 449,900 1,208 132,159 380 0 0 0 0 Myclobutanil 2,525 31,571 2,511 27,465 Propargite 191 105 136 77 Total 452,421 4,852 138,207 4,545 3,000 32,309 2,759 27,797 B2 Carcinogen Usage 1,3/dichloropropene 71063 206 132032 398 Captan 22 65 4 100 0 0 0 0 Diuron 703 562 52 18 Iprodione 75 123 88 48 Mancozeb 31,555 23,240 33,000 21,430 20,552 13,814 16,548 11,016 Maneb 12 12 26 13 0 0 0 0 Metam Sodium 1,587 25 4,780 15 0 0 0 0 Propargite 191 105 136 77 Total 33,176 23,342 37,810 21,558 92,584 14,810 148,856 11,557 Cholinesterase Inhibitor Carbaryl 879 504 613 584 54 34 177 89 Chlorpyrifos 2,081 1,615 3,221 1,987 Diazinon 636 1,113 55 143 0 0 0 0 Dimethoate 696 3,021 361 1,997 872 1,950 272 474 Fenamiphos 5,214 2,330 4,230 1,364 0 0 0 0 Malthion 0 0 3 56 16 7 2 2 Methomyl 0 0 0 0 Phosmet 12 4 84 50 2 2 0 0 Total 7,437 6,972 5,346 4,194 3,025 3,608 3,672 2,552 Potential Groundwater Movement 1,3-dichloropropene 71064 206 132032 398 Diuron 1,223 1,295 1,278 1,997 703 562 52 18 Norflurazon 583 462 1,113 1,094 0 0 8 4 Simazine 24,177 10,832 21,064 13,063 10,750 7,148 5,392 3,883 Total 25,983 12,589 23,455 16,154 82,517 7,916 137,484 4,303 Air Contamination 2,4-D 3 170 2 40 24 5 0 0 Captan 22 65 4 100 0 0 0 0 Carbaryl 879 504 613 584 54 34 177 89 Mancozeb 31,555 23,240 33,000 21,430 20,552 13,814 16,548 11,016 Maneb 12 12 26 13 0 0 0 0 18

Metam Sodium 1,587 25 4,780 15 0 0 0 0 Methyl Bromide 449,900 1,208 132,159 380 0 0 0 0 Total 483,958 25,224 170,584 22,562 20,630 13,853 16,725 11,105 Reduced Risk Pesticide Usage Acetamiprid 26 657 12 340 Azoxystrobin 1,720 9,669 1,766 8,840 1,269 5,975 480 2,535 Bifenazate 1,457 3,258 1,388 2,431 Boscalid 7,973 44,241 9,453 45,932 Buprofezin 806 2,241 1,284 2,859 Cyprodinil 2,993 7,257 3,845 7,826 2,570 7,010 3,809 8,764 Cinnamaldehyde 1,750 524 1,195 333 0 0 0 0 Fenahexamid 6,353 12,007 5,864 11,041 Methoxyfenozide 0 0 0 0 Potassium Bicarbonate 6,050 3,030 15,570 6,327 8,214 3,592 8,009 3,284 Pyraclostrobin 4,050 44,241 4,801 45,932 Spinosad 41 358 8 108 Trifloxystrobin 1,235 19,698 1,210 20,855 Total 12,513 20,480 22,376 23,326 33,994 143,278 36,318 144,081 Oils/low risk Mineral Oil 138 477 18,993 4,013 Petroleum Distillates 22 49 2 9 Petroleum Distillates, refined 147,897 30,436 187,110 40,063 Petroleum Oil, parafin based 454 842 173 479 Petroleum oil, unclassified 1,707 208 9,242 1,509 Total 0 0 0 0 150,218 32,012 215,520 46,073 19

PESTICIDES TRANSITIONED FROM: ACTIVE INGREDIENT APPLICATION (LBS / ACRE) PRECENT REDUCTION CHLORPYRIFOS 2008-3274/1710 FROM 2006 21%/22% PESTICIDES TRANSITIONED TO: Thiamethoxam, spirotetramat, and buprofezin. ALTERNATE TACTICS USED: Natural enemies of VMB are now available commercially and will be used in IPM and organic production systems. In addition, mating disruption using pheromones is being implemented. IS THE PROJECT COMPLETE? The project is complete but there will be ongoing education as we continue our goal of decreasing chlorpyrifos use in Sonoma County. WHAT IS THE ENDING SCORE ON THE SAI TRANSITION GRADIENT? For vineyards not infested with VMB it was a 3. Infested vineyards were a 2 and some moved to a 1. COMPLETION DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2008 LESSONS LEARNED: No end -of -project questionnaire was done due to cancellation of the annual IPM / Organic Field Day. Growers were to fill out the questionnaire at that event. In retrospect, the questionnaire could have been emailed out, but historically that brings in very few responses. However the pesticide use data show the effectiveness of the program relative to the objectives. WERE PROJECT GOALS MET AND DO YOU CONSIDER IT A SUCCESS? Objective 1 was effective. Grower and PCA participation in Commission programs has been strong and more importantly, we have greatly reduced delayed dormant chlorpyrifos applications that were not likely efficacious and posed the greatest environmental risks. The vine mealybug grower survey conducted in three appellation regions of Sonoma County provides solid data for sound pest management recommendations. These recommendations have been disseminated to a broad and diverse audience from growers, pest control advisers, vineyard managers, supervisors 20

and field workers. We have also developed alternative VMB management strategies that are less disruptive of IPM programs, preserve natural enemies and rely on reduced risk methods. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: OBJECTIVE 1: OUTREACH: To conduct a strong outreach program based on a sustainable approach for the control of Vine Mealybug. YES The Sonoma County Winegrape Commission will make an in-kind commitment of its President s time (5%) plus office phone and equipment ($6000). YES Four grower cooperators who host the monthly IPM meetings and attend Sustainable Practices Committee meetings to plan and implement the programs each provide in-kind services totaling over 20 hours/yr at $75/hr ($6000). will do when results are available_ Results will be publicized in the SCWC quarterly newsletter that is sent to 2000 Sonoma and Marin County growers and nearly 800 California wineries and www.sonomawinegrape.org ($3000). OBJECTIVE 2: RESEARCH: To determine the best timing of chemical applications for the control of Vine Mealybug in order to minimize chlorpyriphos use while increasing parasitism. yes UCCE will provide in-kind staff support by Lucia Varela (10% salary & benefits) and Rhonda Smith (5% salary & benefits) to do the research and participate in grower meetings and Sustainable Practices Committee meetings ($15,000). yes In addition, Sandra Henson, PCA, Jackson Enterprises, will provide the vineyard research sites ($2000) and participate in the research and education programs ($3000). WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS NECESSARY? NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED OTHER COMMENTS: 21