Adam Putnam COMMISSIONER. Managed Pollinator Protection Plans State Efforts

Transcription

1 _ Adam Putnam COMMISSIONER Managed Pollinator Protection Plans State Efforts

2 August 13 letter from OPP to AAPCO/SFIREG leadership Asked for input on necessary elements & approaches for state plans Asked AAPCO/SFIREG to work with states as they develop plans

3 AAPCO/SFIREG Pollinator Efforts SFIREG (Jim Gray, Chair) Identify core elements for state managed pollinator protection plans Work with EPA to explore changes to pesticide labeling if they are contemplated AAPCO Pollinator Committee (Steve Dwinell, Chair) Assemble info on existing & developing managed pollinator protection plans Build stakeholder consensus on effective strategies to protect pollinators that are least disruptive to product agriculture and other stakeholders

4 State Managed Pollinator Plans (MP 3 s): Purpose Establish framework for communication and coordination among stakeholders (beekeepers, pesticide applicators, growers, others) Build relationships & increase understanding Ensure peaceful co-existence Mitigate pesticide exposure through communication and coordination of activities

5 Scope of State Plans Scope of SFIREG guidance limited to managed pollinators not under contracted pollination services at site of application States urged to evaluate local issues & concerns and define appropriate scope beyond minimum scope Species of managed pollinators Type of beekeeper (hobbyist, commercial) Type of pesticide uses address (ag, non-ag, or both) Whether it includes urban beekeeping

6 SFIREG Guidance on State Pollinator Plans Divided into two sections: Critical Elements Optional/Recommended Elements Initially based on recommendations from states that have state plans in place

7 Critical Elements of MP 3 s 1. Stakeholder participation process 2. Method for growers/applicators to know if there are managed pollinators near pesticide treatment sites 3. Method for growers/applicators to identify and contact beekeepers prior to pesticide applications 4. BMPs to minimize risk of pesticides to bees 5. A clear defined plan for public outreach 6. Process to periodically review and update the plan 7. Mechanism to measure plan effectiveness

8 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 1. Stakeholder participation process - Include opportunities for input from a balanced cross-section of stakeholders - Opportunities for public comment on draft MP 3 prior to it being finalized

9 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 2. Method for growers/applicators to know if there are managed pollinators near pesticide treatment sites - Defining pollinator awareness zone - Method will vary based on state authority and approaches, but could include: - State apiary registry website - Self-registry websites (e.g. DriftWatch) - Bee flags

10 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 3. Method for growers/applicators to identify and contact beekeepers prior to pesticide applications - Define recommended minimum time to contact beekeeper prior to pesticide application (some states use 48 hrs) - Describe how applicators and/or landowner will be able to obtain beekeeper contact information - Website, signage on hives, etc

11 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 4. Inclusion of best management practices (BMPs) to minimize risk of pesticides to bees Examples: - Utilizing IPM - Making applications when bees less active - Reducing drift - Using products with less toxicity to bees - Controlling flowering weeds in crops - Pesticide label compliance (in/near hives)

12 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 5. A clear defined plan for public outreach - MP 3 s only successful if there is robust adoption - State should consider options for providing outreach to the public - Could include: - Meetings with targeted stakeholder groups - Posting MP 3 on SLA website - Use of media, social media

13 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 6. A process to periodically review and modify each plan - MP 3 s meant to be dynamic documents - States should develop process & timeline to review and modify the plan if needed - Suggested review at least once every 3 years - Review should include public stakeholder process

14 Critical Elements of State MP 3 s 7. Mechanism to measure effectiveness of an MP 3 - How to measure objective of reducing pesticide exposure to bees through communication & cooperation? - SFIREG working on potential measures - Will likely include mix of measures - Changes in behavior (communication) - Changes in pesticide exposure to bees - Changes in overall pollinator health

15 Optional/Recommended Elements of State MP 3 s 1. Communication with crop advisors and agricultural extension service - Engaging technical experts who make pest management recommendations - Often aware of local pest pressures and crop production needs at the landscape level - Use of Extension to disseminate technical information, facilitating discussions, etc

16 Optional/Recommended Elements of State MP 3 s 2. Crop-specific or site-specific plans - States may want to develop separate or modified MP 3 s for specific cropping systems - Crop-specific approaches if need to do so - May be benefit to have separate plans for ag/nonag settings

17 Optional/Recommended Elements of State MP 3 s 3. Recommendations for more formalized agreements between beekeepers, crop producers, and property owners, especially in situations with a financial agreement - Exchange of contact information - Agreements to capture responsibilities, notification requirements, expectations, etc

18 Finalizing the Guidance Doc Draft SFIREG guidance to states through SFIREG committee in Dec 2014, Jan 2015 Webinars on January 6 & 8 Comments received through Feb 1, 2015 Sent to SFIREG members for review & discussion Revised draft sent to SFIREG on April 4, 2015 Hope to have guidance finalized in near future

19 AAPCO/SFIREG Pollinator Efforts AAPCO Pollinator Committee (Steve Dwinell, Chair) Assemble info on existing & developing managed pollinator protection plans Build stakeholder consensus on effective strategies to protect pollinators that are least disruptive to product agriculture and other stakeholders

20 Committee Representation SLA reps ASPCRO NASDA USDA CropLife America RISE National Cotton Council NPMA PLANET Apiary Inspectors of America American Beekeeping Federation American Honey Producers American Farm Bureau Federation Almond Board of California Minor Crop Farm Alliance AmericanHort Fieldwatch

21 Mission Statement: To assemble information on existing and developing managed pollinator protection plans ; Disseminate this information to stakeholders in order to assist states in the concept development and adoption and to assist USEPA in their efforts; Build a broad stakeholder consensus on effective strategies for protecting pollinators that are the least disruptive to production agriculture and other affected stakeholders.

22 Specific tasks Identify: managed pollinator protection plans that have been developed or are in development elements and approaches used in existing plans barriers to development and adoption of managed pollinator protection plans existing apiary registry and apiary notification programs resources for apiary inspection, regulatory outreach

23 Identify managed pollinator protection plans that have been developed or are in development Developed and implemented: 5 CA, CO, FL, MS, ND In development: 26 AZ, AR, GA, HI, DE, IN, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NV, OH, OK, OR, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA Adopting voluntary registration: 7 CO, IL, KS, MO, NE, NM, WI Waiting for Plan requirements : 13 AL, AK, CT, HI, ID, IA, NJ, NY, PA, SC, VA, WV, WY

24 Identification of common elements in existing plans Stakeholder engagement process Public notice/public participation process Recommendation for notification of hive location Recommendation for notification of pesticide application Recommendation for timing of application/selection of pesticides Guidance on determination of bloom condition On-line system for notifications

25 Barriers to implementation: Identifying and engaging stakeholders Effective engagement of stakeholders requires direct meetings of beekeepers, crop producers, landowners, and others as needed. Lack of apiary staff to engage beekeepers Many states do not have an apiary inspection staff to assist. Limited staff resources to develop and implement plans Staff resources for agencies or organizations are limited Time needed for rule/legislation Managed pollinator plans may require time to pass rules or legislation.

26 Identification of resources for apiary inspection, regulatory outreach AIA conducting survey of state resources 19 states have responded so far : Five states no inspectors Four states 1-4 part-time Five states - 1 inspector Six states 2-6 fulltime

27 Conclusions and Recommendations: States can be assisted in development of plans by national organizations that have participated in the development of plans. Resources for developing and implementing managed pollinator protection plans are limited, and these limits will slow development and implementation of managed pollinator protection plans. Updating plan should be a continuous process.

28 Conclusions and Recommendations: Impacts on managed pollinators from pest management practices are not confined to one class of pesticides or type of active ingredient. Managed pollinator protection plans need to reemphasize that bee production is an important part of agriculture. Managed pollinator health is improved when diverse forage plants are available, and provisions for diverse forage and pollinator habitat can be part of managed pollinator protection plans.

29 Conclusions and Recommendations: Pest management practices in areas other than crop production should be incorporated into managed pollinator protection plans. Wide area pest control for episodic pest outbreaks should be included.

30 Conclusions and Recommendations: There is large diversity in crop production systems, and utilization of the crop resource by managed pollinators across the states surveyed. Given the diversity in pest management activities, crop production systems, and pollinator management systems, a phase in period is recommended.

31 Report Status and Next Steps: Report has been finalized and accepted by AAPCO Board. Posted to aacpco.org When policy proposal released by USEPA will review and comment

32 Adam Putnam COMMISSIONER Thanks!