Upload
voxuyen
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cranberry Insect Pest
Management and Karner Blue
Butterfly Protection:
A Wisconsin Case Study
Kenneth D. Racke, Dow AgroSciencesLori Bowman, Wisconsin DATCP
Cathy Carnes, USFWS
Cranberry Insect Pest
Management and Karner Blue
Butterfly Protection:
A Wisconsin Case Study
Transferable lessons from the case which led to development of the first
modern EPA ESPP county bulletins
Topics
Cranberry pest management and
protection of the Karner blue
Intrepid® 2F and cranberry use
Registration approval
ESA consultation
Reflections
Wisconsin Cranberry Agriculture
18,000 acres (2010)
47% of US market
Value: $189M
Photo: Courtesy of Wisconsin State Cranberry
Grower Association Map: Courtesy of Wisconsin State Cranberry
Grower Association
Wisconsin Cranberry Agriculture
Low-lying vines in beds layered with sand, peat, gravel and clay of glacial origin.
Commercial bogs – irrigated during season with flooding at harvest (ditches, flumes).
Cranberry Pests and Management
Pest management practices
IPM, foliar insecticide sprays
Historic: Broad-spectrum products such as acephate,
azinphos-me, Bt, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, diazinon
Photos: Courtesy of Univ. of Maine, BC
Cranberry Growers Assoc., Big Sky Institute
The Karner Blue Butterfly (KBB)
Lycaeides melissa samuelis
Lepidoptera (1”)
Life cycle: 2 gen/year
Larvae feed on wild lupine
Most populations occur in WI and MI
Decline primarily due to habitat loss, fragmentation
ESA listed in 1992
Map and photos: Courtesy of USFWS
The Karner Blue Butterfly
Wisconsin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) of 1999 (updated 2010)
>260,000 acres
Growers members via DATCP
USFWS BiOp of 1999
No jeopardy from agriculture via HCP
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for HCP and pesticide use
Provisions for expansion of ESA Sec 7 coverage Map: Courtesy of USFWS
Topics
Cranberry pest management and
protection of the Karner blue
Intrepid® 2F and cranberry use
Registration approval
ESA consultation
Reflections
Intrepid® 2F
AI: Methoxyfenozide
Insecticide
Narrow activity spectrum
Lepidoptera
Molt-accelerating compound (MAC)
Mimics the insect molting hormone ecdysone
Class received Green Chemistry Award 1998
Intrepid® 2F
First registered by EPA in 2001
Pome fruit, cotton
Key regulatory properties
Low mammalian toxicity (<5,000 mg/kg)
Low toxicity to birds, fish, earthworms, honeybees
Stable to hydrolysis, photolysis in water
Moderately persistent in soil (Field DT50 92-327 D)
Slight-to-moderate mobility in soil
Designated by EPA as a “reduced risk/OP
replacement” priority
Intrepid® 2F
Ecological risk – screening-level assessment
Some level of concern for non-target aquatic
invertebrates
Label mitigation: 150 ft aerial spray buffer, 10 ft VFS
Endangered species assessment – apples (2000)
“Likely to impact” 3 insects
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (CA)
Hine’s emerald dragonfly (WI)
Karner blue butterfly (IL, IN, MI, MN, NH, NY, WI)
To protect the Karner blue butterfly, do not apply within one
mile of sandy habitats that support wild lupine plants
Intrepid® 2F and Cranberry Use
USDA IR-4 minor crop program (’99-’02)
Black headed fireworm, sparganothis fruitworm
Residue field trials completed
New use petition submitted to EPA in 2002
EPA classified “reduced risk” vs. alternatives
EPA approved new use in 2003
Existing use restrictions for apples in WI and MI
were carried over to cranberry use
1-mile buffer to wild lupine habitat
Intrepid 2F® and Cranberry Use
The problem: Growers had no way of knowing whether sandy habitats
supporting wild lupine were within one mile of cranberry areas
Therefore, in order not to violate ESA, growers avoided use of Intrepid 2F and continued to use broad spectrum insecticides
Grower requests to WI DATCP and USFWS in 2005 for revised label mitigation
USFWS request of March, 2007 to EPA for action based on interests of growers, WI DNR, KBB HCP Coordinator, and WI DATCP
For KBB sites near agricultural land, recommended modified label mitigation:
1-mile buffer to apply except on land where ITP has been recognized as a result of the HCP
Suggested EPA initiate Sec 7 consultation
EPA Interim Assessment (2006)
Screening level assessment indicated use of
Intrepid 2F on cranberry was “Likely to
Adversely Affect” KBB within 5.4 miles
Discussion of alternate drift control
measures
Windspeed restriction, lower spray boom
height, coarser spray nozzles, use of spray
drift retardants, limit application to midday
Intrepid® 2F – Karner BB Consultation
EPA formally requested Sec 7 consultation of USFWS in Jun-2007
USFWS reply of Mar-2008 Use covered by KBB HCP Incidental Take Permit
Alternate mitigation recommended based on grower inputs
Ground application only, coarse droplet sprays, drift retardant
Apply when wind direction away from known habitat unless wooded vegetation barrier
Cranberry Institute pressed for action by EPA
Growers continued spraying older products
EPA Endangered Species Protection
Program (ESPP)
County bulletins
Growers referred to
website from product
label
Bulletin provides
Map showing affected
area
List of specific
restrictions for a given
pesticide
EPA Development of ESPP Bulletins
for Karner Blue and Intrepid® 2F
EPA discussions with stakeholders led to near-final draft bulletins in January, 2009
EPA provided to registrant via email
21 draft bulletins
Maps
Bulletin restriction
Label referral statement
Bulletins final ~May, 2009
Label Referral Statement for
Intrepid® 2F
Endangered Species
The following applies to use of this product in Michigan (6 counties) and Wisconsin (16 counties). When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the county in which you are applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1-800-447-3813. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month in which you will apply the product.
ESPP Bulletin Restrictions for Karner
Blue and Intrepid® 2F
Do not apply this product within the pesticide use limitation area, unless (1) you are a partner to the Wisconsin Statewide Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) who is authorized to use the pesticide or (2) you are included under the HCP 'Voluntary Participation Category', which includes all agricultural lands, activities, or uses in Wisconsin
Pesticide application within the pesticide use limitation area is limited to: Ground application methods or chemigation Spray drift retardant Nozzles that produce a coarse droplet size distribution
(median droplet size of 450-500 microns) Wind speed between 2-10 mph
Current Status of the Situation
With revised labeling and ESPP bulletins in place, Intrepid 2F is now utilized by growers as integral part of cranberry insect pest management
Cranberry production is growing in WI
Karner blue butterfly populations are stable
The 21 county bulletins developed for Intrepid® 2F in WI and MI for protection of the Karner blue butterfly in cranberry are the only active EPA ESPP bulletins among 3,143 U.S. counties for more than 700 pesticide active ingredients, and for more than 1,000 endangered species
Topics
Cranberry pest management and
protection of the Karner blue
Intrepid® 2F and cranberry use
Registration approval
ESA consultation
Reflections
Reflections
First successful implementation of ESPP bulletins
as a result of ESA pesticide consultation process.
Having a statewide Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) in place with the voluntary participation
category helped facilitate the consultation
process.
Set up a process whereby Sec 7 coverage could be
extended to Federal Agencies involved in
programs or activities that resulted in incidental
take of KBBs on private lands in Wisconsin.
Reflections (con.)
The consultation process can work to the benefit
of both endangered species and agricultural
interests when the appropriate engagement
occurs between Federal and state agencies,
growers and registrants.
Early involvement of the FWS field office helped
facilitate the ESA Sect 7 consultation process.
WI DATCP’s involvement facilitated the
development of the bulletins and helped
coordination with EPA on the issue.
Reflections (con.)
It may be very important to determine the feasibility of proposed label mitigations on grower practices before their implementation in order to avoid unintended consequences.
Implementation of initial 1-mile buffer forced growers to continue to rely on older, broad-spectrum insecticides.
Factual information on application techniques provided by the cranberry growers to the FWS and EPA helped development of workable label restrictions for the pesticide.
Reflections (con.)
A considerable time span may be involved in
sorting out ESA-related assessment issues and
developing appropriate protections for even fairly
straightforward cases.
Cranberry Insect Pest
Management and Karner Blue
Butterfly Protection:
A Wisconsin Case Study
Thank you!