Overview of the Activities of the Pollinator Health Task Force SFIREG Full Committee Meeting June 1, 2015 Photos courtesy of ARS and USGS

Presidential Memorandum: Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators On June 20, 2014, President Obama issued a memorandum calling on Federal agencies to increase and coordinate their efforts to improve bee health by developing an integrated strategy. The strategy was released on May 19, 2015 and incorporates and identifies: Commitments from each Federal agency to promote health of honey bees and other pollinators Pollinator Research Action Plan (PRAP) Public Education Plan Public/Private Partnerships Photo courtesy of ARS

Strategy Goals and Measures of Success Improving pollinator health Reduce honey bee overwintering losses to their post-varroa/pre-CCD levels, compared to current 5-yr average rate of approximately 30% Restore monarch butterfly populations to their historical average population size Restore/enhance 7M acres of land for pollinators Leveraging broad collaborations across government and with private corporations, citizens, and international partners For each action, metrics will be identified to measure success and provide for adjustments as appropriate Mechanism for allowing the public to monitor progress

EPA Commitments Assess the effect of pesticides on bees and other pollinators Restrict the use of products highly toxic to bees in crops with commercial pollination Engage State and tribal partners in the development of managed pollinator protection plans Expedite review of registration applications for new products targeting pests (e.g., mites) harmful to pollinators Encourage the incorporation of pollinator protection and habitat planting activities into green infrastructure and Superfund projects Enhance pollinator habitat at Federal facilities

Proposal to Mitigation Exposure to Bees from Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products Addresses acute contact exposure to foliar pesticide applications Two Scenarios Label Restrictions for Contract Pollination Services Heightened risk potential - large number of bees are likely to be directly exposed to pesticide spray Encourage State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans for Bee Colonies Not under Contract Pollination Services EPA is not approving plans but is available to participate in the stakeholder process and provide input Next steps Seek public input on proposed mitigation Webinars on proposal being planned for states, tribes and public Support states and tribes in development of managed pollinator protection plans Label changes completed by 2016 Two Scenarios 1. Heightened risk potential where a large number of honey bee colonies are intentionally placed at a use site, and application of a toxic pesticide in this scenario is nearly certain to result in adverse effects to pollinators. EPA believes that strong regulatory measures should be in place for the contracted service scenario to mitigate these potential problems.

Proposed Label Restriction DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. FOR FOLIAR APPLICATIONS OF THIS PRODUCT TO SITES WITH BEES ON-SITE FOR COMMERICAL POLLINATION SERVICES: Foliar application of this product is prohibited from onset of flowering until flowering is complete when bees are on-site under contract, unless the application is made in association with a government-declared public health response. If site-specific pollinator protection/pre-bloom restrictions exist, then those restrictions must also be followed.   These restrictions are expected to reduce the likelihood of acute exposure and mortality to managed bees under contract. ----- Meeting Notes (6/1/15 14:00) ----- focus comments on teh full paper in ghe docket, not the fr notice.

Proposed Label Restriction There would be no other exceptions to the bloom prohibition in the contracted-services scenario. These restrictions apply to 76 active ingredients that are highly toxic to bees which includes most insecticides and some herbicides. Proposed mitigation is based on an acute toxicity threshold and is not intended to supersede more restrictive product-specific use prohibitions. Will continue to conduct chemical-specific risk assessments for bees. Will consider additional product-specific mitigation as needed. These restrictions are expected to reduce the likelihood of acute exposure and mortality to managed bees under contract.

State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans Several states have been working through this issue at the state level by engaging stakeholders (growers, applicators and beekeepers) and developing state pollinator protection plans. California, Colorado, Florida, North Dakota, Mississippi About 25 other states have begun the stakeholder process These plans serve as examples of effective communication and collaboration between stakeholders at the local level. EPA and co-regulator partners (SFIREG and AAPCO) are working together on guidance for states on the development of plans. Tribes may also find the guidance helpful. EPA encourages states to consider including tribes in their area in stakeholder meetings.

Measuring the Success of Pollinator Protection Plans EPA is working with AAPCO and SFIREG to develop measures for evaluating the success of pollinator protection plans. Earlier discussions identified potential measures for improved communication, change in behavior, reduction in exposure/risk, and overall pollinator health EPA will monitor the success of these plans in reducing pesticide exposure to bees in deciding whether further labels restriction are needed.

Question of Comments? Please contact: Michael Goodis: goodis.michael@epa.gov 703-308-8157 Marietta Echeverria: echeverria.marietta@epa.gov 703-305-8578 For more information on EPA’s pollinator protection efforts, visit: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/epa-actions-protect-pollinators ----- Meeting Notes (6/1/15 14:00) ----- dwinell--specific questions to about epa's policy--pat jones, to clarify--understand about the public health exemption, but food crops and ornamentals that are attractive to bees...any changes to neonic language, the second scenario? ME--not looking to make anything less specific...there could be a chemcial specific changes through rereg. but first scenario does go away because establish a process for developing comments finalize the sfireg guidance talk about the metrics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency