EQI and POM MP3 Metrics Full SFIREG Meeting June 1-2, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
3-Year Implementation Schedule. What is the 3-Year Implementation Schedule? A list of prioritized projects for implementers with a time frame to complete.
Advertisements

Develop and Validate Minimum Core Criteria and Competencies for AgrAbility Program Staff Bill Field, Ed.D., Professor National AgrAbility Project Director.
Strategic Approaches to OSH Fifth EU-US Joint Conference on OSH Cascais, Portugal November 7-9, 2007.
Donald T. Simeon Caribbean Health Research Council
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt Transition.
Information Risk Management Key Component for HIPAA Security Compliance Ann Geyer Tunitas Group
The importance of a Compliance program is to ensure that our agency meets the highest possible standards for all relevant federal, state and local regulations,
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
Systems Analysis and Design Feasibility Study. Introduction The Feasibility Study is the preliminary study that determines whether a proposed systems.
1 Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) Overview July 2013 NAVY CEVM.
Summer IAVA1 NATIONAL INFORMATION ASSURANCE TRAINING STANDARD FOR SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS (SA) Minimum.
Environmental Management Systems An Overview With Practical Applications.
Decision-Making and Strategic Information Workshop on M&E of PHN Programs July 24-August 11, 2006 Addis Ababa.
Reporting Results for Pesticide Programs Robin Powell, EM Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Environmental Department.
Hospital Patient Safety Initiatives: Discharge Planning
1 MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATION’S FOODSERVICE AND RETAIL FOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM.
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
Collaboration Nation: Piloting EPA’s Small Local Governments Compliance Assistance Policy Ken Harmon, Attorney Office of Compliance U.S. Environmental.
How to Develop the Right Research Questions for Program Evaluation
Energy Efficiency in the Clean Power Plan Opportunities for Virginia Mary Shoemaker Research Assistant Spring 2015 VAEEC Meeting May 11, 2015.
A Tool to Monitor Local Level SPF SIG Activities
Training of Process Facilitators Training of Process Facilitators.
Toolkit Series from the Office of Migrant Education Webinar: Program Evaluation Toolkit August 9, 2012.
Committee of Practitioners ESEA Flexibility Waiver Review June 25, 2014.
1 What are Monitoring and Evaluation? How do we think about M&E in the context of the LAM Project?
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1 Program Guidelines for Students who are Visually Impaired PRESENTATION TO: California Transcribers.
Risk Management, Assessment and Planning Committee III-4.
CERTIFICATION In the Electronics Recycling Industry © 2007 IAER Web Site - -
Honey Bee Best Management Practices in California Almonds Bob Curtis, Associate Director Agricultural Affairs Almond Board of California.
California Statewide Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Projects Overview May 20, 2010.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 National Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements (NCA) Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) HRSA Objective.
Technology Transfer Execution Framework. 2 © 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Relationship Between Your EPRI Value and.
Complaints Information Santina Thibedeau March 5, 2009.
Programme Performance Criteria. Regulatory Authority Objectives To identify criteria against which the status of each element of the regulatory programme.
Preventive Emergency Planning Emergency Plans should focus not just on response but on reducing risk Emergency Planning that focuses on risk should consider.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING.
1 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Meeting State Lead Agency Presentation Chuck Andrews, Chair AAPCO Worker Protection Committee California Department.
CIFOR Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response CIFOR Guidelines and CIFOR Toolkit Donald J. Sharp, MD, DTM&H Food Safety Office National Center for.
California Integrated Waste Management Board Update On Long-Term Postclosure Maintenance And Corrective Action Financial Assurances Activities Permitting.
 2007 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Introduction to Program Evaluation Frances Stillman, EdD Institute for Global Tobacco Control Johns.
U.S. Department of Education Safeguarding Student Privacy Melanie Muenzer U.S. Department of Education Chief of Staff Office of Planning, Evaluation, and.
Aligning Ethics Communication & Training With Business Priorities and Compliance Risks Willow Misty Parks Graduate Assistant Anderson School of Management.
2015 Pipeline Safety Trust Conference November 20 th, 2015 | New Orleans, LA API RP 1175 Pipeline Leak Detection Program Management – New RP Highlights.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General Oversight of EPA FIFRA Implementation June 2, 2015 SFIREG Meeting.
Environmental Management System Implementation. Practices, Aspects, Impacts- Concepts Mission Resource Impact Resource Impact Activities/ Operations Practices.
An Update of One Aspect of Monitoring, Support and Technical Assistance Available Through the State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education.
Overview of ONC Report to Congress on Health Information Blocking Presented to the Health IT Policy Committee, Task Force on Clinical, Technical, Organizational,
HIT Policy Committee Meeting Nationwide Health Information Network Governance June 25, 2010 Mary Jo Deering, PhD ONC, Office of Policy and Planning NHIN.
United States Agency for International Development Bureau for Global Health Office of Population and Reproductive Health Policy Update.
PHDSC Privacy, Security, and Data Sharing Committee Letter to Governors.
Forming Ideas to Understand, Minimize and Recover from Pollinator Losses State Updates and Pollinator Protection.
1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES: So WHY should I care? Remarks by Sherry Sterling Senior Advisor, OPP PREP Course 13 June 2005.
June 2009 Regulation on pesticide statistics Pierre NADIN ESTAT E1- Farms, agro-environment and rural development
Department of Defense Voluntary Protection Programs Center of Excellence Development, Validation, Implementation and Enhancement for a Voluntary Protection.
Challenge Grant Funding And SB  The Challenge Grant program is authorized by section (4), Florida Statutes, to provide grant funding to.
Civil Rights Training Updated March Why? Civil Rights Regulations are intended to assure that benefits of Child Nutrition Programs are made available.
Update on EPA’s Pollinator Protection Activities Rick Keigwin Office of Pesticide Programs January 2016.
Organization and Implementation of a National Regulatory Program for the Control of Radiation Sources Program Performance Criteria.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Reading Discussion – s519 by Peter Hall – 1/21/09 Ryan, J., McClure, C. R., & Bertot, J. C. (2001). Choosing measures to evaluate networked information.
NIEP Evaluation PO&A “How-to” Guide and Issue Classification
THURSDAY TARGETED TRAINING: Reporting Regulations and Requirements
Overview of the Activities of the Pollinator Health Task Force
PSC Guidelines and Recommendations
Creating a P.L Plan.
Data Quality 101: What is Data Quality
Enforcement and Policy Challenges in Health Information Privacy
Presentation transcript:

EQI and POM MP3 Metrics Full SFIREG Meeting June 1-2, 2015

EQI Managed Pollinator Protection Plans Success Measures

General Considerations: Realizing that all states are different and may not have the same technical capabilities, the EQI proposal allows states flexibility to pick and choose elements that are in line with that specific states capabilities and desires. We propose that states use at least two but no more than four of the measures to track MP 3 success. In some cases states will use technical or quantitative data while others will have to rely on qualitative data. In some cases a state may use a combination of both (what we see as the best option).

Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Behavioral ChangesPractice ChangesPractice changes can be considered those implemented by beekeepers and growers (1) Increased adoption of routine practices (2) Adoption of focused BMP’s designed to reduce pollinator exposure. Practice changes can be modifications of application timing, reduced pesticide applications, reduced areas, or timing modifications Communication Changes Communication improvements should focus on planning efforts between beekeepers and growers prior to application (1) Accountings of pre-application meetings between growers and beekeepers (States could require notification that such meetings have occurred prior to application). Usage of Ed. Resources Increased use of educational resources can focus on both beekeepers and growers. Depending on the focus resources can be tailored (1) Track use of educational materials provided via the web. (2) Track number of educational program deliveries (in person) to beekeeper and growers groups focused on PPP Most educational materials are provided through state agencies or extension offices. Delivering this information via the web would allow states to track use of this material by the public. Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Qualitative

Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Behavioral ChangesShifts in Product Usage Growers will remain focus group (1) Track increased use of alternative pesticides or reduction of the use of current pesticides that are proven risks to pollinators. Can be tracked via sales records, crop advisor surveys, or surveys sent out through the states or NASS. Adoption of Plan Elements (keeping in mind that elements 1a-1d are in themselves elements on an overall MP 3 ) Target groups for these elements should include beekeepers and/or beekeeper organizations. Secondary group would be those associated with grower organizations or commodity groups (1) Track number of adoptions of plan elements by beekeeper and grower organizations above baseline. A minimum number of plan elements adoptions should be considered when documenting progress.

Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Qualitative Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Behavioral ChangesShifts in Product Usage Growers will remain focus group (1) Track increased use of alternative pesticides or reduction of the use of current pesticides that are proven risks to pollinators. Can be tracked via sales records, crop advisor surveys, or surveys sent out through the states or NASS. Adoption of Plan Elements (keeping in mind that elements 1a-1d are in themselves elements on an overall MP 3 ) Target groups for these elements should include beekeepers and/or beekeeper organizations. Secondary group would be those associated with grower organizations or commodity groups (1) Track number of adoptions of plan elements by beekeeper and grower organizations above baseline. A minimum number of plan elements adoptions should be considered when documenting progress.

Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Quantitative Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Exposure RatesBee kills due to pesticides The target group will be beekeepers (1) Document reductions in the number of bee kills reported. (2) Document reduction in scope of kills that are reported. If kills are reported, implementation of MPPP’s should result in smaller incidents. This should be considered especially within the first year where we may see reported spikes. It is possible that initially there would be a spike in the reported number of incidents. Adoption of MPPP’s should show downward trends. Recommend that trend analysis not occur until after the first year of MPPP’s adoption. Development and Implementation of Best Management Practices Beekeepers, growers, state regulatory agencies (1) Track the increase in development or improvement of Best Management Practices developed and implemented. These BMP’s would generally be those that are additional to those specified within the MP 3

Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Quantitative Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Exposure RatesExposure DataThe main target group(s) would be beekeepers, state regulatory agencies, and growers (1) Based on current baselines, track the decrease in exposure incidents (both lethal and sub lethal) (2) Document changes in the number of individual pesticides that constitute an “exposure”. 2c(3) Conduct hive(s) analysis and document changes in “in hive” exposure (what pesticides of concern are being brought back to the hive) Pollen AnalysisBeekeepers / State Regulatory Agencies (1) Conduct and track analysis of hive pollen for changes in pesticide potential exposure. Document decreases in impactful pesticide concentrations for hive pollen.

Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Quantitative Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures Pollinator HealthHive Population Surveys The target group will be beekeepers and state/ federal agencies (1) Based on state / federal surveys document changes in hive populations (single) or overall hive numbers. (2) Track changes in USDA pollinator surveys. Population surveys need to consider both the changes in the overall number of hives and the hive specific population in order to get a true and accurate picture. Honey ProductionBeekeepers, state regulatory agencies (1) Track changes in commercial honey production. Increases would tend to point to better overall hive health due to MPPP implementation.

Managed Pollinator Protection Plans - Quantitative Goal of MP 3 Specific Elements Target GroupMeasures ComplianceIn Field Technical Assistance The target group will be beekeepers growers (1) Document the number of on-site technical assistance visits that are either voluntary or occur as a result of complaint. Compliance visits can provide for a effective method to address specific issues related to pesticide exposure to pollinators at risk Label Modifications State regulatory agencies (2) Track the number of state specific label restrictions that occur in order to address pollinator issues. The results of this activity can be a good measure of MPPP’s effectiveness, if limits are implemented at the request of beekeepers/growers this could be considered a success of MPPP’s, if this is an action deemed necessary in spite of having an MPPP then this is an indication that changes to the MPPP may be required.

POM Committee Evaluation of Ability and Methods to Measure Success of Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3)

General Considerations: MP3 measures are meant to be flexible and based on individual state pollinator protection plans or activities. Measures of the MP3 implementation will be specific and flexible to each state’s needs, goals and focus in relation to bees. A state’s ability to report measures will be resource and program dependent. Includes: the types of laws, rules and authorities in place and availability of staff, funding, etc. to support collection of data. Include qualitative as well as quantitative measures. Should establish baseline where possible for data or information will be collecting.

Development of Measures: Identify what the purpose and focus of a state’s plan is. This may be different for each plan if a state has multiple plans (ag/non-ag, commodity specific, region/location specific, etc.) List the goal(s) which are to be achieved under the plan based on the purpose. (communication, use of BMPS, fewer incidents, regulatory compliance, etc.) Develop objectives and measures which demonstrate progress toward or meeting of the intended goals. National reporting mechanism (like POINTS, CPARD) – voluntary use or use of applicable sections only…EPA, NASDA Foundation, NASS Survey, NPIC reporting, etc.