Project Overview

Reports

Commodities

• Pollinators: habitat, honey bees, other

Target Pests

• Target Pests: fungus, insects, other, various, weeds

Practices

• Pest Management: pesticide application timing, pesticides

• Crop Production: application rate management, conservation tillage, cover crops, no-till, other, pollination/pollinator health/habitat, ridge tillage, strip tillage

• Natural Resources/Environment: drift/runoff buffers, grass waterways, wildlife

• Production Systems: agroecosystems

• Sustainable Communities: public participation, public policy, sustainability measures

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is starting to require pesticide mitigation measures, including restrictions on pesticide use and adoption of agricultural conservation practices (including IPM practices), to protect listed species and critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These measures will show up on most outdoor non-residential product labels and will significantly alter how pesticides are applied. Growers and pesticide applicators are largely unaware of the proposed and upcoming changes to ESA regulations due to lack of educational resources and trained extension educators. They are also unaware of how to participate in the EPA’s decision-making process and have inadequate knowledge of the tools needed to be compliant with finalized ESA regulations. The PD proposes to develop six educational materials on the upcoming changes to ESA and pesticide regulations. These highly relevant and timely educational materials will increase stakeholder knowledge, which in turn will increase compliance with ESA regulations and increase adoption of IPM and conservation practices. It would also lead to reduced pesticide use and could potentially increase stakeholder participation in the EPA’s decision-making process. The developed educational materials will be peer reviewed by four northeast collaborators and disseminated widely within the northeast region through mailing lists and through presentations at conferences, training meetings, and pesticide recertification meetings. The stakeholders reached will include pesticide safety education program coordinators, extension educators, growers, and pesticide applicators. To determine knowledge gained and intended and actual changes in practices, post-meeting surveys will be conducted.

The project would a) result in partnerships among multiple northeast PSEP coordinators representing small states (Maryland, Connecticut, West Virginia, and New Hampshire), b) addresses a regional IPM concern for extension, c) will teach growers and applicators how to use IPM to decrease risks associated with pest management, and d) addresses the Signature Program Pollinators as several listed species are pollinators, and restrictions on pesticide use and implementation of conservation practices would benefit all pollinators. The project has two major objectives:

a) Objective 1: Development of six educational materials, specifically presentations, on recent changes in pesticide regulations for listed species. These include two presentations on VSP, one on Herbicide Strategy, two on Insecticide Strategy (see Figure 5, bottom panel), and one on recently proposed and finalized changes to pesticide labels to protect listed species. Three of these presentations will be translated to Spanish.

*Anticipated Outcomes for Objective 1: Educational materials on highly relevant and timely ESA topics will be created. The materials will include upcoming restrictions on pesticide use and requirements for agricultural conservation practices (including IPM practices) to reduce pesticide exposure to listed species. As educational resources for recently released EPA documents (Figure 5 and top panel) have not been created, it is very likely that educational resources for upcoming EPA documents (Figure 5 and bottom panel) will also not be created by other groups. Thus, the resources created through this project will be unique and valuable to multiple stakeholders.

b) Objective 2: Peer-review and dissemination of created educational materials. The developed materials will be disseminated to the four northeast collaborators who will peer review and use the resources in their training and recertification meetings. Additionally, the resources will be disseminated in Maryland by the PD through training meetings for extension educators and through presentations at pesticide recertification meetings. The PD will also distribute the resources to other northeast PSEPs through mailing lists and through a presentation at the Northeast Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training Meeting in Fall 2024.

*Anticipated Outcomes for Objective 2: The dissemination of educational resources would lead to increased knowledge of new ESA regulations, which in turn would increase compliance with new regulations and lead to increased adoption of IPM and conservation practices. This would help reduce pesticide exposure to non-target organisms. The stakeholders that will most benefit from the dissemination of information are conventional growers and pesticide applicators. Through the dissemination process, other stakeholders, specifically PSEPs and extension educators in the northeast region, would be made aware of the proposed and upcoming changes. Increased awareness would likely lead to increased participation of northeast stakeholders in the public comment process of EPA’s proposed regulations. This could help ensure northeast stakeholder concerns are addressed by the EPA in the final documents.