Application form for a temporary derogation to use a highly hazardous pesticide

Transcription

1 Application form for a temporary derogation to use a highly hazardous pesticide This form shall be used to submit derogation requests for the use of highly hazardous pesticides to FSC. Part A of this form pertains to common information which is required for all forest management enterprises included in the derogation request. Part B pertains to specific information which shall be completed for each of the forest management enterprises applying for the derogation. A. General Requirements Application Submission Date: Name, and contact details of certification body requesting a temporary derogation: 7/1/14 for public consultation Brendan Grady SCS GLOBAL SERVICES 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA USA (503) direct (510) fax kyle.meister1 skype bgrady@scsglobalservices.com Active ingredient for which a derogation is being requested: Trade name and formulation type of the active ingredient or formulation: Diflubenzuron N-[[(4- Chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]- 2,6-difluorobenzamide Dimilin 4L, liquid Dimilin 25W, wettable powder Method of application and application equipment: Common and scientific name of the pest species: Broadcast- via aerial helicopter and in some cases ground applications using backpack mist blowers redheaded pine sawfly (Neodiprion lecontei) Name and FSC certification codes of certificate holders for which a temporary derogation is being requested: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) SCS-FM/COC-00090N Scope for which a temporary derogation is being requested: Michigan

2 1. Demonstrated need Explain how the proposed use complies with the specified criteria for need, including consideration of non-highly hazardous alternatives and preventative silvicultural measures. (include a list of all non highly hazardous chemicals registered in the country) Michigan Department of Natural Resources is applying for a five year extension of the derogation issued to certificate holders in Our request is for occasional non-emergency use of diflubenzuron to control periodic redheaded pine sawfly outbreaks as they occur in natural and planted red pine stands on DNR administered certified forest lands throughout the state of Michigan. Diflubenzuron is the safest and most cost-effective material for controlling epidemic populations of the redheaded pine sawfly (Neodiprion lecontei). Of the pesticides registered for redheaded pine sawfly in forest settings in Michigan, Diflubenzuron affects the least number of non-target insect species. The redheaded pine (RHPS) sawfly is a serious pest of planted red pine. The sawfly damages young pines less than 15 feet (5 meters) tall. Branches stripped of their needles die. Effects can range from widespread mortality in younger plantings to permanent economic loss resulting from stunted and misshapen trees. Heaviest infestations occur on red pine growing under stress, particularly those at the edges of hardwood forests, on droughty soils, or where competing vegetation is heavy. RHPS are also periodically epidemic on planted pine on better sites, especially during continuous years of drought. Susceptibility and vulnerability of planted red and jack pine to redheaded pine sawfly damage can be reduced by promoting tree vigor and minimizing competition for moisture and nutrients. Thus, sawfly management calls for planting on better pine sites and controlling competing vegetation. Planting on lighter (drier) soils can reduce vegetative competition, but increases the risk of drought and nutrient stress. Michigan DNR typically seeks to balance the trade-offs between maximum productivity achieved through complete control of competing vegetation and increased vegetative diversity achieved through reduced use of herbicides. The latter results in higher levels of competing vegetation and stress. In some cases this leads to increased RHPS damage prompting control efforts to minimize economic loss. Michigan DNR manages over 250,000 acres of planted red pine which serves as an important source of dimensional lumber, utility poles and pulpwood. Assuming an average 80 year rotation and assuming that this acreage is maintained in planted red pine production, regenerating about 3,000 acres annually would provide an ideal, uniform distribution of red pine age classes. Assuming that such plantings are susceptible to the sawfly from the time they are 2 feet tall until they are 15 feet tall, we have about 30 to 35 thousand acres that are potentially susceptible to the RHPS. Only a portion of these plantings will experience a sawfly epidemic. The need to monitor and manage the threat of RHPS on planted red pine exists only for the first 10 to 15 years of an 80 year rotation. Once trees attain an average height of 15 feet, the threat of RHPS damage is greatly diminished. In the past decade, Michigan DNR has treated for

3 RHPS three times. In 2003, 1,321 acres were treated with diflubenzuron, 333 acres in 2004 and 480 acres in In 2012, 40 acres were treated to suppress web spinning sawfly. Identification of building RHPS populations through annual monitoring of high-risk red pine stands has significantly reduced the number of acres needing treatment. Each year MDNR conducts detections surveys in high-risk stands, and evaluation surveys if needed to determine whether building populations have reached the action threshold for treatment. Action thresholds for treatment follow recommendations in Wilson & Averill, 1992 as follows: In young stands (<6 feet tall) treatment is warranted when 10% or more trees are infested In older stands (>6 feet tall) treatment is warranted when 20% of the trees are infested Only stands with populations exceeding the economic action threshold are considered for treatment. Sites proposed for treatment are further evaluated within the landscape context, with consideration of potential risk of impact on adjacent owners, recreational users, rare, threatened or endangered species, and distance to surface water. Once a decision to treat a site is made, pesticide application plans are made as described in B.1. that incorporate appropriate no-spray buffers to prevent contamination of surface waters. Not Controlling the Redheaded Pine Sawfly Not using diflubenzuron to control red headed pine sawfly would have negative social and economic impacts on the Michigan state forest system. Populations could build to the point where damage would spread to neighboring young native and planted pine stands. The result would be poor stocking sub-optimized returns on investment to the people of the state of Michigan and reduced supply of valuable wood products and habitat. Impacts without control of sawfly populations are measured primarily by stocking reductions and tree deformation from loss of terminal whorls. Susceptible stands are sub-merchantable, 15 feet and less in height. Branches stripped of their needles die. Those with some survival of lower whorls experience extreme growth loss and deformation. Thus, effects can range from widespread mortality in younger plantings to stunted and misshapen partially defoliated trees. This often results in insufficient stocking which relates both to loss of investment in intensively managed plantations and reduction in the production of sustainable forest products. Sawfly epidemics are periodic or cyclic. During years of widespread outbreaks MDNR may spray 2,000 to 3,000 acres. Without this option, MDNR would lose a significant portion of this investment. Using the past ten years experience as an example, losses from not treating are estimated in the table below. These estimates do not consider the spreading epidemic effect that would almost certainly occur if RHPS populations were allowed to develop unchecked. Description Estimated value Estimated loss Acres effected with RHPS 300 ac/yr Estimated loss without 50% treatment Stumpage value of fully $2,200/ac stocked mature red pine Stumpage value of loss $2,200/ac * 50%* 300 ac/yr $330,000/yr Alternative Pesticides

4 The table below summarizes pesticide products that are registered now, or were registered in the past for control of redheaded sawfly. Of these products, only four are labelled for use in forestry settings (in conifer plantations), and of these three are currently considered highly hazardous pesticides by FSC. Spinosad may be the most promising, but would also likely be considered highly hazardous under the proposed new FSC criteria for classification of pesticides. Insecticidal soaps and horticultural oils have been used for spot spray applications in ornamental and right-of-way settings for control of sawflies, but are not a viable substitute on large scale applications because the product must contact the insect to be effective, and thorough coverage is difficult to achieve in field settings. Insecticidal soaps are not labelled for aerial spray applications. Horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps are not labelled for use in forestry settings. In the USA, pesticides cannot legally be applied or used in settings that are not directly specified on the label. Active Ingredient acephate carbaryl Trade Name Labelled for Forestry FSC Rating Orthene TT&O Spray No hh Carbaryl 4L, Sevin 80 WSP Yes HH cyfluthrin Tempo SC Ultra No HH deltamethrin Bayer Suspend SC No HH diazinon No HH esfenvalerate Dupont Asana XL Insecticide Yes HH imidacloprid Merit 2F No hh lambdacyhalothrin Lamda- Cyhalothrin 1 EC Yes HH malathion No hh permethrin Tengard SFR No HH Comment Not labeled for forestry; labelled for control of sawflies in general in ornamentals; toxic to bees at < 2 micrograms/bee, may be an endocrine disruptor Labelled for sawfly control in general in forested areas and rangeland not labelled for forestry; labeled for control of sawfly in ornamentals Not labelled for forestry; labelled for control of sawfly larvae in general in ornamentals and turf grass. not labeled for forestry; not labeled for redheaded sawfly labelled for redheaded pine sawfly in conifer plantations and Christmas trees not labeled for forestry; labeled for control of sawflies in Christmas trees labelled for control of sawflies in general in conifer plantations and Christmas trees not labelled for forestry, not labelled for redheaded pine sawfly; instead labelled for European pine sawfly in pine seed orchards and Christmas tree plantations. Toxic to honeybees and aquatic organisms. not labeled for forestry, labelled for redheaded pine sawfly in ornamental stock

5 spinosad Entrust Yes hh insecticidal soaps Safer's Soap No horticultural oil Omni Supreme Spray No Labelled for redheaded pine sawfly control in tree farms or plantations, including Christmas trees and conifer seed orchards. Toxic to bees at < 2 micrograms/bee Not labelled for forestry; some products are labelled for control of sawflies in general in ornamentals and Christmas trees Not labelled for forestry; labelled for control of sawflies in general in ornamentals HH = currently on FSC's 2007 list if highly hazardous pesticides hh = would likely be considered highly hazardous under FSC's proposed criteria for highly hazardous pesticides 2. Stakeholder consultation For our 2009 application, MDNR solicited feedback from its Forest Management Advisory Committee (whose members are appointed by DNR's Director and range from timber producers to university experts and environmental interest groups, and who assist the DNR with management issues related to state forests). DNR also requested comments from Michigan's SFI Statewide Implementation Committee. MDNR also posted copies of the derogation applications and a letter on its website requesting comments on the proposed derogation, and posted a similar request on Enviro Mich, a listserver for environmental organizations in Michigan. In the Detroit Free Press an article about the derogation applications gave contact details to submit comments. MDNR also solicited comment from the environmental contacts for the 12 federally recognized Native American tribes in Michigan, as well as the Intertribal Council of Michigan, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Service and Michigan Bureau of Indian Affairs. No comment was received from tribal representatives. Stakeholder consultation for the 2014 renewal application is being conducted through the FSC- US National Initiative. B. Forest Management Enterprise Specific Requirements Forest Management Enterprise: FSC Certificate Code: Location /region: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) SCS-FM/COC-00090N Michigan 1. Specified controls to prevent, minimize and mitigate hazards Pesticides sold in the United States must be registered with the Federal government and in some cases by state regulatory agencies. They are reviewed and regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA 1974; 7 J.S.C. 135 et seq., Public Laws , , and ) and recent amendments. EPA regulations are enforced at the state level through approved

6 agencies. These agencies administer federal legal requirements through training and enforcement programs within each state. Applicator certification, auditing, pesticide registration and enforcing the terms of the pesticide labels fall within the jurisdiction of the state agencies Diflubenzuron is applied as Dimilin (trade name). Dimilin is registered by EPA (EPA Reg. No ) for forestry use for control of insect pests including sawflies on trees and shrubs. The printed information and instructional material that must be included with registered herbicides that are sold in the U.S. is known as the "label" and constitutes a legal document. These instructions are considered a part of compliance with FIFRA and other Federal regulations, and failure to use an herbicide in accord with label restrictions can lead to severe penalties. The label provides information on the chemical compound(s) comprising the active ingredient(s) of the herbicide, directions for correct use on target plant species, warnings and restrictions, and safety and antidote information. Additionally, information concerning impacts to non-target organisms (particularly threatened or endangered species) is available from both State and Federal Fish and Wildlife agencies (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and CA Department of Pesticide Regulation) Risk mitigation strategies. Risks associated with the use of diflubenzuron are reduced by various means. Diflubenzuron is included on FSC s highly hazardous list, in part, because it has a Kow rating that exceeds the threshold for this indicator; however this does not reflect the actual breakdown of the product as it is applied in diluted formulation in the field under US EPA labeling requirements. Diflubenzuron is also toxic to some aquatic crustaceans. However, when diflubenzuron is applied under field conditions these risks are significantly reduced by preventing or minimizing exposure: The product Dimilin is diluted to a concentration of 40.4% diflubenzuron. Exposure to applicators and others is reduced through the use of protective clothing and through restricting access to treated areas as specified on the label. In Michigan. Applicators must be trained and certified in order to purchase or apply the product. An essential part of this training is human and environmental safety. Applicators are required to wear the minimum personal protective equipment listed on the label for each pesticide product for Dimilin, this includes long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks, and chemical resistant gloves when mixing, loading and conducting ground applications of the product. Exposure to workers and the public is minimized by posting sites with signs warning of the pesticide application, and road blocks as needed to restrict re-entry for the minimum period required on the product label for Dimilin, until the spray has dried. The product as applied is normally diluted to concentrations of 3% and rates of application are reduced to the lowest effective levels both to reduce risk and cost. Application rates are typically 2 ounces of Dimilin (40.4% diflubenzuron) per acre (48 grams per hectare) which is roughly equivalent to slightly more than 1/100th of a drop of active ingredient per square foot. 4 Applications are conducted when weather conditions are conducive to minimizing risk of drift wind speeds 2 to 10 miles per hour, and wind direction that would convey any drift away from water bodies, if any are adjacent. 1 See for an example. 2 See for more detail 3 See 4 Assuming 20 drops/ml of water

7 Applications are conducted only when a suitable weather conditions will occur 24 hours after the last rainfall, and when precipitation is not anticipated within 48 hours of the application. Most applications are aerial via helicopter. Aerial applicators are required to use no drift spray nozzles that produce consistently large droplets to minimize potential for drift. In addition, applications are made as low to the ground as possible help reduce potential for drift, within aircraft safety limits. Generally this is very close to within 10 feet of maximum tree height on each site. Flow meters and calibrated spray booms ensure that the spray solution is accurately applied. All application data is tracked and recorded for the application area, including weather conditions, the amount of pesticide applied, and area sprayed. All MDNR pesticide application plans are designed to recognize and protect areas of known environmental risk. Michigan DNR requires that a formal Pesticide Application Plan be completed for each area treated. The plan includes identification of water features that should be avoided and designation of appropriate width no-spray buffers to protect surface water features, and adjacent neighboring property. Michigan DNR s work instructions require normal buffers of at least 100 feet between pesticide treatment areas and streams or other water features. Plans also include a description of weather conditions appropriate for applications, and other restrictions to protect sensitive features, such as occurrences of rare or protected species, high recreational use areas, signage to notify the public and restrict access during the product label specified minimum re-entry period. Normal riparian no-spray buffer widths are increased for aerial applications of Dimilin to comply with the product label requirements for a 150 foot buffer adjacent to water bodies. Ground and aerial application equipment is very precise in applying the chemical where it is intended. Helicopter applications utilize GPS equipment enabling them to avoid over spraying nearby water features, roads, human dwellings and other off target areas. Tract maps (shapefiles) are uploaded into aircraft GPS systems to ensure that pilots understand exact tract boundaries, buffer areas, and reserve areas. After application, each site is inspected and application information documented. All sites receive a follow up evaluation of application effectiveness, including target and non-target impacts. This information is used to inform future pesticide treatment and application plans. Plantings that require sawfly management (e.g. treatment with diflubenzuron) typically only need such treatment once, and less frequently twice, in the life of the planting (typically 50 to 80 years). Many sites need only local treatments to a portion of the area where RHPS damage is most severe. In these cases treatments are usually done with ground equipment. Usually infested plantings require aerial applications. For additional information on the chemistry, research results on bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity see the Sept 8, 2006 letter from Chemtura to FSC appended to the end of this application. Impacts on beneficial insects/insect predators of redheaded pine sawfly appear to be minimal. There are no insect predators of this sawfly known to effect population dynamics. Population collapses are primarily due to stresses from loss of food after a year or two heavy defoliation, and disease such as NPV. Diflubenzuron is an IGR which only affects immature insect stages, not adult insects. Thus, there are no impacts on adult predators. Non-target impacts, especially on predators, has not been a problem. The half-life is very short (e.g. 3.2 days). Plantation acreage affected is minimal (~ 200 ac /yr). Losses of non-target immature insects in this highly modified/simplified

8 environment are quickly replaced via migration from adjacent forest/ plantations. 2. Program to identify alternatives to a highly hazardous pesticide including preventative silvicultural measures. Describe the programs that are in place to identify alternatives, include a timetable and indicate research partners and targets: Forest researchers have sought and continue to seek cultural, chemical and other control methods to manage redheaded pine sawfly. Such research has produced feeding deterrents and pheromones used to prevent or disrupt sawfly feeding behavior; baited traps; pheromone traps; and a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) discovered in Canada produced under the label Leconte virus. None of the above mentioned alternatives are available. Of these, the Leconte virus shows much promise in that it s very efficacious and it s mode of action is specific to the redheaded pine sawfly. Unfortunately, our efforts to secure a source of Leconte virus have not succeeded. To date, we have been unsuccessful in promoting the production of Leconte virus in the United States. We will continue this effort, but we will likely be unsuccessful due to the infrequency of outbreaks and small acreage affected. The demand for it in North America is not sufficient to attract commercial development. This also applies to other pesticides like malathion /cythion which were once labeled for forest or plantation use, but when the labels lapsed, they were not renewed due to low and infrequent demand for forest and plantation applications. Release of parasites introduced from Europe and Japan for sawfly control started in 1937 in Canada (Wilson & Averill, 1992). Both parasitic Diptera and Hymenoptera were released. None of the released parasites established to efficaciously regulate sawfly populations. Use of Dimilin is integrated with other management actions to control plantation susceptibility and vulnerability to redheaded pine sawfly populations. Reducing vegetation competition on higher quality sites by use of herbicides and furrowing produces a more vigorous and therefore, less sawfly susceptible plantations. Guidelines for reducing the susceptibility and vulnerability of red plantations to the redheaded pine sawfly include: 1. When practical, avoid planting on excessively dry or infertile soils. 2. Maintain distance of 50 feet from hardwood edges. 3. Control weed and grass competition. 4. Plant in compact blocks to reduce amount of edge. Planting red pine on drier, nutrient poor sites reduces vegetative competition, but increases the risk of drought and nutrient stress. Typically MDNR foresters avoid this problem by planting jack pine on drier sites. Red pine sites by their nature will have occasional redheaded pine sawfly epidemics. Site selection cannot completely eliminate the need for sawfly management, but it can help reduce the need. Some sites have frost pockets or areas of lighter, droughtier soils. Not planting trees in high risk areas within plantations may reduce sawfly impacts and the need to use diflubenzuron.

9 MDNR recently discussed potential for collaboration with a Canadian company, Sylvar Technologies, Inc., regarding the potential to develop field trials using Leconte virus to control redheaded pine sawfly in Michigan. Sylvar acquired the rights to produce Leconte virus as an insecticide from the Canadian Forest Service several years ago, and has registered the product for use in Canada. However, it is not registered for use in the USA. MDNR will be exploring the possibility of partnering with Sylvar to obtain research permits from the EPA and Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to facilitate field testing of Leconte virus on State Forest lands, in 2016 or later, if and when redheaded pine sawfly outbreaks occur. Development of a formal research program and/or informal field trials has been hampered by the periodic nature of redheaded pine sawfly outbreaks. A significant outbreak has not occurred since References: Wilson, L.F, R.C. Wilkinson, and R.C. Averill, Redheaded pine sawfly: its ecology and management. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook pp.