PPDC AZM Transition Issues Workgroup

April 19, 2007 Conference Call Summary 

1:00 – 2:00 PM (EST)  

Call participants:  Dave Trinka, Larry Olsen, Mark Whalon, Andrew Beyak,
Hang Tang, Stephen Goodacre, Al Jennings, Mike Willett, Ann Pingitore,
Adam Sharp, Jeff Zellers, Kobe Long, Ephi Gur, Larry Hodges, Scott
Rollins, Janis McFarland, Shelley Davis, Paula Paul, Rebeckah Freeman
Adcock, Bob McClain, Pat Cimino, Katie Hall, Arnet Jones, Rick Keigwin,
Linda Murray, Tom Brennan, Steve Jarboe, Diann Sims, Margaret Rice,
Barbara VanTil, Lori Berger, Pierre Beauchamp, Debby LeBlanc, Andrea
Martin, Christopher Dufault 

Rick Keigwin thanked the group for a good first meeting in March and for
comments on the draft meeting summary.  Rick Keigwin reminded the group
that it is still working under Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
guidelines so a meeting summary will be circulated and posted for this
call.  Rick Keigwin also noted that some work has been done on the case
studies discussed at the meeting on March 6, 2007.  There has been work
on regulatory process front and best practices front and we will have
those out for review shortly.

One workgroup member requested a membership list with contact
information for the other members of the workgroup.  Rick Keigwin asked
if there was anyone opposed to sharing this information with other
members of workgroup.  No one objected.  A membership list with contact
information will be circulated.  

Rick Keigwin thanked Mike Willett and Jay Brunner for putting together
the draft case study on Washington apples and Jeff Zellers, Adam Sharp
and Barbara VanTil for developing the draft case study for Ohio parsley.
 

Al Jennings said that he would like to talk about where we are and where
we are going next.  

Mike Willett started with an overview of the AZM transition strategy for
WA apples.  Mike Willett said that the package was prepared by Jay
Brunner based on package he prepared for the Washington State
Legislature.    

Mike Willett continued by mentioning that groups from Washington State
University, Washington State Horticultural Association and the
Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission put a package together for the
WA state legislature to help growers address the transition from AZM. 
The package focused on apples although there is some information in the
package that applies to pear.  The package applies to the western U.S.,
particularly the Pacific Northwest.  The main pest considered is the
codling moth.  The hope is to ensure the transition to a broad program
that provides control, and is not a transition to a particular active
ingredient.

The document outlined a number of issues.  Mike Willett asked a question
of the group, “Might one of the matrices that are in preparation by
EPA make use of the information that is in Jay’s outline.  Rick
Keigwin said that the matrices will cover all alternatives, biological
and chemical, as well as cultural.  Jay Brunner’s information will be
helpful and includes these options, including organic options.  Mike
Willett said that the document will be more focused and concise when the
matrices are completed.  Technology transfer and tasks and timelines are
included in the document.  Jay Brunner developed a detailed timeline for
three to four years.  It was believed that there was not sufficient
infrastructure for a transition.  Hopefully this document will make the
infrastructure more possible.  The transition program in Washington will
be funded by the WA legislature for one year at least, and hopefully
will be funded for longer.  There were no questions yet since the
document was recently distributed.  Comments should be sent directly to
Jay Brunner and Mike Willett.  

Rick Keigwin said that the Washington apple document reflects topics Al
Jennings suggested and reflects the proposals that were outlined at the
March AZM Transition Strategy meeting.  Mike Willett said that the WA
apple document shows a commitment to look at alternate systems to AZM
and ensure that growers can use the systems for pest control. Mike
Willett and Jay Brunner welcome comment.  

Al Jennings and Rick Keigwin said that comments should be submitted
soon.  The next PPDC meeting is May 9 and 10.  Rick Keigwin said that
they wanted to open the possibility to the group of having a short
workgroup meeting on May 8 or a call.  At the minimum, the PPDC will
request a progress report of what the workgroup has done to date and a
path forward.  If the group wants to submit documents to the PPDC for
feedback the group would need to provide them to the PPDC members a week
in advance.  It was mentioned that the group is the position to present
a progress report to the PPDC.  Al Jennings suggested that comments be
submitted within two weeks.  Mike Willett asked about when the members
of the workgroup would have a chance to look at the crop and pest
matrices.  He suggested that the same deadline could apply to both.

Rick Keigwin said that EPA could circulate an early draft of the matrix
by the end of the week (Friday, April 20).  Rick Keigwin said that he
envisions these documents to be living documents.  He said that comments
are needed on the matrices and the transition strategy drafts by April
30.

Shelley Davis asked if the matrix will have information on health
effects of alternatives and registration information for each
alternative.  Rick Keigwin said that there are two matrices, one for
efficacy and one for registration status.  He asked Shelley for feedback
on the best way to capture human health information in the matrix. 
Maybe the matrices could have information on the acute toxicity
categories of the alternatives and the REIs?  Rick Keigwin mentioned
that it has been a challenge to describe ecological risk.  Linda Murray
said that the current answer is that health effects information is not
currently in matrix but will be in future drafts.  

Mark Whalon said that there is human health and ecological impact
information on many of the alternatives.  Barbara VanTil said that many
things discussed in the March meeting didn’t make it into strategy
outline.

Al Jennings asked for an update on Ohio parsley.  

Jeff Zellers said that Barbara VanTil has started to put together the
parsley document and is working through the matrix.  Barbara VanTil said
that she sent out a  rough draft of document to Linda Murray to
circulate.    

    

Barbara VanTil said that there are a few parsley issues that could be
discussed now.  The amount of resources for parsley for education,
research, etc. compared to other crops is much less.  Other crops have
pest management strategic plans, but parsley has not had that benefit. 
Barbara VanTil asked, when talking about tools, how theoretical is that?
 What are the potential tools for parsley?  Will they need to be
achievable in next few years or longer term?  She said that there are
only two products in the pipeline that are efficacious, and they have
not considered REIs, PHIs, etc.  Barbara VanTil asked what they should
do with things that are registered that don’t work?

Linda Murray said that for purpose of this process maybe we should leave
all alternative information in the matrix to document our work, to
include the reason/s other management tools don’t work (if that’s
the case).

Jeff Zellers said that they have had varying degrees of success
depending on which area of Ohio it is used in.  Carrot weevil is the
primary pest.  For the most part, the whole order is not targeted by
neonicitinoids and PGRs.  Barbara VanTil said that in Michigan, growers
can use esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin for carrot weevil.  These
alternatives are theoretical for Ohio growers for now.  It is not clear
whether they should generate efficacy or residue data.  Shelley Davis
said that it may help to have all management tools in the matrix, and to
include issues or limitations so that we get an idea of what
possibilities are.  The parsley document has more of an outline-type
approach than the apple document.  

Linda Murray asked if we want a certain template for the documents to
follow, and what that should template should be.  Al Jennings suggested
that all alternative options be left in the documents, and then we can
cut them out later.  It is better to be more inclusive.

It was mentioned that both documents only include a single pest.  When
we do Midwestern apples, how will we structure it?  Shelley Davis said
that apples and parsley represent different ends of the continuum and
that the point of the documents is to be inclusive and add all options.

Mark Whalon said that another major crop is not included - cherries.  He
asked what it means for other crops that are not included.  Linda Murray
said that these are two case studies.  The idea with these crops was
just to get things started.  Bob McClain said that apples in California
are not exactly the same as apples in the Pacific Northwest.  He said
that we can work with the format for the Pacific Northwest apples and
use it for other crops.  Mark Whalon said that for tart cherries there
is nothing in the pipeline that he is aware of.  Al Jennings asked if
Mark Whalon should talk to the cherry groups.  Mark Whalon said yes, and
that the upper Midwest apples would need the same type of document. 
Linda Murray said that we would be receptive to receiving a cherry
document at any time.  Someone mentioned that eastern apples could get
started on their document.  They would talk to Robin Spitko about this. 
Larry Olsen said that the recently finished blueberry PMSP could help. 
Linda Murray asked if one of the group members would share their
documents with other commodity groups.  The WA apple document has
already been sent to upper Midwest cherry and apple groups.  Dave Trinka
said that they will talk with the small fruit entomologist at Michigan
State and plan a document for blueberry.

Barbara VanTil said that we may want to make sure there is consistency
in content.  Al Jennings said that there is no reason why different
commodity groups can’t get started on their documents.  He asked about
the other commodities – what about almonds, walnuts, pistachios, and
pears?  Al Jennings said that the nut crops should be included.  He
asked Ann Pingitore if she has what she needs to get started.  Adam
Sharp mentioned that they are looking into tree crops in Ohio.

Al Jennings asked about who will report out to the PPDC for the case
studies.  He said that as comments come in, the workgroup members could
suggest how and what should be presented to the PPDC.  Linda Murray said
that the group should decide if they want to have a meeting on May 8
before the full PPDC.  Barbara VanTil or Jeff Zellers will present on
parsley.  Mike Willett, Jay Brunner, or Jim Cranney will represent
apples.  Mark Whalon said that someone from the upper Midwest could
present also.  

Shelley Davis said that what is presented will depend on whether the
groups have results or if they are works in progress.  Linda Murray said
that as comments come in on April 30, we could decide what will be in
presentations.  Barbara VanTil said that there are some key elements of
transition that we may want to highlight.

Linda Murray asked if the group wants to meet on May 8.  Mike Willett
said that the group may want to look at documents first, and then put
that into some kind of report.  He doesn’t think the group needs to
meet right now.  Mark Whalon asked about the status of the two matrices?
 Linda Murray said that EPA will share drafts by COB April 20.  The
first matrix is on efficacy, the second is on regulatory status / MRLs. 
    She reminded the group that all documents are very rough drafts. 
Some of the EPA divisions haven’t had a chance to provide input yet. 
Linda Murray is the contact person for the EPA drafts.  All comments are
due April 30.  Barbara VanTil will make changes to the parsley document
and resend it to Linda Murray to distribute.  

The group will decide after the comments come in if it will meet on May
8.  Linda Murray will share contact info with everyone for correction. 
The contact information will be shared only with the other members of
the workgroup and will not be posted on the website.  Al Jennings closed
the meeting.

