**BPPD Meeting Summary** 

**Meeting:** National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) **Date and Time:** April 22, 2015; 9:30

– 10:30 AM **Location:** EPA HQ (Potomac Yards South, Arlington, VA), Room S - 8771 **Topic:** Corn Rootworm Resistance Management; EPA’s proposal to enhance existing IRM strategies; public comment period **Attendees:** Jim Steffel (NAICC) James Todd (NAI CC) Kimberly Nesci (EPA/BPPD) Mike Mendelsohn (EPA/BPPD) Alan Rey nolds (EPA/BPPD) Bill Chism (EPA/BEAD) **Agenda (provi ded by NAICC)**  **:**

 Review/status of Bt CRW resistance management proposal  Who does EPA see as responsible for implementation of the various components of the framework  IPM value of SAI’s  Suggestions for long term resistance management of CRW  Basis for use of SAI b y crop consultants  Grower understanding and adoption of IPM **Points of Discussion:** BPPD discussed the status of the CRW I RM proposal. The public comment period, which closed 4/15/15, garnered 87 total comments. Many comments were received from grower groups, associations, farm bureaus, and crop consultants (including NAICC). The comments were helpful to BPPD in identifying the issues most important to growers. Most of the grower based comments expressed concerns about restricting or mandating CRW management tools, such as soil - applied insecticides and crop rotation. BPPD discussed the “next steps” in the process. In May , BPPD will convene another meeting with the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC) to discuss the proposal. All meetings related to the proposal will be summarized for the docket to maintain atransparent, open process. BPPD emphasized that no agreements or arrangements have been

reached yet regarding the proposal. NAI CC discussed potential impac ts to the 2016 growing season. It was noted that growers will make planting decisions in the Fall and should commit to seed orders before November 1 st

. However, NAICC indicated that untraited (non - Bt) seed may be in limited supply

for some growers. BPP D and NAICC discussed how crop consultants integrate IPM techniques in their guidance to growers. Consultants have regional expertise, so many grower s rel y on their advice for farming decisions , including resistance management strategies. NAI CC stated th at any significant changes to CRW IRM (i.e., I PM techniques, refuge changes) could take several y ears to adapt. A gradual introduction of new techniques may be helpful, particularl y if equipment changes are needed (planter boxes, tractors, pesticide appli cation equipment, etc.). NAICC noted that man y growers are still adjusting to the restriction/cancellation of some pesticides by EPA. NAI CC also emphasized the need for flexibility since soil, climate, and insect pressure can vary in different corn - grow ing regions. BPPD discussed implementation questions regarding the proposed IRM enhancements. As with other aspects of resistance management (e.g., refuge, compliance, and resistance monitoring), any changes are likely

to be implemented by

registrants through the term s and conditions of the Bt corn registrations. A significant challenge for EPA and ABSTC will be how to involve other important stakeholders (seed dealers, consultants, extension personnel , growers ) in the process. These stakeholders could help with earl y resistance detection (i.e., field scouting), though there are concerns with logistics (multiple registrants) and resources (declining extension budgets).