RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Grower On-Line Survey: Grower Compliance and IRM Awareness

a) BPPD concurs with ABSTC that the majority of growers who planted single trait ECB PIP products were compliant with the refuge requi rements in 2010 when national average results from the on-line survey were considered (76% for refuge size; 87% for refuge distance) . Compliance among growers planti ng CRW protected PIPs was low and unchanged from the reported 2009 results. Compliance percentages for stacked PIP products have now reached an all time low (69% for refuge size; 63% for ref uge distance), yet based on the standard error provided, these differences we re not statistically signifi cant from the 2009 results. Nonetheless, BPPD is concerned about these compliance numbers, es pecially considering that surveyed growers could not demonstrated IRM knowledge in the online survey. On an unaided basis, only 33% of the growers coul d recall the correct re fuge size and only 22% recalled the correct refuge dist ance for the ECB and CRW portion of the stacked PIPs. This is a drastic decline from an already low awareness in 2009 of 58% and 31% for correct refuge size and refuge distance. These percentages are now at an all time low. ABSTC does not appear to be achieving its educational goals among growers planting stacked PIP products. Educational efforts have also been unsuccessful at increasing grower education with respect to CRW IRM requirements. It is recommended that ABSTC meet with BPPD to discuss future approaches in increasi ng IRM knowledge and compliance among growers planting stacked PIPs.

b) When on-line compliance results were evaluated on a regional basis, it was evident (as in 2009) that southern corn grower s (in cotton growing regions) we re up to 2.2 more likely to get out of compliance than their northern counterparts. Possible explanations for lower levels of compliance in the south could include c onfusion with different requirements between various PIP products or simply blatant disregard of refuge requirements by growers who plant both Bt corn and Bt cotton. ABSTC stat ed in their 2009 CAP report that these regional results provided them with the opportunity to intensify future educational efforts in the southern corn growing regions. BPPD notes that if higher non-compliance among southern corn growers reflects a willingness to violate refuge requirements rather than a lack of knowledge, then increased educational efforts ma y not be fruitful. Other methods to bring these growers back into compliance may need to be considered.

c) Furthermore, BPPD disagrees with ABSTC’s stat ement that the risk of resistance evolution may be lower in the south despite the greater non-compliance because only 10% of the corn production occurs in that region (cited from 2009 USDA data). Although higher Bt adoption in conjunction with non-compliance could be a strong driver for resistance evolution, it
cannot be discounted that consistent local non-compliance with refuge requirements
increases the risk of resistance evolution in such areas despite lower Bt corn adoption. Of greater importance for local non-compliance (resistance will likely be a local phenomenon initially) is the amount of ref uge available at that scale, a nd the amount of immigration of refuge insects from other corn growing areas. Additional data or information would be

- 2 -needed to evaluate ABSTC’s claim of low poten tial risk of resistance evolution in the south (with less compliance and adoption of Bt corn).

2. On-Farm Assessments (First Time a nd Reassessment): Grower Compliance

a) Adherence to refuge requirements for gr owers planting ECB protected PIPs was high (86.6%), and significant viola tions were lower (8.4%) than reported for the 2009 season (10.8%).

b) For growers planting CRW protect ed PIPs, adherence to ref uge requirements was higher (84.5%) than for the 2009 growing season (69.1%), and significant violations were 50% lower than reported for 2009. The sample size for first-time on-farm assessments keeps decreasing each year. BPPD recommends that individual companies increase the sample size for CRW first-time assessment. A sample si ze of 50-60 farmers is likely insufficient to acquire a good understanding of confirmed on- farm compliance with IRM requirements.

c) Adherence to refuge requirements for grower s planting stacked PIPs was similar in 2010 (83.8%) to what was reported for the 2009 growing season (83.3%). Significant violations were lower in 2010 (8.8%) than reported for the 2009 season (10.8%).

d) BPPD is aware that companies do not share their clientele list with each other and that names and locations of non-compliant growers are ke pt confidential and anonymous. Yet, BPPD recommends that ABSTC compile and maintain , through a neutral third party, maps showing the distribution of on-farm non-compliance pooled acr oss registrants so that it is clear to the EPA where regions of high non-compliance are lo cated. It may then be possible for ABSTC to focus compliance efforts in these regions wi th increased educational outreach or other appropriate new measures.

e) ABSTC stated that one grower had his license revoked in 2010; however, their data ( Table 8 ) showed that two growers had some significant violations with compliance requirements (one grower for ECB PIPs and another for stacked pr oducts - unless the sa me grower planted both a single and stacked product and committed a vi olation for both types of PIPs in 2010) and were denied access to the technology for 2011.

3. BPPD Recommended Changes To CAP

a) It is recommended that ABSTC address the ne wly approved refuge requirements in the 2010 CAP: 5% and 20% structured refuge in the Corn Belt and cotton growing regions, respectively, for pyramided le pidopteran traits. Fu ture survey results for 5% and 20% structured refuge in the Corn Belt should be separately collected, analyzed, and provided to BPPD (as for 20% and 50% structured refuge requirements in the cotton growing regions).

- 3 -4. ABSTC Proposed Changes for 2011

a) ABSTC stated that beginning in 2011, the refuge requirements would be listed on seed bags, which should raise awaren ess and growers’ understanding of their IRM obligations.

- 4 -I. BACKGROUND

As a condition of registration for the corn borer-protected Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis ) corn products (EPA Reg. Nos. 524- 489, 68467-2, 67979-1 and 29964-3), corn rootworm-protected Bt corn products (EPA Reg. Nos. 524-528, 524-551, 68467-5, 67979-5, and 29964-4), and stacked (corn-borer/corn rootworm-protected) Bt corn products (EPA Reg. Nos. 524-545, 524-552, 524- 576, 68467-6, 67979-8, and 29964-5), the registrants mu st work together through their selfappointed Agricultural Biotechnology Stewards hip Technical Committee (ABSTC) to implement an Insect Resistance Management (IRM) Comp liance Assurance Program (CAP). The IRM CAP is designed to promote compliance with refuge requirements among all Bt corn growers irrespective of farm size. The program is compos ed of several parts: grower agreements, annual grower affirmation of IRM requirements, grower education, tips and co mplaints to identify noncompliant growers, third-party grower survey (via telephone and, si nce 2007, only on-line), onfarm assessments and follow-up actions (pha sed compliance program) should non-compliant growers be identified through the on-farm assess ments. Individual registrants, however, are responsible for implementing the requirements agreed upon by the ABSTC-Insect Resistance Management Stewardship Subcommittee’s Comp liance Assurance Program and EPA. Yearly results of the program are to be reported to EP A in an annual compliance assurance report (due January 31 st each year). This review addresse s the 2010 Insect Resistance Management Compliance Assurance Program Repo rt for Corn Borer-Protected Bt Corn submitted by the ABSTC - Insect Resistance Manageme nt Stewardship Subcommittee.

II

. SUMMARY OF 2010 CAP

The 2010 ABSTC CAP contained a summary of the following activities: 1) 2010 third party grower surveys for single and stacked PIPs targeting ECB and CRW, 2) 2010 on-farm assessments, 3) tips and complaints, and 4) CAP activities for 2010. Grower agreements and annual grower affirmation systems are reviewed as part of each registrant’s annual IRM report.

ABSTC stated that beginning in 2011, the refuge requirements would be listed on seed bags which should raise awareness and growers’ understanding of thei r IRM obligations.

1. C ORN BORER-PROTECTED Bt CORN REGISTRATIONS

2010 Data : In 2010, of the 269 growers who completed the onlin e survey for single ECB PIPs, 76% planted a 20% refuge and 87% complied with the 1⁄2 mile distance requirement (regional results). An additional 11% of growers planted > 15% refuge but less than 20%, and 5 % of growers surveyed failed to plant a refuge at all . Responses to survey questions about each field on a grower’s farm revealed that 91% of all fields planted to corn bo rer protected Bt corn had a refuge planted within the required 1⁄2 mile distance. Three percent of all fields had a refuge beyo nd 1⁄2 mile, and 6% of all fields had no refuge associated with them. Th e compliance results listed for 2011 (see Table 1) have a reported margin of error of ±6.0%

.

- 5 -On a regional basis, 71% and 81% of growers planted the corre ct refuge size and 83% and 90% adhered to the distance requirements in the ea stern and western regions of the Corn Belt, respectively. In the cotton grow ing regions, 49% of growers me t the refuge size requirements and 70% reported planting all of their fi elds within the appropriate distance.

When growers were asked on an unaided basis wh at they recalled about IRM requirements, 65% and 82% correctly identified the refuge si ze and distance requirements, respectively.

Table 1. Summary of telephone survey results for corn borer-protected Bt corn growers (Data from 2002- 2006) and online survey results (Data from 2007 and 2010)

Survey Question Survey Year
Telephone Online

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-----------% respondents-----------

Adherence to Refuge Size
Weighted average across all four
regions surveyed 86 92 91 92 89 80 78 74% 76%

NC/SC/SE MO/TN/MS ( 50% refuge in cotton-growing
areas) 77 82 78 82 80

N/A N/A 40% 49%

E IA/N IL (20% refuge) 88 96 95 94 89-99 77%

and

76% 6 71%

and

81% 6 SD/MN/NE/W IA (20% refuge) 85 93 90 91

KS/OK/TX (20% refuge) [High
Plains] 81 82 93 95 82

Adherence to Distance Requirements

Weighted average across all four
Regions surveyed 89 93 96 96 96 88 4 88 4 79% 5 87%

NC/SC/SE MO/TN/MS [Cotton Region] 78 83 84 80 80

N/A N/A 63% 70%

E IA/N IL 95 96 96 97

89-99 84%

and

79% 6 83%

and

90% 6 SD/MN/NE/W IA 89 94 98 97

KS/OK/TX [High Plains] 79 92 94 94

Awareness of IRM Requirements

All growers 88 93 92 92 92 96 98 95% 94%

- 6 -Unaided Recall of IRM Requirements

Refuge size (weighted average
across all four regions surveyed) 42 52 53 59 N/A 63 3 79 3 64% 65%

Refuge distance (weighted average
across all four regions surveyed) 37 49 55 53 49 79 3 89 3 82% 82%

Refuge size (Corn Belt and High
Plains) 1 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Refuge size (Cotton Belt) 2 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Corn belt and high plains = Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas , Oklahoma, Texas, i.e., three of four regions surveyed

2 Cotton belt = North Carolina, South Carolina, s outh-eastern Missouri, Te nnessee, and Mississippi

3 Cotton Belt numbers are not separated from Corn Belt survey results

4 Percent reflects only those growers that could remember the la yout of all their Bt fields; 447 out of 467 (95.7%) in 2007; 298 out of 317 (94%) in 2008.

5 on a per field basis, adherence was 92% in 2009; 5% of the fields had no refuge.

6 States in the eastern region were primarily Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan; states in the western region were primarily Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, and Kansas..

2. CORN ROOTWORM-PROTECTED Bt CORN REGISTRATIONS

2010 Data : In 2010, of the 54 growers who completed the on line survey coleopteran protected PIPs, 73% planted a 20% refuge and 67% planted a refuge w ithin or adjacent to the Bt field. An additional 10% of growers planted > 15% refuge but less than 20%, and 9% of growers surveyed failed to plant a refuge at all . Responses to survey questions about each field on a grower’s farm revealed that 70% of all fields planted to corn rootworm protected corn had a refuge planted within the required distance. An additional 12% of all fields had a refuge planted beyond the required distance, while 18% of the fields had no refuge at all. The compliance results listed for 2011 (see Table 2) have a reported margin of error of ±13.3%

.

On a regional basis, 71% and 81% of growers planted the corre ct refuge size and 83% and 90% adhered to the distance requirements in the ea stern and western regions of the Corn Belt, respectively. In the cotton grow ing regions, 49% of growers me t the refuge size requirements and 70% reported planting all of their fi elds within the appropriate distance.

When growers were asked on an unaided basis wh at they recalled about IRM requirements, 33% and 22% correctly identified the refuge si ze and distance requirements, respectively.

- 7 -Table 2. Percent Respondents for Different Questions of Telephone (2005-2006) and Online Survey (2007- 2010) for Rootworm-Prote cted Bt Corn Growers

Survey Question 3 2005 1 2006 2 2007 2008 2009 2010

Adherence to Refuge 93% 89% 80% 74% 79% 73%

Adherence to Distance
Requirements 87% 82% 79% 63% 71% 4 67%

Awareness of IRM
Requirements 97% 93% 97% 96% 92% 97

Unaided recall of
refuge size 51% 57% 63% 72% 58% 33%

Unaided recall of
refuge distance 58% 55% 33% 34% 31% 22%

1 YieldGard RW and YieldGard Plus corn growers

2 YieldGard RW, YieldGard Plus, Herculex RW, and Herculex XTRA corn growers.

3 Weighted average across all four regions surveyed

4 on a per field basis, adherence was 76% in 2009; 14% of the fields had no refuge.

3. STACKED Bt CORN REGISTRATIONS

2010 Data :

Of the 536 growers who complete d the online survey for plante d stacked Bt corn (for ECB and/or CRW control), 69% and 63% met the re fuge size and refuge distance requirement, respectively. An additional 10% planted >15% but less than 20% refuge and 12% of growers failed to plant a refuge at all. The compliance results reported in Table 3 had a margin of error
of ±4.2 %.

Responses to survey questions about each field on a grower’s farm revealed that 73% of all fields planted to corn borer protected Bt corn had a re fuge planted within the required 1⁄2 mile distance. However, 13% of all fields had a refuge beyond 1⁄2 mile, and 14% of all fields had no refuge
associated with them.

On a regional basis, 65% and 76% of growers planted the corre ct refuge in the eastern and western regions of the Corn Belt, respectively. Adherence to the distance requirements for ECB
and CRW was 59% and 69%. In th e cotton growing region, 32% of growers met the refuge size requirements and 37% adhered to the distance requirements.

When growers were asked on an unaided basis wh at they recalled about IRM requirements, 66% and 59% correctly identified the refuge size for ECB and CRW, respectively. On an unaided basis, 83% and 32% of growers correctly identified the ECB a nd CRW distance requirements, respectively.

- 8 -Table 3. Percent Respondents from Different Question of Telephone and On-Line Survey for Stacked Bt Corn Growers (Data from 2006-2010)

Survey Question 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Adherence to Refuge Size 1 78% 70% 72% 4 71% 69%

Adherence to Distance
Requirements 92% 66% 66% 3 67% 3 63%

Adherence to Refuge Size – Eastern and western regions of the

Corn Belt N/A N/A N/A 74% and 73% 65% and 76%

Adherence to Refuge Distance – Eastern and western regions of the

Corn Belt N/A N/A N/A 66% and 70% 59% and 69%

Adherence to Refuge Size – Cotton growing regions N/A N/A N/A 32% 32%

Adherence to Refuge Distance – Cotton growing regions N/A N/A N/A 31% 37%

Awareness of IRM Requirements 95% 96% 97% 95% 94%

Unaided recall of refuge size 59% 62% and 55% 2 81% 66% and 59% 2 61% and 56% 2

Unaided recall of refuge distance

CRW 48% 39% 36% 32% 27%

Unaided recall of refuge distance

ECB 32% 77% 86% 83% 82%

1 Weighted average across all four regions surveyed

2 First number listed is for ECB and the se cond number for CRW refuge compliance.

3 on a per field basis, adherence was76% in 2008 and 78% in 2009

4 on a per field basis, adherence was 73%

BPPD REVIEW OF ON-LINE GROWER SURVEY RESULTS (2010)

The survey results (see Figure 1 ) show that average compliance with refuge distance requirements for ECB protected corn expressi ng single PIPs was signi ficantly higher in 2010 than in the previous year (margin of error + 6.0%); compliance with refuge size remained approximately equal compared to 2009. Growers re ported to be out of compliance deviated from the 20% requirement in one way or another. Further analysis of non-compliance numbers
revealed that most farmers (87%) planted a refuge that was at least 15% , and that 5% of farmers neglected to plant a refuge at all . A regional analysis reveal ed that growers planting single ECB PIP expressing corn in eastern regions of the Corn Belt were less compliant on average (71% for refuge size, 83% for refuge re quirement) than growers in the western regions (81% for refuge size and 90% for distance requi rement). Growers in the southern U.S. had significantly lower adherence per centages than the Corn Belt agai n; the 2010 analysis reveals,

- 9 -however, that compliance in the south has had a sm all, yet statistically, significant increase in compliance compared to 2009 (from 40% in 2009 to 49% in 2010 for refuge size; from 63% in 2009 to 70% in 2010 for refuge distance). It is un clear whether the observed difference is due to the smaller sample size in the south, which was reduced by 60% compared to the sample size in the eastern and western regions of the US. However, compliance is still below an acceptable level in the south; possible explanations for su ch lower compliance in the south could include confusion with different require ments between various PIP products or simply blatant disregard of refuge requirements by growers who plant both Bt corn and Bt cotton. ABSTC stated in their 2009 CAP report that these regiona l results provided them with the opportunity to intensify
future educational efforts in the southern corn growing regions. BPPD notes that if higher noncompliance among southern corn growers reflects a willingness to violate refuge requirements rather than a lack of knowledge, then increased ef forts to educate them ma y not be fruitful. Other methods to bring these growers back into compliance may need to be considered.

Grower awareness with IRM requirements was high (94%), yet the number of growers who could recall the correct refuge size (65%) was significantly lower compared to the number of growers who recalled the correct refuge distance requirements (82%). These percentages are reflective of the compliance numbers from the online survey.

Figure 1 Compliance trend from 2002-2010 for growers planting single ECB PIPs 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10%Compliance

Planting season

Compliance with refuge requirements for ECB protected

corn PIPs

refuge size

refuge distance

- 10 -Overall compliance (per grower) with refuge re quirements for single PIPs targeting CRW is displayed in Figure 2 . Average compliance in 2010 has agai n decreased compared to 2009 and is now at the level of compliance (73% for refuge size, 67% for refuge distance) similar to that reported in 2008. The margin of error reported for CRW PIP compliance data is ±13.3%, hence the difference measured between 2010 and 2009 comp liance is not statistically significant. The percentage of growers blatantly disregarding refuge requirements in 2010 was again 9%, as
in 2009 . Eighteen percent (18%) of all corn rootworm protected fields had no refuge associated with them; this is an increase from the 14% reported in 2009.

Grower awareness with IRM requirements in 2010 was higher than in 2009, yet, the percentage of growers who could recall the refuge size and distance requirements was extremely low (33% and 22%, respectively). That is a drastic decline from an already low awareness in 2009 of 58% and 31% for correct refuge size and refuge dist ance. These percentages are now at an all time low. BPPD believes that this decline in grower knowledge is reason fo r concern and somewhat reflective of the compliance numbers from the on line survey. ABSTC’s educational efforts have been unsuccessful at increasing grower educa tion with respect to CRW IRM requirements.

Figure 2 Compliance trend from 2005-2010 for growers planting single CRW PIPs 0 20 40 60 80 100

'05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10%Compliance

Planting season Compliance with refuge requirements for CRW protected corn PIPs

refuge size

refuge distance

Overall compliance (per grower) with refuge requir ements for stacked corn PIPs is displayed in Figure 3 . In 2010, the reported margin of error for adherence with requirements was again ±4.2%; therefore, BPPD concludes that the la test national average co mpliance results were similar to those reported in prior years. A region al analysis of survey results revealed that growers’ compliance in eastern re gions of the US significantly decl ined: adherence to refuge size requirements was 74% in 2009 and declined to 69% in 2010; adherence to refuge distance was 67% in 2009 and declined to 63%. Compliance in th e western regions of the Corn Belt remained

- 11 -similar or slightly higher to those reported in 2009. Corn grow ers in the cotton growing regions had similar compliance in 2010 as in 2009 – 32% and 37% for adherence to refuge size and distance requirements. BPPD notes that the compliance percentages in the south are extremely
low.

BPPD notes that the number of growers who were able to corr ectly recall IRM requirements on
an unaided basis reached an all time low since 20 07. Only 27% of growers were able to correctly recall the correct distance requirement for the CRW portion of the PIP in 2010. This represents a further decline from the reported 32% in 2009. Only 56% of the growers su rveyed recalled that refuge size for the CRW PIP was 20%. The incr eased educational outreach by ABSTC is not producing the expected results among corn growers planting stacked PIPs.

Figure 3 Compliance trend from 2006-2010 for growers planting stacked corn PIPs 0 20 40 60 80 100

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10%Compliance

Planting season

Compliance with refuge requirements for stacked corn
PIPs

refuge size

refuge distance

Table 4 shows the percent of growers who have bl atantly disregarded refuge requirements for the individual PIP products plante d in 2009 and 2010. Unfortunatel y, this information was not provided to the Agency prior to 2009 and no historical comparison can, therefore, be made yet.

Table 4. Percent growers planting a zero % refug e for stacked Corn PIPs (data from 2009-2010)

Product Type 2009 1 2010 1
Single ECB PIPs 7% 5% Single CRW PIPs 9% 9%

Stacked ECB/CRW PIPs 11% 12%

1 Results are listed on a per grower (not per field) basis

- 12 -4. ON-FARM ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

The on-farm assessment portion of the Complianc e Assurance Program identifies individual noncompliant growers (large and small farms) and brings them back into compliance through the Phased Compliance Approach. This part of the CA P is believed to enhance registrant and seed dealer understandings of the obst acles that hinder grower implem entation of IRM requirements. Unlike the online grower survey, the on-farm asse ssment program is not a statistical tool for measuring the level of adheren ce to the IRM requirements.

Registrants and their seed company partners in dependently coordinate the on-farm assessment activities each year. Growers receiving “first-tim e” on farm assessments (i.e. not assessed the previous year) were selected from individual company customer lists and included a range of farm sizes across a number of key states. Gr owers found to be out of compliance in 2009 received a follow-up on-farm assessment in 2010.

Company representatives were trained to conduct on-farm assessments. Topics covered in these trainings included IRM requirements, messages that should be communicated to growers, follow-up actions if growers are found to be out of compliance and how to use the IRM
assessment form. All assessment forms containe d the same questions, but the introductory paragraphs and company represen tative sections were customi zed to suit the needs of each registrant. Registrant s responded to all compliance deviatio ns identified in the 2009 on-farm assessments according to the common set of standards outlined in the PCA.

The number of growers of each type of Bt corn w ho were assessed varied due to the market size of each product type. In 2010, a total of 3160 gr owers received a first time assessment.

In 2010, 488 growers were found to be out of compliance, of which 277 had significant deviations. All compliance deviations were responded to in accordance with the Phased Compliance Approach, including reassessment in 2009. One grower met the criterion for
revocation of access to stacked Bt corn accordi ng to EPA requirements. All other growers who planted single and stacked ECB and CRW Bt corn and who were out of compliance in 2009 were either successfully brought back into complian ce in 2009, or no longer farmed or planted Bt corn
in 2010.

a. Registrant results for first time on-farm assessment –growers planting ECB protected
PIPs

2010 Data :

Of the 830 growers planting corn borer protected Bt corn and having received a first-time onfarm assessment in 2010, 86.6% were fully compliant with refuge requirements (see Table 5). Of the 13.4% non-compliant growers, 8.4% had sign ificant deviations. On-farm assessments were conducted across a range of farm sizes with approxi mately 33% of growers categorized as “small

- 13 -growers” with less than 250 acres of corn. As with previous years, the data suggest that farm size should not be a selection criterion when tryi ng to identify non-compliant growers. Growers significantly out of compliance in 2010 will be reassessed during the 2011 growing season.

Table 5. Cumulative Results for the First-Time On-Far m Lepidopteran-Protected Bt Corn Assessments (Data for 2003-2010)

Issue addressed Number of growers

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Growers assessed 1961 2130 2215 2020 2083 1312 1082 830
Compliant

growers 1,789
(91%) 2032
(95.4%) 2089
(94.3%) 1930
(95.5%) 1895
(91.0%) 1132
(86.3%) 905
(83.7%) 719
(86.6%)
Noncompliant

growers 172
(9%) 98
(4.6%) 126
(5.7%) 90
(4.5%) 188
(9.0%) 180
(13.7%) 177
(16.4%) 111
(13.4%)
Refuge size

deviations* 64 (3%) 27 (1.3%) 33 (1.5%) 33 (1.6%) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Refuge distance

deviations 127 (7%) 69 (3.2%) 68 (3.1%) 64 (3.2%) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Insignificant

deviations 68 (4%) 59 (2.8%) 51 (2.3%) 45 (2.2%) 59 (2.8%) 46
(3.5%) 60
(5.6%) 41
(5.0%)
Significant

deviations 2 104 (5%) 39 (1.8%) 75 (3.4%) 45 (2.2%) 129
(6.2%) 134
(10.2%) 117
(10.8%) 70
(8.4%)

1 Some growers had compliance deviations other than refuge size or distance or some gr owers may have had both a refuge size and a refuge distance deviation; thus, the tota l of refuge distance and si ze deviations does not equal the number of non-compliant gr owers. 2 Significant deviations are defined as: A Bt corn grower who planted less than 15% non- Bt corn refuge (except in certain cotton growing areas in which case it would be less than 40% non- Bt corn refuge); or planted fewer than 2/3 of the Bt corn fields are planted
within 2 mile of a non- Bt corn refuge.

b. Registrant results for first time on-fa rm –growers planting CRW protected PIPs

2010 Data :

Of the 58 growers planting corn rootworm protec ted Bt corn and having received a first-time onfarm assessment in 2010, 84.5% were fully compliant with refuge requirements. Of the 30.9% non-compliant growers, 15.5% had significant deviations. On-farm assessments were randomly conducted across a range of farm sizes with approxi mately 33% of growers categorized as “small growers” with less than 250 acres of corn. As with previous years, the data suggest that farm size should not be a selection criterion when tryi ng to identify non-compliant growers. Growers significantly out of compliance in 2010 will be reassessed during the 2011 growing season.

- 14 -Table 6.Cumulative Results for the On-Farm Coleopte ran-Protected Bt Corn Assessment (2006-2010 data)
Issue addressed 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Growers assessed 395 247 134 110 58 Refuge distance

deviations 13 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Refuge size deviations 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant

deviations 2 11 (2.8%) 16 (6.5%) 12 (9.0) 29 (26.4%) 7 (13.0%) Insignificant

deviations 10 (4.0%) 8 (3.2%) 7 (5.2%) 5 (4.5%) 3 (2.5%)

Compliant growers 374 (94.7%) 223 (90.3%) 115 (85.8%) 76 (69.1%) 51 (84.5%) Non-compliant

growers 21 (5.3%) 24 (9.7%) 19 (14.2%) 34 (30.9%) 9 (15.5%)

1 Some growers had compliance deviations othe r than refuge size or distance; thus, the total of refuge distan ce and size deviati ons does not equal the number of non-compliant growers.

2 Significant deviations are defined as: A Bt corn grower who planted less than 15% non- Bt corn refuge (except in certain cotton growing areas in which case it would be less than 40% non- Bt corn refuge); or planted fewer than 2/3 of the Bt corn fields are planted within 2 mile of a non- Bt corn refuge.

c. Registrant results for first time on-farm –growers planting stacked PIPs

2010 Data :

Of the 2272 growers planting corn borer protected Bt corn and having received a first-time onfarm assessment in 2010, 83.8% were fully compliant with refuge requirements. Of the 16.2% non-compliant growers, 8.8% had significant devi ations. On-farm assessments were randomly conducted across a range of farm sizes with approxi mately 33% of growers categorized as “small growers” with less than 250 acres of corn. As with previous years, the data suggest that farm size should not be a selection criterion when trying to identify non-compliant growers. Farmers that were significantly out of compliance in 2010 w ill be reassessed during the 2011 growing season.

- 15 -Table 7. Cumulative Results of the First Time On-Far m Stacked Bt Corn Assessment1 (Data for 2006-2010)
Issue addressed 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Growers assessed 600 1069 1799 1789 2272 Refuge distance

deviations 51 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Refuge size deviations 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant deviations 45 3
(7.5%) 77 (7.2%) 86 4 193 (10.8%) 200 (8.8%) Insignificant

deviations 16 33 (3.1%) 36 4 106 (5.9%) 168 (7.4%) Compliant growers 539 (89.8%) 959 (89.7%) 1546 (85.9%) 1490 (83.3%) 1904 (83.8%) Non-compliant

growers 61 (10.2%) 110 (10.3%) 253 (14.1%) 299 (16.7%) 368 (16.2%)

1 Table adapted from page 12 of MRID 470444-01

2 Some growers had compliance deviations othe r than refuge size or distance; thus, the total of refuge distan ce and size deviati ons does not equal the number of non-compliant growers.

3 Significant deviations are defined as: A Bt corn grower who planted less than 15% non- Bt corn refuge (except in certain cotton growing areas in which case it would be less than 40% non- Bt corn refuge); or planted fewer than 2/3 of the Bt corn fields are planted within 2 mile of a non- Bt corn refuge.
4 T he numbers of deviations to not add up to the 253 non-compliant cases reported.

5

. On-farm Reassessment Program

In 2009, a total of 510 growers were found to be out of compliance of which 339 cases fell into the ‘significant violations’ category. All complian ce violations were resp onded to in accordance with the Phased Compliance Approach, includ ing a reassessment of growers in 2010 with significant violations. Of those growers who were reassessed in 2010, a small number did not farm or plant Bt any longer, and one grow er was revoked access to the technology based on continued significant non-compliance.

Table 8. 2010 Reassessment data of growers significantly out of compliance in 2009 Product Type 2009 Noncompliance cases 2009 significant noncompliance cases Number of revoked
licenses in 2010
ECB corn PIPs 177 117 1 a

CRW corn PIPs 34 29 0
Stacked corn PIPs 299 193 1 a

TOTAL 510 339 2
Extracted from ABSTC 2010 CAP report

a One grower was found to be signific antly out of compliance two years in a row for two unique product types

- 16 -BPPD REVIEW OF ON-FARM ASSESSMENT RESULTS (2009)

ABSTC states that “the on farm assessment program is not a stat istical tool for measuring the level of adherence to the IRM requirements”, and that rather, “this program helps identify obstacles that hinder grower implementation of IRM requirements”. BPPD notes that a comparison between year-to-year on-farm survey results then should be made with caution because, among other things, the growers were not randomly selected from companies’ customer lists. BPPD is aware that companies do not share their clientele list with each other and that names and locations of non-compliant growers are confidential and anonymous. Yet, BPPD proposes that ABSTC compile and maintain, thro ugh a neutral third party, maps showing the distribution of on-farm non-complia nce pooled across registrants so th at it is clear to EPA where these non-compliant regions are lo cated. It may then be possible for ABSTC to focus compliance efforts in these regions with increased educati onal outreach or other ap propriate new measures.

For growers having planted ECB protected PIPs, adherence to refuge requirements was high (86.6%), and significant violati ons were lower (8.4%) than re ported for the 2009 season (10.8%).

For growers planting CRW protected PIPs, adherence to refuge requirements was higher (84.5%) than for the 2009 growing season (69.1%), and significant violations were 50% lower than reported for 2009. The sample size for first time on- farm assessments keeps decreasing each year (see Table 6 ). At some point, the results will not be very informative any longer for grower’s planting CRW protected PIPs if the sample si ze continues to shrink. BPPD recommends that individual companies increas e their sample size of CRW on-farm assessments for 2011.

For growers planting stacked PIPs, adherence to refuge requirements was similar (83.8%) to what was reported for the 2009 growing season (83.3 %). Significant violations were lower in 2010 (8.8%) compared to 2009 (10.8%).

ABSTC stated that one grower had his license revoked in 2010; however, their data ( Table 8 ) showed that two growers had some significant violations with compliance requirements (one grower for ECB PIPs and another for stacked prod ucts - unless the same grower planted both a single and stacked product and committed a viola tion for both types of PIPs in 2010) and were denied access to the technology for 2011.

6. TIPS AND COMPLAINTS

2010 Data: In 2010, the registrants received two ‘tips and comp laints’. Legitimate tips and complaints were managed in accordance with the CAP requireme nts. Growers out of compliance who were identified as a result of a legitimate tip or comp laint received an on-farm IRM visit, and growers found to be out of compliance during this visit were responded to in a manner consistent with the Phased Compliance Approach.

- 17 -Table 9. Anonymous Tips a nd Complaints about Non-Comp liance with IRM requirements

Year Number of Tips and Complaints

2010 2
2009 4
2008 5
2007 14
2006 3
2005 5
2004 0
2003 0

7. SUMMARY OF ABSTC’S MAIN CONCLUSIONS

The compliance assurance programs continue to be effective. In 2010, the majority of growers surveyed planted the required size of refuge with in the required distance for all their Bt corn fields on their farms. Furthermore, the survey in dicates that the majority of Bt fields have a refuge associated with them (82% to 94%). Th ese findings are broadly si milar to those found in surveys conducted over th e last three years.

ABSTC stated that compliance was similar be tween growers of eastern and western corn growing regions, but that southern corn grower s showed lower levels of adherence. They attributed some of this non-complia nce in cotton growing regions to the fact that a larger refuge size was required (50%) and that grower awaren ess of IRM requirements was lower than in the north. ABSTC reported that approximately 10% of the total US corn was grown in the south in 2009, and that, therefore, the effect on overall selection for resist ance was likely small.

8. BPPD REVIEW OF OVERALL CAP

ABSTC concluded that the major ity of growers who planted singl e trait ECB PIP products were compliant with the refuge requirements in 2010 wh en national average results from the on-line survey were considered (76% for refuge si ze; 87% for refuge dist ance) . Compliance among growers planting CRW protected PIPs was low and unchanged from the reported 2009 results. Compliance percentages for stack ed PIP products have now reached an all time low (69% for refuge size; 63% for refuge distance), yet based on the standard error provided, these differences were not statistically signifi cant from the 2009 results. Nonethel ess, BPPD is concerned about these compliance numbers, especially considering that surveyed growers could not demonstrated IRM knowledge in the online survey. On an unaided basis, only 33% of the growers could recall the correct refuge size and only 22% recalled the correct refuge distance for the ECB and CRW portion of the stacked PIPs. It appears that ABSTC is not achieving its educational goals among growers planting stacked PIP products. It is recommended that ABSTC meet with BPPD to discuss future approaches in increasing IR M knowledge and compliance among growers planting
stacked PIPs.

- 18 -were evaluated on a regional basis, it was eviden t (as in 2009) that southern corn growers (in cotton growing regions) were up to 2.2 more likel y to get out of complia nce than their northern counterparts. Possible explanations for lower le vels of compliance in the south could include confusion with different require ments between various PIP products or simply blatant disregard of refuge requirements by growers who plant both Bt corn and Bt cotton. ABSTC stated in their 2009 CAP report that these regiona l results provided them with the opportunity to intensify
future educational efforts in the southern corn growing regions. BPPD notes that if higher noncompliance among southern corn growers reflects a willingness to violate refuge requirements rather than a lack of knowledge, then increased educational efforts may not be fruitful. Other methods may be needed to bring thes e growers back into compliance.

Furthermore, BPPD disagrees with ABSTC’s statement that the risk of resistance evolution may be lower in the south despite the greater non-compliance because only 10% of the corn production occurs in that region (cited from 2009 USDA data). Although higher Bt adoption in conjunction with non-compliance coul d be a strong driver for resi stance evolution, it cannot be
discounted that consistent loca l non-compliance with refuge requirements in the south increases
the risk of resistance evolution in such areas despite lower Bt corn adoption. Of greater importance for local non-compliance (resistance w ill likely be a local phenomenon initially) is the amount of refuge available at that scale, and the amount of immigration of refuge insects from other corn growing areas. Additional data or information would be needed to evaluate ABSTC’s claim of low potential risk of resistan ce evolution in the s outh (with less compliance and adoption of Bt corn).

In contrast to the online survey program, ABSTC states that “t he on farm assessment program is not a statistical tool for measuring the level of adherence to the IRM requirements”, and that rather, “this program helps identify obstacles that hinder grower implementation of IRM requirements”. BPPD notes that a comparison betw een year-to-year on-far m survey results then should be made with caution because, among ot her things, the grower s were not randomly selected from companies’ customer lists. BPPD is aware that companies do not share their
clientele list with each other and that names and locations of non-compliant growers are kept confidential and anonymous. Yet, BPPD recomm ends that ABSTC compile and maintain, through a neutral third party, maps showing the distribution of on-farm non-compliance pooled across registrants so that it is clear to the EPA where regions of high non-compliance are located. It may then be possible for ABSTC to focus comp liance efforts in these regions with increased educational outreach by the registrants or other appropriate new measures.

BPPD recommends that individual companies in crease the sample size for CRW first-time assessment. It appears that a sample size of 50- 60 farmers is likely insufficient to acquire a good understanding of confirmed on-farm co mpliance with IRM requirements.

- 19 -- 20 - REFERENCES

Bookout J, D Guyer, MSmith, and N Storer . 2011. 2010 insect resistance management compliance assurance program report for corn borer-protected Bt corn, corn rootworm-protected
Bt corn, and corn borer/corn root worm-protected stacked Bt corn.