Aerial pesticide spraying has created controversy in Maine dating back to the 1980s. Several recent events convinced the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (the Board) that changes to the current requirements for aerial spraying are necessary. The Board and two subcommittees have been discussing potential changes since early 2007. A summary of the Board’s progress to date is contained below. The Board still needs to address several other topics, including standards of practice, record keeping and best management practices.
The Board is seeking comments and input on its work to date. Please direct comments to Paul Schlein (paul.b.schlein@maine.gov).
Definition of Sensitive Area Likely to Be Occupied
Since the Board has focused its efforts relating to aerial spraying on protecting humans, a key component of the discussions to date has been the development of a regulatory concept that would center the attention of land managers and applicators on people who may be adjacent to application sites. Consequently, the Board has been working to develop a definition of Sensitive Area Likely to Be Occupied (SALO). Based on recent discussions, the Board would rework the current list of 11 sensitive areas defined in CMR 01-026, Chapter 10, Section BBB.
Those 11 sensitive areas would be redefined and subdivided into those likely to be occupied versus those that are likely to be unoccupied. Examples of what the Board considers SALOs include all buildings that are routinely occupied, such as residences, commercial and institutional buildings, together with the developed areas surrounding those buildings that are commonly used, such as lawns, gardens, livestock areas, athletic fields or other recreational areas. Additional areas the Board is considering designating as SALOs include roads, parks, cemeteries and picnic or rest areas. The Board has not yet determined how or whether notification might be required in such places, especially when there is no regular staff person present.
Sensitive areas that the Board does not currently view as likely to be occupied include public and private drinking water supplies, water bodies and wetlands. The Board is still discussing how to handle apiaries and agricultural lands that are not associated with occupied buildings.
Notification
Upgraded notification requirements would be required when aerial spraying is conducted within 1,000 feet of a SALO as follows:
- Agricultural land managers will need to send an annual letter to the legal owner or lessee of a SALO within 1,000 feet of a target area notifying them that pesticides may be applied by air and of their right to receive timely, advance notice, if requested.
- The owner or lessee of a SALO may request additional information such as labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) of products that may be used, and/or they may request timely advance notice of spraying.
- If requested, the agricultural land manager or his designee must call the legal owner or lessee of the SALO 24–48 hours (timeframe still needs refining) in advance of aerial spraying.
- If spraying is delayed, a follow-up call must be made before spraying, unless another system of updating affected parties is agreed upon.
- Public SALOs with no regular attendants and/or contact person, such as picnic or rest areas, may need to be exempt from this requirement, or pre-posting of the site may be an option.
Positive Identification of the Target Area
- The person contracting for an aerial pesticide application will need to provide information to ensure the aerial applicator sprays the correct sites as follows:
- A site map that is geo-referenced and then verified by the applicator using an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS), or
- A map with a detailed description of the location of the target area, coupled with the use of unique ground markings pre-positioned in the target area.
Site Planning Requirements
Similar to the changes in the notification requirements described above, upgrades to the site planning requirements would hinge upon the definition of SALOs, and be linked to the presence of SALOs within 1,000 feet of the target area. A new section would be created in Chapter 22 (drift rule) specific to aerial application. Among other things, the new section would:
- Require the person contracting for an aerial application to provide a detailed site map to the aerial applicator
- Map must be to scale, and depict
- Boundaries of the target area
- Property boundaries
- Type and location of SALOs located within 1,000 feet of the target area
- Type and location of sensitive areas, as defined under CMR 01-026, Chapter, Section BBB, located within 500 feet of the target area
- Roads
- Significant landmarks or hazards
Minimum Setback to SALOs
The Board would establish a minimum setback or buffer (200 feet was suggested to begin the discussion) requirement between SALOs and target areas that will be treated by aircraft. The minimum setback would not be intended to protect SALOs from off-target drift in most circumstances. The intent of the minimum setback is simply an acknowledgement that it is inappropriate to attempt to spray right next to occupied areas by air.
Standard of Harm
The Board proposes to adopt a Standard of Harm similar to a model suggested by the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO). A handful of other states have adopted similar regulatory structures. Under this approach, it becomes a violation when there is a complaint and spray residues are detected in a SALO, and there is evidence that spray drift caused harm to the occupants, animals or plants at that site. The Board would consider all the circumstances of a particular case before determining whether enforcement action is warranted. Such may include the standard of care exercised by the applicator, the relative risk(s) associated with the application and other similar pertinent factors.
The AAPCO model is as follows:
“Do not apply this product in a manner that allows spray to drift from the application target site and/or cause harm to humans, animals or other non-target sites (APPCO 2007).”
Best Management Practices
The Board also proposes to complement the minimum setback and the standard of harm with a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) specific to aerial spraying. BMPs are generally regarded as advisory in nature, but the Board would consider whether an applicator failed to implement BMPs in the event of an incident. Aerial BMPS would address such factors as weather—including inversions, wind speed and direction, etc., equipment and droplet formation, buffer zones, flight paths and specific measures intended to protect SALOs.
[updated July 1, 2008] |
