Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neonic Pesticide Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord pollinator committee to refine draft letter to DEP on neonicotinoids after consultations with Fish & Game and Xerces experts
Summary
Members discussed technical findings about neonicotinoid persistence and ecological effects, reviewed local pesticide-use data from a golf course, and agreed to circulate a revised draft letter from the Pollinator Advisory Committee to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
The Town of Concord Pollinator Advisory Committee said it is developing a formal communication to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) raising concerns about neonicotinoid insecticides and their effects on pollinators.
Committee members described recent exchanges with a biologist from the state division that advised the group and offered to help prepare the communication. The committee agreed the letter should be sent from the pollinator advisory committee rather than an individual member and discussed using the committee email address for responses.
Members summarized technical points that informed the draft: one committee member said neonicotinoids can persist in the environment for multiple years and cited a working figure that residues can remain for about seven years; the group discussed peer-reviewed work the member summarized that reported measurable foraging impairments in bumble bees at low parts-per-billion concentrations (the member said one study measured near 2 parts per billion and found marked reductions in foraging performance). Committee members also described calculations based on Concord Golf Club pesticide reports that led to a local exposure estimate; the committee said the estimate used product concentration information and the golf course’s reported application rates.
The group discussed next steps for grounding the letter in external expertise: members said they had shared the landscaping product list with Xerces (the Xerces Society) for product-level review, and that a contact at the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Fish & Game) had suggested wording and offered further help. Committee members asked one another to collect more product information from local landscape managers and to coordinate with regional partners such as Beyond Pesticides, the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord Wild and Scenic River (SUEASCO) group, and OARS (Ossipee/organization mention in discussion) before finalizing the draft.
Members asked Mark (committee member) to follow up on whether newer seed-coating technologies or different products are being used that reduce airborne dust and persistence. The committee agreed to compile the Xerces email thread and circulate it to members for comment; after internal revisions, members planned to send a revised draft to Fish & Game for technical review before forwarding the letter to DEP.
Committee members framed this work as an evidence-gathering and advocacy step rather than a regulatory change the committee itself can enact. No formal vote or binding action to send the letter was recorded during the meeting; members repeatedly said they would revise the draft and send it to technical partners before any external submission.
