Update from

National Pest Management Center Meeting

Washington D.C.

May 29-30, 2002

Attendees during the two days:

Rick Melnicoe called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

Dennis Kopp suggested that Agriculture and Natural Resources Directors should be informed about Pest Management Centers. He passed out a Kansas Extension bulletin reprint entitled, "The Extension Worker's Code." This gem was written in 1922. The practical guidance holds true to this day.

Dennis discussed the IPM Symposium funding situation and provided a handout showing the dollar contribution of each Center for support of the symposium. A formula was used to prorate the $ from each region.

Dennis discussed the possible changes in the USDA PMAP and RIPM grant programs in FY2004.

Limited discussion took place on the next round of PMCs. Many aspects of the current structure are deemed good and will be retained in the next RFP. The total amount of funds will likely be divided equally among the successful four centers. Grants may be for 4 years with a one-year extension. Close ties will be expected with the IPM programs.

Leadership of PMC program will change from Dennis Kopp in FY2003 to Michael Fitzner. Mike is currently the national program leader for IPM and will retain this leadership in FY2003.

Al Jennings reported that Therese Murtagh is on a 4-month temporary appointment looking at helping with the microbial contamination (human pathogens) sampling program in food with Agricultural Marketing Service. This may prove to be unpopular with some growers' organizations, as microbes are likely to be found.

Al reported that the Farm Bill passed and the Economic Research Service has a good web site with a summary. The site is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/FarmBill/Analysis/. IFAFS program is in the bill but as an unfunded mandate; however, the funds are coming through another line item and less subject to politics. Invasive species is in, but may be under "bio-security" area.

Cumulative risk assessment for OPs is due in June from EPA as a revised draft. The number of tolerances that will be in trouble is unknown. August 5 is the next key deadline. Two thirds of all tolerances must be reassessed.

Atrazine ecological risks are being scrutinized. Fungicides are moving, as are herbicides, through EPA.

The endangered species issue is back again. A number of lawsuits have been filed against EPA claiming that they have not followed the Endangered Species Act in handling pesticide impacts. Allegations that EPA has not consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species exposure are a part of these lawsuits.

Ron Stinner reported that there are over 500 crop profiles on the web without any backlog for posting. The decision was made to route the reports through the centers, after discussions on crop profiles format and protocol of evaluation. Center Directors would then route them to Wilfred, who will forward them to Ron Stinner.

NASS production information with maps, etc. is up at: www.pestmanagement.info/nass. There will soon be a link at www.ipmcenters.org. The list of directories of expert contacts is being developed. Project reporting information is also up on web.

Norman Bennett gave a NASS update. The Nursery and Floriculture chemical use survey for 6 major states (CA, NY, OR, MI, TX, FL) was released on April 17, 2002. This survey also has data on IPM practices.

The Field Crop report was released on May 15. It is reduced from earlier years. NASS could not do NC or CA cotton and ND and OR fall potatoes due to sample sizes. Plans for 2003 include corn, soybean, wheat (winter, spring and durum).

Each region presented a report:

The North Central region provided a handout and a list of recommendation for priorities for the Center.

The Southern region held it's advisory committee meeting in Orlando in May. A proposal for an IPM facilitator will be submitted in a few days to CSREES.

The Northeastern region reported that all contracts are close to being finished. John Ayers discussed budget problems, subcontract awards and extensions, etc. The NE progress report is online at http://nepmc.org/reports/april02/. "In the Center" newsletter was handed out. Commodity groups are moving along, with some better than others. The Vegetable group wants to sponsor a PMSP. The Greenhouse/Ornamental group (GO-IPM) is looking at a survey of practices. The region has set aside $5,000 each for the groups to meet. A Mid-Atlantic PMSP for apples will be coordinated out of West Virginia.

The Western Region released their RFP for their third year of funding. Other details on Center functions were discussed. They have been getting EPA and OPMP requests for information and forwarding them to all project leaders in the Western Region for their comments. The regional Steering Committee will meet with the state project leaders at the annual meeting. The Steering Committee wants to hear how the WRPMC has changed the way the Project Leaders go about their jobs and what problems they are encountering.

A discussion took place regarding potential Center support from other agencies. Ron Stinner suggested that we court APHIS. The contact is Rick Dunkle. Al suggested he could talk with Dunkle first in Washington. APHIS can put money into Centers by running the money through CSREES and we can help fund APHIS projects. Adding someone from APHIS to the advisory committees was suggested. NCRS was mentioned as another linkage. Al suggested a meeting with NCRS in Washington.

An overview was presented of the measurement of IPM adoption and a discussion ensued about the main and various corollary issues. We need to know not only what we have accomplished with IPM but also be able to answer the "so what?" and the aggregate impact on the environment and to society. Many other needs for having measurement tools were discussed and one important point was "if we don't define the agenda someone else will."

The GAO said that if the Secretary of Agriculture states reducing risk is the real IPM goal, and then we should go about defining what risk we want to reduce. A committee formation was discussed to pursue developing a meeting of experts such as a Gordon conference to develop the state of the art for field tools to measure IPM.

Al Jennings said that critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are being developed. Peppers, tomatoes, strawberries, tree fruits, nursery products are commodities of note. Use will drop to 50% of 1991 baseline in 2003. Al does not think there will be a science-based rescue of methyl bromide. The ozone depletion factor may be reduced, but not enough to negate the terms of the Montreal Protocol.

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

May 30, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

The next meeting was scheduled for September 26-27, 2002 in Washington, D.C. at the Waterfront Building.

Kathy Davis, USEPA/BEAD and her supervisor, Steve Jones, discussed issues regarding the Timelines project and data supplied by USDA and the Pest Management Centers.

EPA is concerned about use rates of pesticides. The information they have does not give a range of what is actually used in the field. True rates are important to calculate potential residues and exposure estimates. Need distribution rates for worker exposure issues.

The Western Region is doing a pilot Crop Timeline for EPA. Rick discussed his experiences with the Ron Stinner example and a document from EPA that turned out to be more than was originally thought necessary. Rick is now in the final stages of completing one on Brussels sprouts.

EPA needs such information on several crops and wants to continue a relationship with USDA and the PMCs because they think that we will provide other important information in the future.

No bid is required if the cost to write a Timeline is less than $2,500. If the cost is greater than $2,500, the bid has to be publicized for 15 days before it is awarded. Timelines can be broken into several parts, if logical, such as one crop at different parts of the year with each funded at less than $2,500 per contract to avoid the posting. Bead would like a turn around time in the 60-90 days time period for the Timelines. The suggestion was made that when PMSPs are done that EPA provide the funds for the cost to do the specific Timelines that EPA requires.

There is interest in having some EPA employees spend some time in various regions to experience what is going on with agriculture in the field: with farmers, consultants, faculty, extension, etc. Centers may be able to coordinate these visits.

Harold Coble is working on a revised draft of the IPM Roadmap. The focus is to respond to the GAO report. A consensus is forming around the idea of "risk reduction" to farmer profitability, human health and environment. A series of meetings organized by the PMC in each region with stakeholders was proposed. We should focus on what the needs are likely to be in the future, and what the vision should be; the problems of today are not the topic of discussion. After much discussion, it was determined that a survey may serve the same purpose as a series of meetings - at a greatly reduced cost. Discussions with the IPM coordinators will take place and a survey developed.

Eldon Ortman and Susan Ratcliffe gave an update on the National IPM Meeting. Susan is the local arrangements chair, Mike Hoffman the program chair and Frank Zalom the overall chairman. It will be held in Indianapolis, IN April 8-10, 2003. The goal is to have a working session. They are searching for other resources to go along with the input of funding from IPM and the Centers.

State advisory committees, as well as regional advisory committees for PMCs were discussed. Rick said that his California Advisory Committee is more a function of promoting communication among the members that has evolved over time. The NC region mentioned some similar experiences. PMCs should promote the very broadest of interactions among stakeholder groups. The NC region mentioned the very effective contribution of the new IPM facilitator in gathering people together and promoting communication. The SR mentioned the need to target the Administrative advisors of the regional research projects so that the word is passed about the PMCs. There is a regional experiment station administrative chair that leads efforts and sets the agenda for the Directors that could be contacted.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.