Advisory Council Meeting Manchester, New Hampshire March 17, 2005 MINUTES

ATTENDING:

John Ayers, co-Director, Northeastern IPM Center, The Pennsylvania State University, PA
Candace Bartholomew, ProNewEngland-Connecticut, Pesticide Education Program, CT
Phil Benedict, Vermont Department of Agriculture
Rich Bonanno, Foundation for IPM Education, Bonanno Farmland Trust, MA
Lynn Braband, Community IPM Working Group, New York State IPM Program, NY
Mark Brown, Agricultural Research Service, Appalachin Research Station, WV
John Butler, EPA Region 3, PA
John Clendaniel, Delaware State University, DE
Aubrey Davis, National Agricultural Statistics Service-New England, NH
James Dill, IPM Coordinator, University of Maine, ME
Michael Fitzner, USDA-CSREES, DC
David Haight, American Farmland Trust, NY
George Hamilton, IPM Coordinator & State Network Project leader, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, NJ
David Handley, Fruit IPM Working Group leader, ME
Zane Helsel, Director, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, NJ
Lebelle Hicks, Pesticide Toxicologist, Maine Department of Agriculture, ME
Mike Hoffmann, Dir., NYS IPM Program, Assoc. Dir Ag & Food Systems, Cornell Cooperative Ext, NY
Carol Holko, Maryland Department of Agriculture, MD
Steven Hopkins, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA Headquarters
Glen Koehler, ProNewEngland Project Leader, ME
Rob Koethe, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA Region I, MA
Mary Kay Malinoski, Home & Garden Info. Center, University of Maryland, MD
Carrie Koplinka-Loehr, Co-Director, Northeastern IPM Center, Cornell University, NY
Edith Lurvey, IR-4 Program, NY
Fred Magdoff, Northeast Sustainable Ag Research and Education Program, VT
Glenn Morin, New England Fruit Consultants (NEFCON), MA
Luke McConnell, Agricultural Consultant, McConnell Agronomics, MD
Audrey Moore, Pesticide Program Coord., EPA Region II, NJ
Elizabeth Myers, Writer/Editor, Northeastern IPM Center, Cornell Univ., NY
Sandy Sardanelli, IPM Coordinator at the University of Maryland, MD
Andrea Sylvian, EPA Region I, MA
Elizabeth Thomas, Project Coordinator, Northeastern IPM Center, Cornell Univ., NY
Joellen Zeh, Audubon International, NY

MEMBER UPDATES

Members gave brief updates from their programs or organizations.

NATIONAL REPORT—Mike Fitzner

Budget

• A number of budget lines were cut from the President’s proposed 2006 budget including the “406” funding lines where the IPM Centers are funded. However when looking at the bottom line of the CSREES budget, the total budget is up 3% although specific line funding has changed. Three major objectives are accomplished with this new budget arrangement:

  1. NRI is the flagship program within CSREES, and its budget increases by ~30%.
  2. Part of the NRI money, redirects base formula funding to competitive. This is the most troublesome for the land grant partnership because Hatch formula funds are the core of the funding for state Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES). A 50% reduction is proposed this year in the Hatch funds and they are proposed to be cut to zero by 2007. This $75 million is not lost, but will be moved to a competitive line.
  3. The new budget configuration consolidates funding lines, which are considered too complicated. There are numerous smaller funding lines, making it difficult for supporters to know which lines to support. IPM Center money, part of the 406 program, is part of the consolidation along with grants programs, specifically CAR, RAMP, Methyl Bromide transition, water quality, and others that are likely to migrate to NRI. It is probably that the Centers money will migrate to NRI too although it may go into the new competitive program of $75 million that will fund State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The president’s proposed switch from Hatch formula funds to competitive looks less likely now, but if that new pool does exist, the Centers may be better positioned within that SAES program. No matter whether Centers are moved to NRI or SAES, the money that currently funds Centers will remain intact in its new budget home.

• A significant change to Center funding could come if the cap on indirect cost recovery is removed. A negotiated rate of 19% is what is currently used, but without the cap, some universities can charge over 50% of the grant money to indirect costs. This would destroy programs like the New England state network project which would be docked 50% on the money coming to Maine, and then another 50% on the remaining funds going to each participating state in their network. The amounts of money now used to run these projects would need to be increased dramatically in order for the remaining funds to be worthwhile. This proposal discourages multistate cooperation. Bill Coli points out that there is room for negotiation within specific universities to reduce the indirect costs charged by universities.

  This change in indirect funding would also reduce the $75 million dedicated in the president’s budget to SAES. University administration has been pushing to remove these caps since they would be the beneficiaries of the cap removal. Promotions within universities are sometimes linked to the amount of indirect money obtained by Project Directors. And in some universities, if the indirect funds are not included in a grant, the college is mandated to supply an amount equivalent to the indirects, essentially making the acceptance of the grant into a funding drain on other college programs.

• In 2006, the Smith Lever 3d funds have been increased to make up for the 10% cut in 2005.
  
• For those who raised concerns about Centers not being funded at all, it is unclear whether CSREES will be able to honor the existing 4-year commitment with Centers if the program is cut.
  
• Zane Helsel expressed his concern about the Hatch Formula Funds being cut in the President’s budget since the Hatch Funds are for applied research rather than the predominance of basic research supported through NRI (~90% of NRI is basic research, only ~10% is applied). He is concerned that NRI would not respect the applied research supported through SAES and Centers and that the money might go into biotech or high-tech research instead, putting Center funding in jeopardy. He is now working on influencing the congressional budget and asks the AC to be prepared to be involved in the legislative educational process, but to wait for now to see if other avenues are successful in protecting this formula funding.

  Zane emphasizes the importance of reporting impacts especially in extension programs. The Office of Management and Budget is concerned with the lack of impacts shown by extension projects funded by formula funding. They want to see lives saved, increased profitability, decreased environmental impact, etc.

  Larger states would certainly compete more strongly if Hatch Funds for SAES go to a competitive funding route. The small states, with little base funding have so few staff at this point, that a further reduction would gut the program entirely.

• Other comments about the funding crisis include suggestions to more heavily spotlight the work of Centers and to promote them as an efficient use of tax dollars. In DC, ideas go stale quickly. We need to change the packaging of the Center functions.
  
• Amy Rhodes has created a 2-page summary of the IPM Centers across regions to help educate legislators about IPM Center work. (AC members received this electronically in May.)

  
  PMAP
  
  A proposal to move the management of the PMAP grants program to the Centers was not successful due to resistance within the administration since they did not want to split the money evenly between the 4 regions, but instead wanted the best proposals across the region to be funded even if it means unequal amounts of funding per region. Instead the regions were asked to gather priorities for their region to be incorporated into the RFA. Regional representatives will also sit on the relevancy panel and John is looking for help from AC members for this. Scores from the relevancy panels will carry 40% of the weight for deciding whether the proposal should be funded.

STATE NETWORK PROJECTS - Updates

New England – Jim Dill , Glen Koehler

• New England is working on a marketing plan through a grant with the EPA.
• The final draft of a calibration guide for Maine is complete.
• A major concern for the ProNewEngland project is the potential loss of caps on indirect expenses. If this goes through, there will be no more ProNewEngland unless the net amount of funding to the project remains the same.
• In Maine, funding for IPM programs is scarce, but money for homeowner IPM could potentially have a significant increase due to the imminent passing of a statewide bill to fund pesticide education in state of Maine through scratch-off lottery tickets.
• Glenn Koehler heads the ProNewEngland network and is working to create a sense of community across state lines through their cooperative State Network Project (SNP). Since some of the states in this SNP are so small, there is not a critical mass of personnel to handle all the work required of an SNP. Grouping these states is an efficient way to provide quality service at a reduced price. The ProNewEngland SNP is working on surveys (about the steps to take in pest management decision-making), crop profiles, and PMSPs. Glen wrote a paper that can be used to publicize the need and usefulness of crop profiles, PMSPs and surveys.
• Glen hosted a conference in December 2004 with members of the ProNewEngland Advisory Council and regulatory agencies like the EPA, Departments of Environmental Protection, Departments of Agriculture and others to improve the dialog between regulators and practitioners.

  Glen feels that increased dialog with the IPM Center will improve the general communications both within states, across state lines and on to the federal levels. He feels that the IPM Coordinators should be on the same track as SNPs not on parallel tracks and encourages a high level of communication between these groups.

  In the future, Glen feels that a regional approach to pest forecasting would logically fit into the established network of people developed through the SNPs, IPM Coordinators, and IPM Center.

Connecticut- Candace Bartholomew

Candace Bartholomew is the SNP leader for the Connecticut part of ProNewEngland. She commends Glen for the work he has done in improving communications across state lines and among stakeholders. She feels this model is very successful for her small state.

Maryland – Sandy Sardanelli, and Carol Holko

In Maryland, the SNP includes Amy Brown from the pesticide safety and education program, Sandy Sardanelli, the MD IPM Coordinator, and Carol Holko, who wears many hats at Maryland’s state lead agency. They all feel they are contributing to the same effort by co-directing this program. The Home and Garden Information Center, lead by Mary Kay Malinoski, gives them a strong link to stakeholders in the state (750,000 visits this year alone). Luke McConnell provides the link to many growers and grower concerns within the state. This state has a small amount of base funding, but competes well, due to these successful partnerships.

A goal from a bill recently signed by the Maryland state legislature is to promote the wine industry. The “clean vine” program is one of the offshoots of this bill, aimed at providing IPM certification, blending the expertise of the land grant university with the state lead agency interests. CAPs funding to Carol’s agency has been reduced by 15% and collaborative work, such as this SNP, is helping to make up the difference. Links to the MD plant diagnostic lab also contributes to the efficiency factor within the state.

Carol has seen teamwork between agencies in new areas such as responses to Emerald Ash Borer, Soybean Rust and Sudden Oak death. A section 18 for Soybean rust went through in record time.

Sandy feels it benefits her IPM program to have additional links to stakeholders. Her reports are being sent to the General Accounting Office to spotlight the outcomes of cooperative efforts and in return she feels she can affect change at the regulatory levels.

New Jersey – Pat Hastings and George Hamilton

George feels that the IPM Center provides coordination of efforts across the region. He feels that we should continue to expand this function. Through the IPM Centers, he feels that new funding has become available and would like the IPM Center to work more at coordinating people across state lines to encourage more successful multistate efforts. Helping to identify additional funding opportunities is a critical function of the IPM Center.

Pat feels that the diversity of stakeholders is an asset of the IPM Centers and SNPs; including not only traditional agricultural settings, but includes school IPM representatives, EPA and others. She feels that communication is improving with each year that passes and that the communication is now two-way. EPA uses New Jersey as an avenue of communication through their website and listservs. NJ has 9 listservs with over 700 people enrolled in specific topics in their area of interest. In 2001, their website had 4,000 visits. To date this year, there have been over 90,000 visits. Downloads of crop profiles from their site hit 15,000 this year and Pat plans to track which crop profiles are most accessed to see what the patterns of use are for those documents.

The Advisory Committee to the NJ SNP directs their work, including making decisions on which crop profiles and PMSPs they should tackle each year.

Pennsylvania – Kerry Richards (not present)

This SNP, named the Pest Management Information Center, is involved with soybean rust prediction models.

NEREAP—George Hamilton

NEREAP is a committee of IPM Coordinators and representatives from land grant research and extension programs, regulatory agencies, experiment station directors, and extension directors who meet annually. In the past, they had major influence on how the regional IPM funds (approximately $600,000) would be directed, but this function is now with the IPM Center. Since then NEREAP has struggled to determine their relationship to the IPM Center and vice versa. At the last meeting, NEREAP formed a committee to work on this question with the following results:

In general, IPM Centers should

• Keep NEREAP updated on IPM Center activities and events relating to IPM.
• Improve relations with the National Plant Diagnostic Network.
• Work on providing tangible impacts of IPM work in the region.

In relation to IPM Working Groups:

• Ensure that states are adequately represented.
• Include IPM Coordinators in IPM Working Group activities
• Encourage a working group focused on invasive species.
• Encourage a working group focused on NRCS’s EQIP and CSP programs and NEREAP will take the lead on writing a proposal to fund this group’s work (led by Ed Rajotte).

With the NRCS IPM working group, NEREAP hopes to develop IPM definitions for crops and IPM settings on a regional basis. Joe Bagdon, who works for NRCS at the national level, is also encouraging IPM Centers and their affiliates to develop IPM definitions that can be used by NRCS programs. Growers can then apply to the EQIP and CSP programs which will reimburse them for costs associated with complying with the IPM definitions (e.g., scouting). Growers can be in the EQIP program for 3 years and in the CSP for 10 years or more. Some states in the Western and North Central regions are already cooperating through help with the IPM Centers with state NRCS programs on IPM definitions.

There are other ways besides developing definitions which could help make closer links between those with interests in IPM and the NRCS. Phil Benedict, David Haight and others suggest that a good way to influence NRCS work is to serve on each state’s technical committee. The vegetable IPM working group has proposed working with NRCS this year. Education and advocacy at the national level can help to encourage or even mandate state NRCS programs to work with state IPM programs.

Some AC members are concerned about NRCS implementing IPM standards without consulting with IPM experts. They should remain closely tied to the existing IPM programs. Glenn Morin mentioned the inadequate levels of reimbursement provided through the NRCS programs for consulting services (in MA) and that the money goes directly to growers who can then forward the funds to their consultants at whatever level they choose. Currently the requirements to comply with NRCS programs are weak in some states, and contain little review of what constitutes IPM practices. Those who are rigorously following an IPM regimen are being paid the same as those who barely use any IPM practices; therefore, it is suggested that the criteria defining IPM and the review of the implementation of these practices needs to be firmed up. In Massachusetts, IPM experts supplied NRCS with detailed IPM definitions, resulting in an increased demand for consulting services.

IPM WORKING GROUPS

General – Liz Thomas

After suggestions from AC members generated at the last AC meeting in October 2004, the IPM Center staff reorganized the funding and expectations of the IPM working groups. The original IWGs centered around a preset group of crops or other IPM settings (ie the vegetable IWG covered ALL vegetables). The new system allows IWGs to form around any set of crops or IPM settings that is logical and manageable (ie solanaceous vegetables). Or, an IWG can form around a subject or issue such as “cooperation with NRCS programs” or “communication of measurable IPM impacts throughout the region” or “organize a regional conference.” This new structure allows more creativity and flexibility in the target of the IWG work.

In November 2004, the IWG funding became part of the competitive Partnership Grants program, but this did not leave adequate time for new (or old) IWGs to coalesce, therefore, only a few IWG proposals were submitted for 2005. IPM Center staff will market this opportunity more widely for the 2006 funding cycle.

Fruit – David Handley

David Handley and Peter Shearer led the fruit IWG for the past three years and he feels that the old model for IWGs was not successful. The group included too many crops to be addressed by such a small number of IWG members who each had varying degrees of familiarity with the specific crops. With this type of group, it was very difficult to come up with a prioritized IPM needs list for the general category of fruit. He feels like the two-tiered system of first setting priorities, and then applying for money to address those priorities, does not work well since it is not time efficient and is heavy on the administrative side. The fruit IWG did not submit a proposal to extend the work of the group in this year’s partnership grants program.

Community IPM Working Group – Lynn Braband and Mary Kay Malinoski

This group covers a huge number of IPM settings, including turf, landscape, residential, structural, school, and others, all by a core group of 8 to10 people. The group does not have representatives from each state, but not for lack of trying. It is hard to attract pest control providers to join the group since there are high demands on their time. The Community and Urban IPM Conference was directed by many members of the community IWG and provided an avenue to bring together all the diverse people who make up this grouping. They feel that the visibility of the IPM Center was increased as a result of the conference and Mary Kay is ready to write a grant to have another similar conference in the southern part of our region in the future.

This IWG has developed a set of IPM priorities and has already updated that list once to keep current with evolving issues.

They feel that the IPM Center provides a focal point and a brand name for IPM in the region. It also provides a way for people in the region to work together outside of research or extension grant work.

What could the IPM Center do better? Publicize the work of the IWGs through posting their progress to the web and sending out articles promoting their work. Mary Kay likes the idea of Listservs dedicated to particular subjects and offers her assistance in setting these up.

Lynn summarized their recent meeting on March 15. The community IWG has decided to submit a symposium to the National IPM Symposium set for April 2007. They also plan to have another meeting later this year to focus more specifically on priorities.

Vegetable IWG – Liz Thomas for Ruth Hazzard

In 2004 the vegetable IWG was highly active. They wrote a proposal that funded a person to gather information for the contacts database of experts that will soon be available to key people in the region. They also applied for and were granted money to pay for an IPM expert to collect nearly 500 vegetable IPM resources in the IPM Center resource database. They then submitted a successful proposal to write a regional PMSP on sweet corn. The panel met in December 2004 to create this document. The group separated their IPM needs into 2 lists; one for specific vegetable pests and another more holistic list suggesting items that would help vegetable IPM in general throughout the region. As an offshoot of this, Shelby Fleisher, an IWG member, submitted a proposal to work on regional pest modeling which the group rated high on their list of priorities. Kudos from Luke (and the IPM Center staff) to Ruth Hazzard and Iliana Rivas who led this group in its efforts in 2004.

COMMUNITY AND URBAN IPM CONFERENCE – Liz Thomas

The first Northeast Regional Community and Urban Integrated Pest Management Conference, sponsored by the Northeastern IPM Center, drew nearly 200 researchers, educators, regulators, and pest managers to Manchester, NH, on March 15-16, 2005 to interact and hear about each other’s work. The event focused on low-risk, environmentally sound methods for controlling pests in homes, schools, landscapes, and other community settings. Participants tackled complex topics such as invasive species, wildlife control, public health, IPM in residential and urban settings, and discussed issues at the agriculture-urban interface.
Leaders of a number of sessions facilitated the development of lists of IPM needs in their particular area and a significant outcome was a conference-wide vote on priorities for regional action based on topics submitted by attendees. Top priorities were
(1) developing IPM outreach to homeowners and retailers of pest management products,
(2) establishing criteria for measuring success in IPM implementation, and
(3) quantifying the costs and benefits of IPM adoption in schools and municipal settings.
Most important, the event offered a much-needed context for the exchange of ideas among varied groups with intersecting interests. The conference has sparked a lively, continuing debate on the role of IPM in the future of the structural pest control industry, and the session on residential IPM education was so well-received that northeastern community IPM leaders will take it on the road to the National IPM Symposium next spring.

The IPM Center and AC are encouraged to look carefully at organizing another conference of this scale due to the heavy amount of staff time involved. In the IPM Center’s proposal to CSREES, the IPM Center included sponsorship of two conferences, one in 2005 and the other in 2007. The 2007 conference can take a number of forms that might not be as time-consuming for Center staff, such as organizing an IPM component of an existing conference (e.g., one of the national organizations in weeds, plant pathology, or entomology). Or, this work can be included in the Partnership Grants program and another organization or individual can take the lead. Another possibility is to have Center staff join trade shows and exhibitions at other conferences to raise visibility and awareness through having a booth. Speakers from the turf session have welcomed this idea.

SARE

John Ayers put a motion out for the AC to vote on SARE’s invitation for him to serve on their advisory council. The motion was accepted.

WEBSITE UPDATE – Liz Thomas

The IPM Center’s new website is up and steadily gaining visitors. The intent is for the site to be perused according to audience. The IPM resource database is for use by IPM users”; information intended for use by those regulating pesticides are collected in the “regulatory issues” page; news and information useful to research and extension professionals are grouped under “news.”

The newest segment of the site includes a database of experts with all their contact information. This part of the site will not be for public use, but access will be given primarily to IPM Coordinators, IPM working group leaders, and SNP leaders.

Pages most often visited include:
§ On Target news where the hits are increasing despite the lack of attention given it lately.
§ Community and urban IPM conference
§ Funding
§ IPM resource database
§ Crop profiles and PMSPs
§ Job opportunities
§ IWG pages
§ State IPM program links.
The new design is popular enough with other regional IPM Centers that they will soon be changing to the Northeastern IPM Center website format.

PRINTED PUBLICATIONS

Liz Myers reminds the AC that there are many good suggestions for printed publications evolving from the AC, but not enough time to address them all. She would like feedback from the AC about the importance of the continuation of the quarterly newsletters, a one-page informational brochure about the IPM Center as a promotional piece, or a concentration on success stories. She would like to turn her attention more to success stories for a period of time.

FUTURE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS

AC members had many suggestions for new AC members. Comments included:

§ Have the steering committee look at the makeup of the AC according to the guidelines, keeping in mind that a cap of membership should remain near the current 36. (Done in April 2005)
§ Include at least some growers or practitioners, particularly those involved with community IPM.
§ It’s possible to decrease the EPA representatives and also the 1890 school reps.

ACTION STEPS CREATED FROM PRIORITIES

AC members spent several hours in the afternoon in a group exercise called “brain writing” where they wrote on individual cards, each of which was a priority identified at last fall’s AC meeting. For each priority, they commented on whether the priority should be incorporated into the rfa (and if so, how), and also which specific steps should be taken on the priority. After members had commented on each of the cards and read the comments of others, they broke into three discussion groups: communications, partnerships, and SNPs/IWGs. These groups discussed the cards that were relevant to their topic and then presented summaries of proposed action steps to the larger group. See appendix.

IPM GUIDELINES

An AC suggestion asks the IPM Center to provide a place on their web site for all the existing IPM standards/guidelines, but to first work with the IPM Institute, which may have this work in progress.

MID-TERM REVIEW OF IPM CENTERS

It is mandated that all four IPM Centers conduct a mid-term review of their work, and this process has begun, with the review scheduled for February 2006. The Northeast IPM Center had hired Marc Teffeau to do a strategic plan, but he retired and this still is not done. The mid-term review will provide us with some of the same input as a strategic plan, so we are interested in the results. One IPM Center director from each region serves on a small committee with Mike Fitzner to plan how the review will proceed. John expects that one AC member from each region will serve on the panel of 6 to 10 people doing the review.

NEXT MEETING

After a short discussion the AC decided to meet again in late September 2005.

ACRONYMS

link to acronyms