Northeastern IPM Center - Advisory Council Meeting September 29-30, 2005 Lahaska, Pennsylvania

Attending:

John Ayers, Wilfred Burr, John Butler, Rakesh Chandran, Bill Coli, Jim Dill, Mervyn D’Souza, Mike Fitzner (by phone), George Hamilton, Zane Helsel, Mike Hoffmann, Carol Holko, David Holm, Steven Hopkins, George Hudler, Susan King, Rob Koethe, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr, Edith Lurvey, Mary Kay Malinoski, Dyremple Marsh, Luke McConnell, Audrey Moore, Kathy Murray, Liz Myers, Jay Norelli, Michele Roberts, Andrea Szylvian, Liz Thomas, Joellen Zeh.

See AC roster.

Bios of new AC members

Acronyms

• see the list

Grant Funding through the Northeastern IPM Center- John Ayers

• Regional IPM Grants FY 05 : the Northeast distributed approximately $604,000 to the region. Download funded projects.
• Partnership Grants FY 05:
  Approximately $417,000 was distributed. Download funded projects.
  In the next round of funding, there will be a separate panel reviewing SNP and IWG projects because these projects have different goals than standard research and extension grants. The panel will have people from within and outside the region who have experience working with SNPs and IWGs.
• Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP)– In fall 2004, the NE IPM Center gathered IPM priorities from its Advisory Council, State Network Project leaders, IPM Coordinators, and IPM Working Group Leaders. These were used by the relevancy panel to give preference to certain types of projects. See 2005 priorities and awards.
  The NE IPM Center's role in the PMAP funding process could change over time, but with the current system, the Northeast generally competes well for funds.

  John is still looking for AC members who will serve on the PMAP relevancy panel. Let him know if you are interested.
  He plans to solicit IPM priorities from the AC, IPM Coordinators, SNPs and IWGs again this year

• The AC is requested to give feedback on reporting guidelines (available on the web)
• These guidelines are designed to encourage Project Directors to write about the impacts of their projects. Guidelines are specific to each grant program and were written to be flexible. Providing some detail on the impact of a project can also assist other writers who work to highlight the benefits of IPM.

• National review of IPM Centers
  • A CSREES review of the IPM Centers will occur in February 2006. Mike is working with others to find a chair for this review. Advisory Councils of each region will play an important role in this review. A questionnaire is now in draft form and will be distributed to the ACs, IPM Coordinators, and other stakeholders who are affected by IPM Center work. The questionnaire should be out in November.
  • While it is too expensive to bring AC members to Washington, Mike would like to have their input through either written comments or conference calls. The comments will be anonymous and IPM Center staff will not be on conference calls. The idea of a conference call was well received by the NE IPM Center AC members.
  • If members of the AC have ideas, please submit them to Mike
• Performance Planning and Reporting System (PPRS)
  • PPRS is the reporting structure for state IPM programs. Recent changes in this system removed the required quantitative measures and added space for commentary.
  • Reports on extension efforts (including IPM programs) have been missing from the CSREES' Current Research Information System (CRIS). The new PPRS system moves closer to CRIS to help emphasize the positive results of extension programs, including IPM.
  • Information on the new system is due to be out in October 2005.

• National Information Infrastructure
  • APHIS is responsible for tracking pests before they enter the U.S. borders. Upon arrival, the job of tracking, monitoring, and management is no longer under APHIS but instead falls under IPM, the National Plant Diagnostic Network, and others.
  • This summer, the Risk Management Agency allotted several million dollars to work on building mapping and modeling systems that will track pests once they are established in our country. This system will be built to be flexible enough to use on an array of pest types. CSREES feels this is an important tool for IPM Programs and is appreciative of this funding to support this important work.
• National Berry Crop Initiative
  • Tom Bewick, from CSREES in Washington, is organizing a research and extension plan for berries (similar to a PMSP) and will have a meeting of berry stakeholders in Geneva, NY on October 25-26. If you want to give Tom input on this plan, please contact him.
    
• Personnel
  • Organic IPA (Intergovernmental Personnel Act)
    • Jim Kotcon currently holds the Organic IPA position, but will move back to West Virginia soon and CSREES is looking for someone to hold this position for a year. Let Mike know if you hear of anyone who might be interested.
  • Mary Kay Malinoski will soon be spending some of her sabbatical leave with CSREES.
   
• National Budget Picture
  • It looks like the federal funding situations will be getting worse instead of better in the next few years, being now affected by the war and hurricane relief. There has been no final committee resolution on the budget and it may be as long as February 2006 before it is passed. A rescission of funds is likely. Some federal offices are planning to work with 80% of the last year's funding.
  • In the Senate version of the budget, the 406 programs did not migrate to the NRI line, but did in the House budget.

Communications - Liz Myers/Liz Thomas

• In an attempt to keep in contact with the AC, Center staff have sent out monthly updates in the past. The consensus of the AC is that they are well enough informed and NEIPM Center staff should send out only critical information and the more brief, the better. Base the timing on the importance of the content rather than a set timeframe. The AC already receives the electronic newsletter monthly.
• Liz Myers and Carrie have been working on a brochure for an audience that is not familiar with IPM Centers.

Interagency IPM Evaluation and Reporting Group - Liz Thomas

• See write up of what this group is doing.
• AC members suggest adding ARS and CAPS programs to the agencies who report using this database.
• NEIPM Center staff should take a look at the REEIS database of reports which covers all USDA projects

Strategic Planning for the NE IPM Center - Dane Hewlett

• The Center hired Dane Hewlett from Villanova University to help create a strategic plan.

  See the short version
  See the long version

AC members broke up into groups to review the strategic plan and make suggestions for change.

Draft revised long version

Below are a few comments from our discussion of the strategic plan

• Are there items that are not being accomplished due to low staffing?
• Will you include a SWOT plan (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) ?
• Create more IPM working groups to help with the work load.

Northeast Directors of Extension - Zane Helsel

• There needs to be one more last push to make sure the budget is passed in a way that protects IPM programs and State Ag Experiment Stations (SAES), but it can't be by people having ties to government of the Land Grant Universities. It needs to be stakeholders campaigning on our behalf.
• The President's budget proposed cutting the Hatch Funds (which pay for SAES) in half and moving the 406 Funds (IPM Center funding) to the National Research Initiative (NRI) line. If the 406 funds were moved, indirect costs on all funding would be heavily impacted. Also NRI has historically focused on research and not extension activities. There is a fear that extension funding could be negatively impacted by this move.
• Hatch funding is likely to remain at current levels, but the fate of 406 funds is more fuzzy.
• Overall, these will be tough budget times.

State Agricultural Experiment Stations - Mike Hoffmann

• Current Hatch dollars are perceived at the federal level as entitlements, which are not popular these days.
• The IPM Centers are a good model for regional programs.

IPM Standards Discussion

• A frequently asked question is where to find current IPM standards developed at Land Grant Universities. Tom Green had mentioned that he is creating a clearinghouse of IPM Standards as part of his work with SYSCO. The AC would like to know what IPM Standards are included in Tom's list.
• NE IPM Center staff will find the answer and send to AC.

EPA – Rob Koethe

• Pesticide container recycling - EPA is working with the chemical industry to come up with standards for containers. The ruling is expected in 2006 and will include standards for bulk, refillable, and recyclable containers.
• A final draft of rulings on endangered species is due out this year.
• Worker Protection - There is a new manual for employers on how to comply with WPS rules.

  EPA Region 1 - Andrea Szylvian

  • PESP (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program) grants are closed. This year was light on the number of applications.
  • SAI grants are open until the October deadline.
  • WPS manual - EPA needs help publicizing that this is out. EPA is not paying for printing, but can offer a printable file on disk.

  EPA Region 2 - Audrey Moore

  • SAI grants - The closing date is in October. There is only $96,000 this year
  • The Pollution Prevention Program, or P2, is another possible source of funding for IPM. In the past, each EPA Region put out separate RFPs. This year there will be one national RFP, but each region will still manage its grant program. Expected RFP release in December, with a deadline for proposals in Jan.
  • The IR-4 biopesticides database, which was funded through the Region 2 P2 grants program, is under development. This will be a searchable database by crop and pest, and will be on the IR-4 website when finished.
  • The Resource Guide for Organic Insect and Disease Management, which was partially funded through the Region 2 SAI grant, has been published and is available for purchase through Cornell.

  EPA Region 3 - John Butler

  • SAI - This year's SAI grant will be out in mid-October (see rfp)
  • Pesticide Misuse Initiative Grant - Out in October, due in November. $120K is available targeting proper use and storage of pesticides in community environments.
  • Healthy Yards, Healthy Homes educational campaign - This project targets educating specific neighborhoods to see if changes in pesticide use affects nearby water quality.

  EPA Headquarters - Steve Hopkins

  • Budget - EPA is expecting budget cuts of 20% to its program
  • Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) - EPA has a goal of 90% IVM use to control vegetation on land below power lines. Edison Electric is a partner in this cooperative project.

State Network Projects (SNP)

Each SNP representative was asked to answer the question, “What are the most important contributions that SNPS make to the NEIPMC and what are their challenges?”

o ProNewEngland - Jim Dill

• ProNewEngland is a combined SNP that includes ME, MA, RI, CT, NH, and VT. Managing a multistate project is a challenge, but also provides more personnel expertise to create quality products such as pest management surveys, crop profiles and PMSPs. Jim feels that crop profiles are the critical deliverable that must be finished prior to creating a PMSP. His CPs are not written by one individual, but incorporate information from multiple stakeholders through pest management surveys.
• ProNewEngland tries to leverage the Center funds with other grants such as his EPA Region 1 grant that helps market their website.
• An annual meeting of their Advisory Council would consume a large portion of their funding. Instead, ProNewEngland keeps in touch with its AC through conference calls and the use of individual state focus groups.
• In the last round of funding, ProNewEngland's funds were cut, but the grants panel did not provide comments as to why (which would have been helpful).

o ProNewEngland - Glen Koehler

• Glen feels that surveys are critical to create a quality crop profile and without these surveys a CP is simply the opinions of a small group of people.
• SNPs serve as “bankers” for other NEIPMC funded projects in order to avoid some overhead costs, but Glen has little or no information about these grants and is concerned about accountability of these projects and what is considered his responsibility.
• Requests from EPA and OPMP that are funneled through Pat Hastings come randomly and without much time to gather input from his constituents, sometimes only 2 to 3 weeks. He asks if there is a way to clump the requests and allow more lead time for him to gather responses. He is grateful for Pat’s simplification of the Federal Register notices that have pesticide registration information questions hidden among other EPA notices.
• Glen reiterates that the pace of the funds distribution is very slow and asks if anything can be done to speed the process. This year the grant panel will meet a month earlier in hopes of expediting the funds.

Delaware – Susan King

• Susan originally questioned the worth of PMSPs but after coordinating several, she has had positive feedback from growers on the value of these documents. She would like to have more specifics on how these documents are used by EPA and OPMP in an effort to promote them more.
• Initially it was hard to attract members for her advisory council, but now part of their work is to decide which CPs and PMSPs are completed and she no longer has membership or attendance problems. It has been difficult to find an environmental group to serve.
• Work that crosses state lines is a challenge especially in meeting completion dates.
• It would be helpful to have a document (preferably on the web) to keep track of which CP/PMSPs are planned, pending, or completed. John replies that this is one of Pat Hastings' jobs and Steve Hopkins promises to address this issue at the EPA.

West Virginia – John Baniecki

• John feels that the recent response to the Soybean Rust introduction showed how important and useful SNPs are in addressing pest issues quickly throughout the states.
  

Maryland – Carol Holko

• Carol is a Co-PI with Amy Brown and Sandy Sardanelli, the IPM Coordinator for the state. Bringing these 3 important entities together is a huge value.
• One problem Amy has is knowing who has responded to information requests from the EPA. She asks to be copied on all requests and responses to comments for her state. If people would consistently respond, even if the response is “this is not an issue in our state”, she would know that the request process is working.

Pennsylvania - Kerry Richards

• She likes how Pat Hastings condenses questions issued from EPA and OPMP, but she, too, wants to be cc’d when people respond to Pat.

Discussion of SNPs

• Bill Coli asks if the routing time for money flowing from the NEIPMC to other funded projects through the SNPs could be quicker. Ayers responds that this is a problem only in some states and that the earlier review of Partnership grants should help.
• Audrey Moore indicates that the lack of an SNP in New York is a critical gap and a problem for the EPA.

Comments Coordinator - John Ayers

Pat Hastings was hired by the NEIPMC to coordinate requests from EPA and OPMP about pesticide use in order to make informed regulatory decisions. Pat clarifies the requests, sends them out to SNP leaders, and organizes the responses from our region. The Western IPM Center has had two comments coordinators for several years and finds the process has very worthwhile.
Pat will also compile a list of “deliverables” for SNPs in the NE region to help the NEIPMC in its own measurement of impacts. She works with Jonathan Becker at the EPA to create a spreadsheet of crops or IPM settings in need of a PMSP due to regulatory or pest pressure.

Pesticide Safety Education Program (PSEP)- Rob Koethe

• PSEP is a program maintained by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between EPA and USDA that is renewed every five years and the time has come for a new MOU. Money for these state programs is given to states, but these funds have dwindled. EPA is grappling with whether to fund this program through the MOU , EPA regional offices, or a general RFP. This may be an area where IPM Centers could help manage some of the funds. Any new MOU would be likely to last for 3, not 5, years.
• Rob is on the committee working on this problem. He asks for input on this problem. He'd like to poll PSEP people in the region to solicit responses to various scenarios. Contact Rob for more details.
• WPS regulations and Pesticide Certification Training are due to be under one program in February 2007
• Zane has heard that PSEP funds could flow through Extension, but with the grants for PSEP being so small ( $10-20K) and an overhead of 8% allowed, plus fringes 20-40%, there is not enough left of these small grants to do the work required.

Changes in RFAs from the IPM Center - Carrie Koplinka-Loehr

• The biggest changes in the RFAs include suggestions for incorporating more outcomes and impacts into the project results. The table inserted into the RFA is loosely based on the PPRS system of the past and asks project directors to quantify their projects or include how their project will strengthen IPM as a whole.
• Comments on these changes:
• Surveys are difficult and expensive but are often the best way to determine outcomes. More funding will be needed if surveys are included.
• The impacts of basic research are hard to quantify.
• The RFA should clearly state eligibility requirements at the beginning.
• Define the term "outcome". In the RFA the term "outcome" is really an output.
  

Contacts Database - Liz Thomas

• Over the six years that the NE IPM Center has existed, the staff has accumulated a database of contacts across the northeast, and the nation. The database allows many types of searches: by state, name, city, area of emphasis, crop, etc. Information in the database has come from public sources, but contacts are not specifically asked for permission to be in the database; therefore it is not open to the general public. The NE IPMC is offering limited access to key people in the region.
• Those wanting access should contact Liz Thomas to get a password and a short lesson on how it works. Users will have the ability to add, edit or delete, but changes will be reviewed at the NE IPMC office.
• Allowing access to others in the region will make this database more accurate and make multistate efforts a little easier.
• Records that are in the database should be annually reviewed by IPM Coordinators, SNP leaders, and other key people to make sure they are accurate and to increase representation from certain states. Right now, some states are represented in the database more heavily than others.
  

Liaisons for Project Directors - David Holm and Carrie Koplinka-Loehr

• SARE projects have a liaison from their AC that occasionally checks on the progress of the project. Carrie asked whether our Center should also have project liaisons.
• Comments:
  • This can be looked at in two ways: the PD is glad someone is interested or the PD feels someone is prying into their business.
  • While liaisons are a good idea, it is a lot of work, and who will do this work?
  • SARE grants are different from IPM Center grants. Liaisons are more appropriate for SARE because they work outside the LGU with people who are not experienced scientists. IPM Center project directors are already skilled at managing their own grants.
  • At SARE, the AC is part of the grant funding process; therefore they are more familiar with the projects. This is not the case at the NE IPM Center.
  • Susan King spoke positively about having a liaison from the AC be in touch with her project.
  • Steve Hopkins volunteers to be a liaison. A show of hands indicated some interest in liaisons and we agreed that Carrie would begin setting them up on a limited basis.

General comments from AC members

• Luke McConnell strongly supports more LGU extension programs. There are not enough people on the ground viewing what is happening at the grower level and this needs to be improved.
• Kathy Murray needs help getting NRCS representatives from each state for her Vegetable IPM Working Group meeting linking IPM/NRCS in Harrisburg, PA on November 30-Dec 2. She has reps from Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire.
• Dyremple Marsh reports that the funding for 1890s schools may be on the decline. In the past, they have been federally funded, but now, a proposal is floating to require all federal funding to be matched by state funding. States have not funded 1890s schools in the past and any federal money not matched by state funds must be returned to the federal coffers. Dyremple asks that any campaigning or education include the benefits and necessity of 1890s schools too.

Meeting Feedback:

Next meeting:

Late October 2006.

• Be careful not to schedule during the IR-4 meeting or the Northeast tree fruit meeting in Vermont.
• Preferred locations: Providence, Manchester, Hartford, Puerto Rico (!)
  

Action Items:

• PMAP Relevancy Panel - John is still looking for AC members who will serve on the PMAP relevancy panel. Let him know if you are interested.
• Reporting Guidelines - The AC is requested to give feedback on reporting guidelines (available on the web)
• IPM Center Review -
  • While it is too expensive to bring AC members to Washington, Mike Fitzner would like to have their input through either written comments or conference calls. In either case, the comments will be anonymous and IPM Center staff will not be on any conference calls. The idea of a conference call is well accepted by the NE IPM Center AC members.
  • If members of the AC have suggestions for the mid-term review, please submit them to Mike
• Organic IPA at CSREES - Let Mike know of anyone who might be interested in the CSREES Organic IPA 1-year position in D.C.
• IPM Standards - NE IPM Center staff will find what IPM Standards are included in Tom Green's list and forward that information to the AC.
• State Network Projects -
  • CP/PMSP/Surveys: It would be helpful to have a document (preferably on the web) to keep track of what CP/PMSPs are planned, pending, or completed. John replies that this is one of Pat Hastings jobs and Steve Hopkins promises to address this issue at the EPA.
  • CP/PMSP/Surveys: NE IPM Center and EPA will create a spreadsheet of crops or IPM settings in need of a PMSP due to regulatory of pest pressure
  • Information Requests: Make sure to carbon copy SNP leaders with all responses to and from the EPA and OPMP
• PSEP Memorandum of Understanding - Rob is on the committee working on how PSEP will be funded in the future and asks for input. Contact Rob for more details.
• Database of Contacts for the NE: Those wanting access to the contacts db should contact Liz Thomas to get a password and a short lesson on how it works. Users will have the ability to add, edit or delete, but changes will be reviewed at the NE IPMC office
• NRCS: Kathy Murray needs help finding NRCS representatives from each state to attend her meeting on the IPM/NRCS collaborations being held in Harrisburg, PA on November 30-Dec 2. She only has reps from Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire.
• Budget: Regarding 1890s schools, Dyremple asks that any campaigning or education include the benefits and necessity of 1890s schools too.
• Worker Protection Manual: EPA needs help publicizing that this is out. EPA is not paying for printing, but can offer a printable file on disk. Contact Andrea Szylvian for details.