Commissioners in attendance: Ron Angel, Ben Barstow, Bob Berger, Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Doug Muse, Chuck Masters, Bill Mason, Bryan Sakuma, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh

Guests: Rick Boydston, USDA-ARS Prosser, Dan Drost, Utah State University, Vince Hebert, WSU, David James, WSU, Eric Johansen, WSDA, Rocky Lundy, Mint Industry Research Council, Shawn McNeill, Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, Maciej Pszczolkowski, WSU, Sandra Ristow, WSU, John Rumph, WSU, Larry Schrader, WSU

Chair Doug Muse called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

Commissioners, staff and guests introduced themselves.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Muse called for public comment. There were no comments.

MINUTES
Chair Muse directed Commissioner's attention to three sets of minutes in the notebooks and explained the minutes from the July Commission meeting and the August Executive Committee teleconference were approved at the September Commission meeting. Chair Muse asked for corrections to the proposed minutes from the September meeting. Herb Teas noted corrections to the proposed minutes from the September meeting: page two, paragraph one, sentence sixteen, strike forward from forward allocation; page three, after paragraph two, add a sentence indicating Chair Muse returned to the meeting; page seven, paragraph two, sentence six, LOA should read MOA. Ben Barstow noted on page nine, paragraph one, the last sentence reads review and should be reviewed.

Andy Jensen suggested for the minutes from funding meetings, a list of proposals and the decisions made be included. Herb Teas agreed. Administrator Schreiber stated a list of the proposals and funding decisions will be included in the minutes from this meeting and the one in January.

FINANCIAL REPORT
Schreiber updated Commissioners on funds available for allocation. Schreiber noted once all funds either forward allocated or encumbered are subtracted, a total of $626,635.39 is available. Schreiber said he had contacted WSU to verify no change in the policy of forward allocation had occurred, but had not received a response. Schreiber noted, after this meeting, close to two-thirds of one million dollars would be allocated but not spent. A total of $739,429.76 is available for the fiscal year and $369,714.88 is available for this meeting. Chair Muse asked if percentages should be increased. Schreiber agreed the forward allocation should increase to 18.1%. Schreiber also noted there may be other expenses that have not been included. Bryan Sakuma asked if the figure included "Jesernig dollars". Schreiber replied it did not and that a discussion on the "Jesernig dollars" would follow. Chuck Masters asked what percentage of funds are never used. Schreiber replied for 2001, $12,000 was not used. Since a cut-off period was instituted and researchers are notified they are reaching the end of the funding term, the money gets spent. Overall, the amount that comes back to the Commission is relatively small. Chair Muse asked Commissioner's opinion on how to split up the funding money for this meeting and the next. Schreiber noted policy has been to split evenly between old and new mandate, not exactly 50-50 but close. Andy Jensen stated he preferred to split half the money at each meeting. Schreiber noted up to $400,000 could be funded at this meeting and that amount would easily fund all requests before the Commission. Chair Muse noted Commissioner consensus was to stick with an even split between old and new mandate. Doug Walsh noted more old mandate projects are being presented at this meeting and the January meeting may have more new mandate projects. Researchers who are doing research on old mandate projects are more familiar with the process and at the next meeting more new mandate proposals may be presented.

Schreiber went over the contents of the meeting notebooks, highlighting the proposal report and presenter order. Schreiber noted funding requests are about evenly split between old and new mandate and total about $450,000. Schreiber discussed the administrator's review of projects, highlighting the different columns and ratings - any request over $25,000 automatically received a high dollar request comment. Schreiber noted his comments are just for guidance. Schreiber also noted some overdue reports have been received since the administrator's review was done. Andy Jensen asked what overdue reports for 2001 meant. Schreiber replied Tracy Olberding had put a lot of time into the project and anyone who has recieved money from the Commission, including the 2001 funding cycle, received a notice as a reminder. Chair Muse asked if Commissioners had any other questions. There were none.

Schreiber continued with the "Jesernig dollars" funding. These funds became available very quickly and Schreiber submitted a request for $150,000. This request was the only one funded that was not part of the original plan for the funds. Schreiber said his concern is with commodity groups that only send one proposal request each year; these may be groups that could use the money. Schreiber could not discuss this officially until the award was made, so he went ahead and sent out a letter on Sept. 28. Schreiber was unsure of any restrictions on the money and in the letter, Schreiber included some rules; funding should be restricted to minor, minor crops (those not in the top 20 in the state), organically produced commodities are not restricted to the top 20 list, matching funds are not required, but encouraged. These proposals would be reviewed the same as all others, award would be based on merit, need and increased return in four years. Schreiber established a cap of $15,000 on requests to spread the funds around, limited requests from a commodity group to one or two, and split the funds evenly between old and new mandate proposals.

Schreiber said the Department of Agriculture might have specific guidelines on the use of these funds from USDA. Schreiber asked Eric Johansen if the funds could be used for structural pest control. Johansen replied he did not know for certain. Doug Walsh commented a pesticide use survey would be a good use for these funds. Schreiber said Bill Brookerson is interested in keeping the restrictions to a minimum. Johansen asked how the money would be dispersed. Johansen noted if the Commission can hold funds in a separate account and allocate as requested, as long as the process is legal, the Commission could disperse funds as they want. Schreiber noted Agriculture Development Group, Inc. (ADG, Inc.) cannot hold money and release it. Schreiber said he preferred to have the Department of Agriculture issue a check to the researcher and not have the funds go through WSU. Bob Berger asked if the Commission has a process to accept grants. Schreiber replied yes those funds go to WSU. Ann George noted this might require an interagency agreement. Bob Berger noted the enabling legislation entitled the Commission to accept donations, grants, gifts, etc. Schreiber replied in follow-up conversations with WSU it was noted ADG, Inc., and WSCPR are not fiscal agencies and have no agencies numbers. WSU is the named fiscal agent and the funds must go to WSU. Chair Muse asked if Commissioners want to go through WSU and deal with compliance issues. Bob Berger said WSU would be the agent to comply with all requirements, and should be able to have a designated fund. Ann George asked if Brookerson was asked to disperse funds. Schreiber replied yes. George said the Hop Commission served as banker for AFW money, an interagency MOA was written and the funds could only go to a public agency. Schreiber said the Commission should figure out what to do and then ask if it is acceptable. Ann George said the Commission could solicit a state commodity group to be the banker and have a third party send a letter to disperse funds.

Schreiber noted requests for "Jesernig dollars" total $47,000 for this meeting. The requestor must defend requests for "Jesernig dollars". Commissioners can award funds based on a worthy request, deny funds or change the amount of funding. These decisions may affect the amount requested from WSCPR and may affect matching funds. Chair Muse asked what about projects that may be a candidate for these funds but did make a specific request. Schreiber replied some proposals have been received that should have requested these funds and some researchers did not ask for enough money, i.e. Miller or du Toit. Schreiber suggested the Commission reserve the right to ask researchers if they had more money, would they add more to the project. Bob Berger said using "Jesernig dollars" could reduce the amount of money requested from WSCPR. Schreiber said he had not thought of that and there was one proposal in particular that may need "Jesernig dollars" assigned to it. Current requests are for 1/3 of the total. Andy Jensen asked if the money had to be spent this year. Schreiber replied he did not have a specific answer but felt it would be prudent to wisely spend all the funds by the end of the fiscal year. Kurt Volker suggested finding out where the funds will be placed for dispersion, and noted the requests for today's meeting did not provide additional documentation on the request and the requestor should be prepared to answer why "Jesernig dollars" are needed. Schreiber replied requestors should be prepared to justify the request. Volker asked if the Commission is the arbitrator of the "Jesernig dollars". Schreiber replied the Department of Agriculture wants the Commission to do this, and if the funds are used wisely, the potential is there for additional funding. Volker noted it is fair to consider if the match is from "Jesernig funds", then the Commission is paying for all the project costs. Schreiber noted some proposals have their own matching money, for example Tim Miller's strawberry proposal has some in-kind matching that is not listed but no match in cash. Chuck Masters suggested extending the time period to two years to maximize the effectiveness of the money. This would make more money available for people who do not have a match. Ann George noted it is urgent to find someone to hold the funds. Schreiber noted the award should be based on merit. Bill Mason asked if all commodity groups had been contacted. Schreiber replied the information was mailed to over 300 contacts and commodity groups were included. The researchers drive this process and Schreiber expects to get several proposals from low dollar operations where a small "Jesernig dollars" award can increase the overall budget by 200%.

ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Schreiber noted a new Commissioners and Staff contact list is included in the notebooks along with the worksheet showing hours worked and a schedule of upcoming meetings. Schreiber asked for comments on the proposed meeting dates and said meeting dates would be finalized at the end of this meeting.

Schreiber updated Commissioners on the nomination status of several positions: Bob Berger and Herb Teas have been re-nominated, the Food Processor's position is still vacant, and a new Commissioner for the Wine Grape position has been nominated - Kevin Corliss. Schreiber noted elections will be held in January and Chair Muse is stepping down.

Schreiber updated Commissioners on a visit to IR-4 headquarters. During his visit, Schreiber reviewed and updated the status of all IR-4 projects the Commission has funded. The updated project status report was e-mailed to Commissioners and a current copy is in the notebook.

Schreiber noted a new Webmaster has started work on the WSCPR website. Problems with accessing the site have been fixed. Herb Teas suggested adding a link from PICOL to the site.

PROPOSAL REVIEW AND RANKING PROCESS
Chair Muse moved discussion to the proposal review and ranking process. Schreiber noted the blue ranking forms are in the back of the meeting notebook. Schreiber reviewed the process, noting presenters have 15 minutes, 5 minutes for the proposal overview and 10 minutes for questions or discussion. Commissioners score is based on the presentation and should total 100. Schreiber asked Commissioners to mark on the score sheet if the proposal should be discussed or not and to use their pre-assigned code. The blue score sheets will be collected and entered to an Excelä spreadsheet. Once all the proposal presentations are heard, ranking will be by number and dollar amount, and a printed copy will be distributed to Commissioners to determine where to draw the funding line. Chair Muse clarified some proposals will fail to make the cut. Bob Berger agreed. Ben Barstow asked if the ranking is by dollar amount. Schreiber responded the ranking is by score and two lines are drawn, one to fund all above and one to not fund all below, those in between the two lines are discussed and a decision is made to fund, adjust funding amounts or not fund. Chair Muse asked for comments on presentation time limits. Bob Berger said presenters should stick to the allocated time. Chair Muse asked how to notate requests for "Jesernig dollars". Schreiber suggested writing a "J" on the blue score sheets and noted Commissioners must evaluate if the proposal should receive "Jesernig dollars". Herb Teas noted the "Jesernig" request becomes part of the proposal and doesn't need to be identified in the voting process. Ann George said the motion to fund should indicate the source of funding, WSCPR and "Jesernig dollars". Bob Berger noted any request for "Jesernig dollars" should be in the middle of the two lines. Andy Jensen suggested all proposals requesting "Jesernig dollars" be discussed individually. Schreiber said a separate column for "Jesernig dollars" will be used and the amount will be in the motion to fund.

PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS

02AN024 Reducing Fungicide Applications to Asparagus by Monitoring Root Carbohydrate Levels
Dan Drost, Utah State University
WSCPR Request $6,000 Co-funding $22,000
Dan Drost said the project is an alternative approach to reduce pesticide use in asparagus. The focus is on foliar disease, rust and stem. Current information indicates grower approaches impact these problems. There is a need to understand plant dynamics of how the plant stores carbohydrates for the next year. Seventy percent of the plant is root mass that provides the fuel for spring growth and summer fern growth. The summer time is when disease outbreak causes problems, carbohydrate levels are an indicator of plant health and can be used by the grower to make application decisions.

Schreiber asked if this work is being done in another place. Drost replied a pilot project is in place in Washington with eight growers participating. A project has been up and running in New Zealand for three years. The next level is to predict and is an extension of existing work. A standard program is used to track carbohydrates then make recommendations late in the season. The first year is to get a framework of history of how carbohydrate levels are changing in the field. Figures are actual data from New Zealand.

Chuck Masters asked if monitoring carbohydrate levels is a tool grower's use now. Drost replied no, the program is providing information that suggests management practices to be aware of how to get a full recharge of carbohydrates. Masters asked if the project would incorporate other cultural practices. Schreiber responded a pest management component would be added to the field implementation. Bob Berger noted this is the first year of a two-year project and asked if funding is not available for the second will the data be used. Drost said that was a good question. There will be an end product, growers get a feel for what to expect the next year, for what will get a reduction in disease, and it will tell them to stay on top of applications. Jensen asked how root carbohydrate levels are taken. Drost replied it is a brix reading. Jensen asked if the grower does the testing. Drost said his lab does the testing. Volker asked for further justification for the six trips. Drost said the trips are to promote the work and to ensure the growers have a sense of the goal. Volker asked if the whole plant root is tested. Drost said during disease outbreak the root mass is collected. Volker asked about the different between New Zealand and Washington. Drost said the environment is different - cool and humid vs. hot and dry.

02PN015 Western Salsify Germination and Establishment, and Control with Herbicides in Peppermint
Rick Boydston, Washington State University
WSCPR Request $5,280 Co-funding $5,280
Rick Boydston said the project addresses weeds not controlled by current use of Stinger. Stinger has a residue problem and may not be available. The project is intended to determine the timing of herbicide applications to control Salsify and to develop more consistent control with current products and two new herbicides. The request is for funding from WSCPR and the mint industry.

Teas asked about the procedure of planting Salsify in October and asked why there was not more natural dispersion. Boydston replied more plantings would be done in the year, perhaps in midsummer and fall. Schreiber asked Rocky Lundy what the likelihood of co-funding to be approved. Lundy replied it was very likely to get funded in January if the WSCPR funds the project. Schreiber clarified if the WSCPR does not fund the project, the mint industry will be less likely to fund due to the lack of funds. Lundy answered that was correct.

02PG030 Registration of Fujimite® (fenpyroximate) for Two-spotted Mite in Mint
Rocky Lundy, Mint Industry Research Council
WSCPR Request $26,000 Co-funding $10,000
Rocky Lundy said funding is for pursuing a new registration for the miticide, Fujimite®. It is used on hops under a Section 18 label. Fujimite® is a good fit in IPM programs and has the registrants support. Comite® is the only miticide available for the mint industry. The EPA has increased the re-entry interval to nine days and the irrigators using wheel-line and hand-line cannot wait nine days. Without Comite®, the growers are dead in the water. Lundy said residue data is needed before a Section 18 request can be made. The request for WSCPR funds is to help with the major costs of the laboratory work. The intent is to send the samples to the UC-Davis laboratory.

Vince Hebert noted the UC-Davis laboratory has had proven success. Schreiber asked how solid of a number is the costs of laboratory work. Lundy responded it is probably over-estimated plus or minus $2,000. Walsh noted the miticide has been granted reduced risk status by the EPA. Schreiber noted $26,000 seems high, but there is a clear-cut need and this could change. Ann George noted this is big-ticket work. Lundy said about $4,000 to $5,000 per sample. Schreiber noted the Commission might not want to fund the full amount. George asked Lundy if any consideration had been given to requesting "Jesernig dollars". Lundy replied he would ask for "Jesernig dollars". Volker asked who makes Fujimite and if they were asked for support. Lundy replied Nichino America and the response was they had already donated to IR-4. Teas asked if the scope was limited to one year or if there was a need to repeat. Lundy replied one year. Schreiber noted field trials would be done this year and laboratory work later. Schreiber asked over the last three years, what has happened to the budget for the Washington Mint Commission and Mint Industry Research Council. Lundy replied the budget has gone down since assessments are based per pound and acreage has decreased from 40,000 acres three years ago to 27,000 now. Mint was in the top 20 in Washington and is now at 23. Schreiber asked specifically about the research budget. Lundy replied it has decreased by 25%. Chuck Masters asked about the plan for the field trials procedures. Walsh responded a GLP protocol will be provided by IR-4 and Prosser is responsible for all mint trials.

02PN033 Chemigation Research for Caterpillar and Mite Control on Mint
Doug Walsh, Washington State University
WSCPR request $9,800 Co-funding $21,000 Jesernig request $9,800
Doug Walsh said the goal of the proposal is to develop efficacy information to expand the label to include other pests. Walsh said efficacy trials are needed to find a replacement for Comite. Walsh noted 35-40% of acreage is treated for spider mites. Walsh said he was requesting "Jesernig dollars" because research budgets within the industry are down and there is a need for this research. Rocky Lundy said Orthene is not labeled for chemigation and Valent is willing to add to the label.

Schreiber asked if co-funding was likely. Walsh said he expects the Washington Mint Commission to support the proposal. Lundy said the Mint Commission is happy with Walsh's work and if WSCPR funds the proposal co-funding is likely. Chair Muse asked what the long-term objective was. Walsh replied labeling for chemigation is the short-term objective and biological control is the long-term objective. Bob Berger asked if the registrants were supportive. Walsh replied funding is received on an annual basis for a candidate miticide in the registration pipeline.

02PG011 Instrument Request for Expediting Washington State Pesticide Registrations
Vince Hebert, Washington State University
WSCPR request $23,245 Co-funding $69,245
Vince Hebert said the request is for a tool necessary for the registration process. The instrument is important for IPM studies, will have a high level of productivity, and be used for many years.

Commissioners asked if the instrument could be rented. Hebert replied it was possible to rent, but it was very difficult to do that through the university. Schreiber asked what percentage of samples of pesticides would go through this machine for the next two years. Hebert replied 60% would go through the machine. Bob Berger noted the Commission has bought other equipment and asked how to handle the title. Schreiber noted the Commission does not want to manage inventory. Lundy noted the Washington Mint Commission couldn't hold the title on equipment; it must be given as a gift. Masters asked who supports the FEQL. Hebert replied WSU CAHE supports the lab. Masters asked why there wasn't more commodity support. Hebert said he is getting 50% support from WSU, and 25% each from WSCPR and 2 commodity groups. Hebert noted this instrument would support minor crop registrations across the board. Volker asked if co-funding was assured. Hebert said the proposals have a good chance of succeeding. Volker asked if there were high maintenance costs. Hebert said there were not. Schreiber noted a letter of support was received from WAWGG. Jim McFerson said traditionally the WTFRC does not support expensive equipment, but WTFRC has been investing regularly now for those researchers who can show need. McFerson noted this equipment would take Hebert's program to the next level. Schreiber noted if the Commission supports purchase of this equipment, research projects currently going to UC-Davis would go to WSU. Hebert said if the capability is demonstrated, work could be done here. Ann George said we have the opportunity to have one stop shopping center for minor crop work. Schreiber asked if Hebert would have exclusive control over the equipment. Hebert said he would have control over training and would want more than one individual fully trained. Berger asked if the equipment would remain at FEQL. Hebert said as long as FEQL is in place. Ann George noted the WAWGG sent a letter indicating support but provided no funding. Schreiber noted WAWGG is not the funding agency, the Wine Advisory Board is.

02AN002 Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Hop Yards: Screening the Impact of pesticides on Survival and Function
David James, Washington State University
WSCPR request $ 20,966 Co-funding $20,966
David James said this project has been funded for the previous two years and the Washington Hop Commission is providing co-funding. This project is fundamental to a larger IPM program in hops. This work has been the basis for three Section 18's for hop growers, two miticides and one aphicide. This is a very practical project generating very practical information with direct reports to the industry and an extension side to inform growers of the results.

Herb Teas asked for clarification on the budget page listing the same ¾ FTE position on both the hop and grape proposals. James said the dollar figure is right and the yearly salary for the position is about $45,000. Volker said this is a four-year study and five of the twenty species have been evaluated. James said twenty species was optimistic. Ann George said when this project was started there was a certain group of predators. Over the last couple years, added beneficials have been discovered. The list of pesticides is a moving target and new factors are added to the program. Growers have commented if they had the information from the study, they would have made considerably different decisions.

02AN003 Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Vineyards: Screening the Impact of Pesticides on Survival and Function
David James, Washington State University
WSCPR request $ 20,966 Co-funding $20,966
David James said this project is basically the same as the hop project with different efficacy for different beneficials. A lot of data from the hop project is applicable to grapes. One overlap beneficial from hops was identified and this information is very useful to growers. Some surprising results include applications that were more harmful to beneficials than the chemical company would lead us to believe. More time will be used looking at fungicides.

Teas asked how many applications of sulfur are done. James replied six applications with as many as eleven to thirteen and he has based his whole disease program on sulfur. Andy Jensen asked for clarification on the operations in the budget. James replied this includes product, equipment, and bioassay materials. Volker asked how many insects tested successfully. James replied there is a lot of overlap at this stage and the same five as hops were successful. Barstow asked how much was done on the subleaf effect. James said very little and he looked at egg production.

02AN004 Development of the Sex Pheromone of Currant Stem Girdler as a Management Tool
David James, Washington State University
WSCPR request $12,093 Co-funding $12,093
David James said this is a new project and red currants may be the smallest crop in the state and he is asking for "Jesernig dollars" as well. The project is a three-year program to identify pheromone, synthesize the pheromone, and conduct field tests. He has a collaborator in USDA in Illinois. This project is very important to the two growers in Prosser.

Andy Jensen asked if a corporation is available to manufacture baits for such a small crop. James said Pacific Bio-Control is available now, but there may be a problem later getting female pheromone production. Schreiber noted there are 300,000 acres in Europe. Schreiber noted the administrators review ranked this project low for likelihood to affect change. Eric Johansen said there a few mating disruption pheromes registered in Washington.

02AN012 Feeding Enhancements for Insecticides Targeting Neonate Lepidopteran Larvae
Maciej Pszczolkowski, Washington State University
WSCPR request $13,676 Co-funding $13,676
Maciej Pszczolkowski said this project focuses on reducing the amount of pesticides used by extending the time the young larvae will spend on the leaf. One approach is to use stickers to physically stick to the leaf and the other approach is to design a feeding station for larvae. Eighty percent of the larvae are on the leaf. Larvae start exploring the leaf from the top and 100% start feeding on the lower part of the leaf. The funding request is for identification of a non-water-soluble sticker.

Volker asked why not look at the fruit. Pszczolkowski replied with limited resources it is much easier to work with the leaf. Berger noted the projected quarterly expenditures shows more than one year. Jim McFerson said the WTFRC would only fund lengthy projects if the objectives are met and it is highly likely this project will get co-funding.

02PN018 Raynox, a Particle Film for Suppression of Insects in Apple and Pear
Larry Schrader, Washington State Tree Fruit Research Commission
WSCPR request $23,500 Co-funding $23,500
Larry Schrader said this is the third year of funding in support of registration of Raynox. Jay Brunner is working on apples, Betsy Beers-Peryea is working on indirect pests with apple and pear, and John Dunley is working on pear. The WTFRC is expected to co-fund with $20,000.

Volker asked the difference between Raynox and Surround. Schrader said Raynox has a waxy matrix and sticks to fruit and leaves. Raynox is organically modified clay. Volker asked Jim McFerson if WTFRC is likely to fund. McFerson replied it was likely to receive funding. Berger asked who owns Raynox. Schrader replied WSU has a patent pending.

02PN032 Thrips Management in Washington State Stone Fruit Orchards
Doug Walsh, Washington State University
WSCPR request $11,280 Co-funding $26,500
Doug Walsh said the request is in support of insecticide efficacy and developing sampling methods in the field and developing an understanding of when thrip feeding occurs. The project will evaluate the residual of insecticides different stages of fruit development. This is an important project and half of the WTFRC stone fruit research budget is committed to this project as co-funding. There a number of candidate compounds in the trial.

Teas asked if other areas than bloom time are being targeted. Walsh said work is being done in a nectarine orchard during harvest. Barstow asked how important is late season mite damage. Walsh said late season mites decrease flowering the next year. Schreiber asked McFerson for comments. McFerson said this is the highest priority in stone fruit and half of the stone fruit research budget went to this proposal. The WTFRC went to Walsh to ask for this research. Walsh noted the project is eligible for "Jesernig dollars".

Chair Muse adjourned the meeting for the day at 5:10 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS at 8:00 a.m.

Commissioners in attendance: Ron Angel, Ben Barstow, Bob Berger, Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Doug Muse, Chuck Masters, Bill Mason, Bryan Sakuma, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh

Staff in attendance: Donna Gorham, Tracy Olberding, Alan Schreiber

Commissioners not in attendance: Joel Kangiser, Tedd Wildman

Guests: Kevin Bouchey, Washington Asparagus Commission, Pete Bristow, WSU, Gary Chastagner, WSU, Joth Davis, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Lindsey du Toit, WSU, Chris Grue, University of Washington, Eric Johansen, WSDA, Art Losey, Washington State Pest Control Association, Dan Mayer, WSU, Andy McGuire, WSU, Tim Miller, WSU, Keith Pike, WSU, Sandra Ristow, WSU, John Rumph, WSU, Steve Sheppard, WSU, Bob Stump, Washington State Bee Keepers Association, Marty Williams, WSU.

Chair Doug Muse called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.

Commissioners, staff and guests introduced themselves.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Muse called for public comment. There were no comments.

Chair Muse asked for Commissioner comments. Kurt Volker asked for clarification on Commission policy on whether proposals conform to current RFP requirements. Volker noted the Commission has done a lot of work to make proposals uniform and requested discussion of those proposals that do not adhere to guidelines. Chair Muse asked for an example. Volker responded that several proposals heard yesterday had entire sections missing and should have been asked to resubmit. Chair Muse asked for Commissioner discussion. Bob Berger said he agreed with Volker and noted several proposals did not adhere to the 150-word limit for the Project Summary. Berger said the objective is to get research done, but the guidelines were developed to streamline the process. Volker noted the Commission is responsible for public money and proposal budgets should be accurate. Administrator Schreiber noted this set of proposals was the most thoroughly reviewed to date. Schreiber asked Assistant Administrator Olberding how many proposals were returned for corrections. Olberding responded that every one of the proposals was returned to submittors at least once and about 80% were returned more than once. Schreiber noted this is the best set of proposals the Commission has considered and Commission philosophy has been if the commodity wants the work done the proposal will be funded. Chair Muse asked Commissioners if any proposal should not be discussed today. Schreiber noted proposals could be tabled until the January meeting. Volker said the Commission recognized the effort by Commission staff to review the proposals and asked Olberding if corrections are made when requested. Olberding replied a list of needed corrections was sent to the requesters and not all were fixed. Volker commented science and accuracy begin with the proposal.

Schreiber reviewed the scoring process, noting score sheets will be collected after every two presentations, entered into a spreadsheet, and returned to Commissioners. Schreiber noted Commissioners would have the opportunity to discuss each proposal.

02PN020 Corn Seed Maggot in Carrot Seedling
Doug Walsh, Washington State University
WSCPR request $3,750 Co-funding $1,500 Jesernig request $3,750
Walsh said the project is on the seed corn maggot in carrots and noted the project fits the intent of "Jesernig dollars". Todd Crosby of Mercer Ranch had notified WSU he had a problem with seed corn maggots at about the same time as the Jesernig memo from Schreiber was received. The research is focused on what is going on at Mercer Ranch. No work has been done in Washington State and this project is intended to give the carrot industry basic information on the maggot. The request is to fund basic support and efficacy work on Lorsban 4E and several other candidate compounds.

Ann George asked for clarification on the farm gate value listed on page two of the proposal. Walsh replied the amount should be 2,000. George asked if Lindane was registered. Schreiber replied it was registered as a seed treatment. Schreiber noted the Commission has funded for this situation in onions and a 24c was received. Schreiber said the study should include Lorsban. Walsh agreed. Eric Johansen commented Lorsban was very unlikely, Lindane was also unlikely and suggested looking at new chemistry. George noted thiamethoxen had good results on root weevil. Johansen suggested looking at long-term chemistry. Walsh agreed. Bob Berger asked if the dollar value of per acre processing, $19402, was correct. Walsh replied it was a math error. Berger asked about the projected expenditures section and questioned the 2001-year. Walsh replied it should read 2002. Berger questioned different time frames listed in the proposal; the application dates and expenditures by quarter. Walsh offered to table the proposal. Volker said he encouraged Walsh to resubmit the proposal and noted the problem description did not mention the monitoring project. Walsh withdrew the proposal.

Schreiber said feedback would be provided on how to improve the proposal.

02AN005 Potato Area-wide IPM Program
Keith Pike, Washington State University
WSCPR request $26,700 Co-funding $80,000
Keith Pike said the project has been in existence for 2 years, noting it is an ambitious project. Pike said it is interesting to be associated with the project. It has provided him more opportunity, along with other researchers, to look at pest control on a commercial level and to see the differences that occur. There is a big variation that exists from Oregon to Washington. Ninety percent of Washington potatoes are grown in this area. The program tried to zero in on and evaluate pests relative to different treatments. The project has a written IPM program, that is on the web and available to all growers. The written program is flexible and changes from time to time as new information is available. The program started with 1,000 acres; in 2001 it was expanded to 4,000. There are three components to the project 1. To develop a formal IPM, 2. An outreach program, 3. To generate research to improve IPM in potatoes. The project is right on target looking at new alternative pesticides. In 2001 there were 41 fields. Worms were an unexpected frustration and a blessing at the same time providing an opportunity to look at a good real world situation. The draft of the final report is finished. The report includes over 160 tables illustrating what treatments were applied and when applications were made for every field. Pike said the researchers are gaining insight not even expected.

Schreiber noted Commission funds support Pikes work, co-funding goes to support Schreiber's work. New information was uncovered that changed product use recommendations for Fulfill, Actara and Imidan. Pike noted a number of other agencies are involved - five scientific agencies and seven supporting agencies.

The request is for one-quarter of the total funding for technical support and oversight. Schreiber said the project will not be any bigger next year and may have fewer field with more intense scouting. The intent is to develop a technique paper for growers and to start to convert growers to use the same program. Pike noted this year an outreach coordinator has been hired to communicate information to growers. Volker noted the budget includes match of $30,000 from the WSPF and $50,000 from the registrant and asked if the co-funding was firm. Schreiber noted most co-funding is lined up. Berger asked why no fiscal agent was listed. Schreiber noted he drafted the proposal and could have put his name as fiscal agent. Berger noted other presenters were asked to provide fiscal agent. Schreiber offered to table the proposal. George noted when the requirement for fiscal agent review was put in the RFP; it was intended for agencies that have fiscal agents. George said her proposal was returned for fiscal review and she signed it. George questioned how valid a signature is if there is no fiscal agent and suggested allowing applicants to mark not applicable. Schreiber noted the intent was to clean up budgets and fiscal agent review does improve the process. Andy Jensen noted there was a lot of confusion as to what the Commission was looking for, what approval a signature provides and what liability is involved. Berger said the next RFP needs to clarify this issue. Schreiber agreed. Jensen noted this project is the most important thing in terms of research going on right now and the WSPC is fully behind this project.

02AN008 Foreign Exploration of Natural Enemies (especially egg parastitoids) of Cereal Leaf Beetle, Oulema melanopus
Keith Pike, Washington State University
WSCPR request $7,700 Co-funding $28,850
This project involves the cereal leaf beetle and this is the first year of a three-year project. The cereal leaf beetle is new in the state and was first detected in 1999 in Spokane County. By 2001, it had spread to central growing areas and is likely to spread further. This project uses natural control with parasites. Bringing these parasites into Washington will destroy the pest. There are no native parasites, this is an old world insect, only one species of Oulema in this area. The place to find a natural parasite is the land of origin, China. A co-evolved parasite is needed and an egg parasite is desired. Pike noted if this project is not being funded from scratch, Dr. Bai has contacts, an established network and has laid groundwork for success of this project.

Schreiber noted no obvious support from a Washington commodity group. Pike replied the wheat and barley groups recognize biocontrol is a feasible direction to go and support other bio-control work for pests on wheat. Ben Barstow asked if Pike has specifically asked for support. Pike replied he has not. Volker noted he would like to see a Washington commodity show support. Herb Teas noted a modest budget and asked about expenditures for years two and three. Pike noted foreign travel was needed in year one only, there may be some field insectary work in other years, and projected the dollars needed in the next two years would decrease. Chair Muse asked how confident Pike was in the ability to reproduce wasps here. Pike noted a laboratory in Niles, MI has successfully produced eggs and will support his effort. Pike noted it is a good question if they can mass propagate the wasps, and he thinks they can.

02PN009 Annosus Root Rot in Noble Fir Christmas Tree Plantations
Gary Chastagner, Washington State University
WSCPR request $13,982 Co-funding $18,348
Gary Chastgner noted this is a continuation of last years project and this is an important crop in the northwest. The growers are in a good position, the Noble Fir can only be grown on the west side and requires specific sites. There is potential for long-term sustainability in the production of Noble Fir. Last years funding screened thirteen different fungicides; four have good activity against this pathogen. Currently screening is being done for root dip treatment and stump treatment. The funds requests will be used to continue this projects to evaluate stump treatment and root dip on seedlings. Chastagner noted the Christmas Tree Association has already committed funds to this project.

George asked if cash co-funding was from the Christmas Tree Association and in-kind co-funding was from growers. Chastagner replied that was correct and noted that while most growers don't like them working in their sites, they do support this research. George asked of the four fungicides, what is the status of registrants. Chastagner replied the registrants are interested in pursuing registration.

02PN010 Control of Swiss Needle Cast in Douglas-fir Timber with Sulfur
Gary Chastagner, Washington State University
WSCPR request $11,298 Co-funding $13,580
Work in 1998-1999 showed fall application worked in inland sites but not coastal sites. Swiss Needle Cast is endemic to the Pacific Northwest; it affects young stands along the coast. At the Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative meeting last week, a 23% reduction was reported. Testing has been done on a number of fungicides for effectiveness. Data obtained on sulfur shows the potential to control Swiss Needle Cast, but the study has not been replicated. Funds are being requested to support replication of the sulfur trial and an aerial application trial. The Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative has committed to co-funding.

Chair Muse asked who is in the Cooperative. Chastagner replied Boise Cascade, Hampton Resources, Longview Fiber, Simpson, and Weyerhaeuser. Schreiber questioned using an OSU fiscal agent. Chastagner replied the cooperative is located at OSU. Berger questioned a project duration of 18 months and a budget for 12 months. Chastagner replied the Commission would only fund for one year. Berger replied the project duration should be one year also. Volker asked if there any concerns of adverse effects from sulfur in the forest sites. Chastagner replied foresters will have a lot less issues with sulfur than alternatives and noted it is possible to use sulfur as a fertilizer and control Swiss Needle Cast at the same time. Volker asked about commercial applications. Chastagner replied all applications are aerial.

02AN014 Managing Soil Pests in Potatoes with Mustard Green Manures
Andy McGuire, Washington State University
WSCPR request $ 6,329 Co-funding $13,441
Andy McGuire noted this is a continuation of a project funded last year. Interest is growing and this year research is expanding into processor growers. A planting date study and nitrogen ratings will be done this year. The funds requested will be used to support a technician and supplies for the laboratory.

Schreiber asked how many attendees were at the field day. McGuire replied 57 attended. Schreiber asked Jensen the WSPC opinion. Jensen replied the WSPC has funded this research in the past, it is a well-written proposal and to have 50+ attendees at a field day is phenomenal. McGuire noted attendees included growers from California's Salinas Valley, a mustard breeder from Germany, sugar beet and potato growers. Jensen noted other researchers interested in mustard green manures are told to see McGuire's project because it is a real world project.

02PN022 Chemical Management of Mealybugs in Washington Wine Grapes
Doug Walsh, Washington State University
WSCPR request $7,520 Co-funding $11,520
This project involves developing control of grape mealybug, which has been identified to be the vector for grape leaf roll virus. This results in reduced quality of juice at crush. Growers want research to identify a better time of application. There are other candidate compounds in the pipeline, research has been extensive in California but we have a different species here. IR-4 is providing a small level of funding ($3,400 to $4,000) to do residue work. Co-funding is dollar for dollar and, due to differences in funding cycles, was secured last March and is in place. A funding request will be presented to the wine industry again this spring. Jensen asked for clarification on the mealy bug being a likely vector. Walsh replied the grape vine leaf roll virus is worldwide; most research has been done in Australia where a different species is present. This is the only species found in vineyards. Jensen asked if it is a foliar feeder. Walsh said it spends the winter on the vine, during the growing season it moves out onto leaves, petals, and clusters. Volker asked about registrant support. Walsh replied Gowan has shown some support. Volker suggested asking Valent and Syngenta to support and said this is an excellent proposal.

02AN006 Demonstration of IPM in Public Facilities
Art Losey, Washington State Pest Control Association
WSCPR request $18,000 Co-funding $15,000
Art Losey thanked the Commission for funding last year to start the CD-ROM project on IPM in Public Facilities. The state legislature passed a bill requiring IPM in all schools in the state. This will require lots of training and education. The first part of the project was demonstrated to the Commission at the May 2001 meeting and on the 2001 Washington Pest Control Tour. Losey has received lots of feedback on the demonstrations. This phase will sort out specific needs for Washington State and improve the classroom portion of the program. For IPM to work, administrators, teachers and students must understand the basics of IPM. The Washington State Pest Control Association has committed to co-funding a number of IPM seminars for schools and other public facilities.

Schreiber noted the demonstration was well received on the Tour and he had asked Losey to survey users. Losey said he is working on the survey questions and there are a lot of misconception on the level of knowledge and practices, lots of misuse. Losey said a well-written survey would be beneficial. Bill Mason commented on a recent investigation of illness from pesticide sickness due to treatment of a lice outbreak at a middle school. The janitor had sprayed all the walls and carpets on the weekend, on Monday morning the school still smelled of pesticide. There was no training or procedures in place to take care of this situation. The program is needed and he supports it. Losey noted the biggest problem is the teachers who do not understand how their actions affect this problem. Volker asked if an editorial board is reviewing the text to ensure statements are factual. Losey said not at this time, but agreed it is a good idea to have an editorial board review it. Berger asked for clarification on figures for co-funding. Losey said it is his salary and his time doing presentations and resource materials are included as co-funding.

02PN031 Cranberry Weed, Insect and Disease Management for Washington Using Low-risk Alternative Pesticides
Pete Bristow, Washington State University
WSCPR request $17,640 Co-funding $9,980 Jesernig request $7,640
Pete Bristow said weed pressure continues to be a problem for cranberry growers and noted no one is growing cranberries at a profitable rate. There is a need for a new generation of herbicides, the number of insects is increasing and the chronic disease problem is root rot. The funding request is to support technical help to do field trials at Long Beach and Grayland sites. The lack of co-funding is due to the state of the cranberry industry. The in-kind co-funding is from Ocean Spray to growers for crop destruct costs.

Muse asked if the 35% throwaway figure is correct. Bristow said it is close to that amount; growers can only deliver 70% of the crop and dispose of the remaining 30%. In many cases the beds are not harvested and it is a source of inoculums. Volker noted Bristow and Patten's work is valuable to the industry and asked how long the industry may be viable with income averaging less than one-half production costs. Bristow said growers are walking away now. Volker asked if he sees the industry recovering. Bristow said yes, with greater emphasis on new products, marketing and changing old traditional practices. Berger asked for clarification on time frames in the proposal. Bristow said the Commission funds are for this calendar year and co-funding figures extend into the next year as well. Berger said it is a good proposal.

02PN007 Effect of Pesticides and Repellents on Bees
Dan Mayer, Washington State University
WSCPR request $7,680 Co-funding $8,020
Dan Mayer noted any registered pesticide must have work done on bees before it is registered. Last year's work supported four chemical registrations. Matching funds come from alfalfa seed, vegetable seed and chemical companies.

Schreiber noted the request was submitted on the old RFP, a fiscal agent did not review it and a signed cover letter was not received. Schreiber asked if this is required for EPA, why doesn't the registrant pay. Mayer replied for minor crops a LD50 is required. Schreiber said if a LD50 is all that is needed, than most of what Mayer does goes beyond the EPA need. Schreiber asked how much money is from chemical companies and the commodity group. Mayer replied the funds all blend together. Eric Johansen said for special local need registrations, if there are question on toxicity to bees, Mayer's data is very important. Berger asked for an explanation on the 90:10 split between old and new mandate. Mayer replied he had no explanation. Schreiber noted the Commission staff recorded what was sent in. Schreiber said if this project is funded it will be contingent on clearing up overdue reports. Mayer replied he would provide what ever was needed. Volker noted it is important to have the Commission files up to date. Barstow asked for clarification on the rate for alfalfa of 26 gal/ac. Mayer noted very little aerial application is used, most all is ground application. Volker noted the work Mayer does on pollinator safety is critical and there is a lot of value to the project.

02AN019 Integrated Pest Management of Lygus Bugs
John Rumph, Washington State University
WSCPR request $23,627.65 Co-funding $18,080.85
John Rumph said this is the third and final year of the project and noted a report has not been submitted because not all the data is in. This year lab experiments will be done to get data on development. Collections are continuing, lygus has been found in radishes, carrots, and wheat species. The intent is to identify host plant, which could be widespread to ensure the parasite has optimal conditions as a host for lygus.

Teas asked if there was any difficulty getting a lygus colony established. Rumph said OSU was sending a person up to help resolve problems with startup. Teas asked if that would change the time line. Rumph said no, this year is all about collecting wasps and exposing to lygus and the project will complete on time. Berger noted co-funding is lower than in most projects and asked why the request is for more than 50% of the total. Rumph said the request is based on last years work and a technician was added. Mayer said he anticipates getting a federal grant of $30,000 in four months. Berger noted the federal grant is not included in the budget. Rumph noted co-funding listed is from user groups. Walsh said alfalfa funding has decreased in the last few years. Ann George asked the source of farm gate values. Mayer replied they were from the State of Washington. George suggested checking the value for alfalfa and apple. Johansen said seed crops are minor crops and asked if "Jesernig dollars" were considered for match. Rumph said he was not familiar with "Jesernig dollars". Volker said project budget numbers and funding request do not match. Rumph said he missed the math error and the figures should match.

02AN021 Integrated Pest Management of Volunteer Potato in Corn, Onions, and Carrots
Martin Williams, Washington State University
WSCPR request $5,250 Co-funding $7,547 Jesernig request $5,250
Marty Williams said volunteer potatoes in corn, onions, and carrots is the number one weed problem for those crops. Volunteer potatoes are a problem because they compete for limited resources and are hosts for very serious pests. Growers have noted Colorado Potato Beetle can serve as a beneficial for these crops. The project looks at beetle attraction and reducing the rates of herbicides. Preliminary data is included in the proposal; matching support is from a WSU IPM mini-grant.

Schreiber asked how this project would result in a grower having extra money in his pocket in five years. Williams said it would reduce hand weeding in carrots. Walsh noted carrots were chosen and Todd Mercer of Mercer Farms was approached with the project. Carrots are a forgiving system and this work has implications to other crops. Schreiber asked how the system would be manipulated. Walsh referred to the last page of the proposal and said they will use the olfactory Y-tube to induce herbicide stress on the potato. Williams noted at the rate of 23grams/hectare, the herbicide does not kill the potato, the beetle does. Schreiber asked Andy Jensen's opinion. Jensen said he was interested conceptually but was not familiar with the project. Williams noted there are a lot of unknowns and no examples in the literature. Schreiber asked how they would keep the number of beetles building up. Walsh said regardless of what is done there is a large enough ambient population to maintain the population.

02AN016 Evaluation of Organic Herbicides and Flaming for Weed Control in Strawberries
Tim Miller, Washington State University
WSCPR request $895 Jesernig request $895
Tim Miller said this project has been funded the previous two years. This year will be looking at newly planted strawberries. They will look at various products for yield response. The funding request is to cover berry picking and two hand weedings. They are looking at reducing the time to hand weed berries and are tracking the times involved to determine the tradeoffs. Miller said he is request $895 from "Jesernig dollars".

Volker noted previously it was determined corn gluten was not effective and asked why complete the project. Miller said the second data set is needed to publish the paper and they did see a response from corn gluten last year that was not seen in other treatments. Bryan Sakuma noted from a general aspect with strawberries, if there is no weed control, the grower has no hope. Schreiber noted this is an on-going project and he has visited these trials. Schreiber said the trials are very interesting to see and noted this is a certified organic project. Berger asked if progress reports were current. Miller noted year 2000 reports are in but 2001 report is not finished.

02PN017Herbicides Applied to Cauliflower Using a Prototype Shielded Sprayer
Tim Miller, Washington State University
WSCPR request $6,510 Co-funding $4,420 Jesernig request $2,270
Tim Miller said this is a new project. The potential is there to expand cauliflower in the Skagit Valley and it is similar in production to California. Miller said better control of weeds is needed and post emergence weed control is the issue. No products are available for cauliflower. Mike Youngquist has developed a sprayer to spray cauliflower and it worked well the first year. This year the project will be expanded to look at other products for post emergence. Miller noted he is asking for "Jesernig dollars" for this project.

Teas said pyridite is used for cabbage and asked why not on cauliflower. Miller said it was tried on cauliflower and they got a bleachy yellow post emergence appearance. Schreiber noted this is a first time request for cauliflower. Miller said there is one producer of cauliflower and two producers of broccoli with about 1200 acres. Schreiber asked if acreage is anticipated to increase. Miller said there is the potential for an increase in acreage if new products are found.

02PN013 Efficacy and Crop Tolerance of Flumioxazin and Sulfentrazone for Weed Control in Green (succulent) Pea and Dry Pea and Lentil Production
Tim Miller, Washington State University
WSCPR request $12,000 Co-funding $7,000
Tim Miller said there is a razor thin margin for dry and green peas. Weeds in the crop will make the seed unsalable. For example, if nightshade or puncture vine is present at harvest, moist berries from the weeds will mix with the peas and cause spoilage. The project will look at tank rates and mixtures. The request is for $12,000 with co-funding expected in January from Northwest Ag Research Foundation. If matching is not secured from PNVA, "Jesernig dollars" are also requested as co-funding.

Schreiber said co-funding is $7,000, the request for "Jesernig dollars" s to make up for the shortfall in co-funding from the Pacific Northwest Vegetable Processors and noted this is a great use for the "Jesernig dollars". Teas asked Schreiber if "Jesernig dollars" could be used to reduce Commission funding. Schreiber said if the request is thoughtful and reasonable, using "Jesernig dollars" should be acceptable. Barstow asked if the same treatment would be used in each location. Miller said the products and timing will be the same and rates may be different.

02PN025 Asparagus Pest Management Program
Kevin Bouchey, Washington Asparagus Commission
WSCPR request $30,500 Co-funding $33,500
Kevin Bouchey said he is an asparagus grower and on the Washington Asparagus Commission board. Asparagus acreage is dropping and the decline has affected funding available. This project is intended to continue research to identify an alternative to Di-syston. Growers have no means of weed control in nursery stock other than hand labor. Data is needed on the effective use of Rally and fungicides in the IR-4 program. Previous WSCPR funding has resulted in a Section 18 on Sandea. This funding is needed to have a viable industry in Washington State.

Schreiber noted previous WSCPR funded work has helped dodge the bullet on Di-Syston. Dimethoate has two to three years left and then will be gone. Teas asked for clarification on the post harvest date on page three. Schreiber said the date should be 2001. Jensen asked if Fulfill was tried. Schreiber said it was and the registrant may raise the rate. Jensen asked if the entire Asparagus Commission research budget is used for this project. Schreiber said the budget is split between agronomic and pest management research. The amount shown is the entire pest management budget. Barstow asked if the manufacturer was asked for support. Schreiber said the product is already registered and they were not interested in supporting this research. Johansen asked how important is weed control in nurseries. Schreiber said there are four nurseries and Muse has one of them. Muse said weed control is very important. Bouchey noted is it not just a nursery producer issue, growers transplant noxious weeds with the nursery stock. Muse noted hand labor costs between $300 and $400 per acre.

Chair Muse adjourned the meeting for lunch at 12:15. The meeting resumed at 1:00.

02AN023 Integrated Management of the Honey Bee Parasitic Mite, Varroa destructor, in Washington
Steve Sheppard, Washington State University
Bob Stump, Washington State Beekeepers Association
WSCPR request $15,000 Co-funding $37,350 Jesernig request $15,000
Bob Stump thanked the Commission for previous funding. This project is on the use food grade sugar to control varroa mite. Steve Sheppard said previous WSCPR funded work resulted in 70-80% control of mites on bees with ester sugar and a registration is due this week. This request is to develop threshold levels, timing and drone trapping. Previous work on threshold levels reduced treatment to once a year from twice a year. "Jesernig dollars" are also requested.

Volker asked for clarification on the "Jesernig dollars" request. Sheppard said it would reduce the amount to the Commission. Volker questioned the quarterly budget showing five quarters. Sheppard said it should be four quarters. George asked for clarification on the beekeepers co-funding. Sheppard said $1,000 is cash and in-kind dollars are for packages. Jensen asked why two budget pages were included. Sheppard said when he prepared the proposal he was unable to access the website and tried to fit the format, and added "Jesernig dollars". Teas noted the totals for WSCPR are the same. Schreiber said this is asking a lot from the Commission and not so much from growers. Sheppard said the beekeepers themselves provide supplies. George asked the number of commercial beekeepers in the state. Sheppard said there are 24 with 1,500 or more hives and hundreds of keepers with less than 500 hives. George noted the co-funding works out to $181 dollars per each of the beekeepers. Stump noted an additional $2,000 in co-funding was added last week. Walsh asked if other sources of funding were available. Sheppard said the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission is funding another project. Teas noted that funding is for alternate pollinators.

02AN026 Fertilization and Embryogenesis in Pacific Oysters Exposed to Rodeo® and R-11®, R-11®, LI700®, Agri-dex® or Hasten®
Joth Davis, Taylor Shellfish Company
Christian Grue, University of Washington
WSCPR request $26,948 Co-funding $42,951
Joth Davis said the area of concern is in Willapa Bay and the rapid development of Spartina. The local oyster industry is a thirty million dollar industry. Spartina is rapidly increasing into a big problem. This research is on surfactants with Rodeo. The project will test the affects on the development of the oyster embryo. Previous work suggests the issue is with surfactants. This is an opportunity to be proactive, surfactants are an international issue. This information will be critical to make recommendations to applicators. This proposal is different than previous projects that dealt with human health criteria. All of these studies are part of a larger package and compliment other very well.

Johanson noted this data is extremely helpful for the Department of Agriculture. Jensen asked if all the matching is from the University of Washington. Grue said an oyster grower is contributing $350 and significant in-kind contributions from growers are not listed. Schreiber noted growers provide boats and ground plots. Davis noted in-kind support is there. Jensen asked what the graduate operating fee is. Grue said it is tuition and is a university term. Battelle is providing inkind lab work and technical support is provided by Taylor Shellfish Company. Green noted this project is an attempt to provide data for permit requirements. Masters asked for clarification on the 2002 series of surfactants and assay for toxicity. Grue said they would look at two things under two scenarios 1. Affect of actual conditioning of oyster in the presence of Rodeo and R-11 and how that will effect reproduction and 2. Four surfactants without herbicide and compare in terms of effect on fertilization in oysters.

02PN028 Fungicidal Control of Alternaria Leaf Spot, Gray Mold, and White Mold on Brassica Seed Crops in Western Washington
Lindsey du Toit, Washington State University
WSCPR request $ 6,265 Co-funding $4,632 Jesernig request $3,133
Lindsey du Toit said this is a continuation of last years funded proposal. This year the project is expanded to gray mold and white mold, which is a serious problem. Du Toit distributed a handout with last year's preliminary results. She noted the project would repeat many of last year's products.

Schreiber asked why Messenger was not included. Du Toit said the results with Messenger were disappointing; it caused defoliation and didn't cut back on lesions.

02PG029 IR-4 GLP Residue Studies and Efficacy/Crop Damage Studies on Hops
Ann George, Washington Hop Commission
WSCPR request $29,650 Co-funding $47,650
Ann George said this project is for the analytical portion of IR-4 residue studies on several products: thiamoxin, the first non-organophosphate for control of garden symphylan, melbemectin, a miticide that is applied once per season vs. three applications per season for currently registered miticides, fenpyroximate, which must be repeated due to a problem with last years rates, and BAS 500F and BAS 516F for powdery mildew and downy mildew, efficacy data for these two products will result in quick registrations from EPA.

Schreiber asked how many Section 18's were likely to result from this project. George replied a minimum of two, fenpyroximate and thiamethoxam. Barstow asked for clarification on the quarterly budget expenditure showing all expenditure in April 2003. George replied for application and residue trials in the spring, funding must be secured now. Schreiber noted the lab work is done after the fieldwork and the project isn't billed until the work is finished.

OTHER BUSINESS
Schreiber asked Commissioners to review the proposed list of meeting dates and location; July 9 in the Tri-Cities, September 10 in Mt. Vernon, November 12-13 in Ellensburg. Commissioners discussed potential sites for meetings. The September meeting will include a morning meeting and an afternoon field trip to a research site. Legislative staff and agency staff will be invited.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
An executive session started at 2:20pm. Bill Green presented Commissioners with information from a management strategy workshop he attended. The intent is to accelerate the pesticide registration process with regard to water use. An advisory committee was established with representatives from the Agriculture Committee, Department of Ecology, and WSU. The first task is to categorize pesticides that are considered dangerous to salmon and then identify what research is needed. Green said this might increase requests to WSCPR. The intent is to keep ahead of EPA cancellations by requesting earlier notification of potential cancellations that affect the Washington economy. Green said the first meeting is scheduled for December 6.

Masters asked for clarification on earlier notification. Green said the concept is to notify the WSDA when risk assessment is started. Masters said the WSDA has the option to do that now. Green said not before the public comment period. Teas said WSDA would have the opportunity to comment before documents are issued. Masters said first comments are taken when the preliminary documents come out and there is ample opportunity for comment. Green the Department of Ecology is involved under the clean water act.

Executive session ended at 2:40.

PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Schreiber updated Commissioners on the project status report, all IR-4 projects were updated, and every entry with a November 11 date is updated. George suggested splitting the report into two, separating completed projects.

PROPOSAL DECISIONS

The following decisions were made on project funding:

02AN016
Funding request approved.

02PN028
Funding request approved.

02AN014
Funding request approved.

02AN024
Funding request approved.

02AN005
Funding request approved.

02PN009
Funding request approved.

02PN022
Funding request approved.

02PG029
Funding request approved.

02PN031
Funding request approved.

02PN017
Funding request approved.

02PN025
Commissioners discussed the issue of annual funding for efficacy for a crop the size of asparagus. George felt bigger crops should carry more of the expense of early stage research. The project was approved.

02PG030
Commissioners agreed to adjust funding to $19,500 from WSCPR and $6,500 from "Jesernig dollars".

02PN010
Funding request approved.

02PN013
Commissioners agreed to adjust funding to $6,000 from WSCPR and $6,000 from "Jesernig dollars".

02AN012
Funding request approved.

02PN033
Funding request approved.

02AN006
Funding request approved.

02PN032
Funding request approved.

02AN003
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding this proposal based on the overall lack of updated information in the proposal about work completed in previous funding cycles, incorrect budget information and failure to adhere to current RFP requirements. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02PN018
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to fund the project with the contingency of progress being shown.

02AN004
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding this proposal based on incorrect budget information, lack of travel justification, failure to adhere to current RFP requirements and inadequate information on the potential effectiveness of the pheromone based mating disruption strategy in control of currant stem girdler. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02AN002
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding this proposal based on the overall lack of updated information in the proposal about work completed in previous funding cycles, a poor "cut and paste" job, incorrect budget information, and failure to adhere to current RFP requirements. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02PG011
Commissioners agreed to adjust funding to $13,245 from WSCPR and $10,000 from "Jesernig dollars".

02PN015
Funding request approved

02AN021
Commissioners discussed the project. Muse said there is a large volunteer potato problem. Walsh said if carrots works, work would expand into corn to show how low doses of herbicide is effective. Volker said the project is very innovative and creative, is reasonably priced. Volker recommended supporting the project. Commissioners agreed to fund the proposal.

02AN023
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding this proposal based on the lack of adherence to current RFP requirements and incorrect/unclear budget information. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02AN026
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding this proposal based on lack of industry financial support and failure to adhere to current RFP requirements. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02AN008
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to adjust funding to $4,700 from WSCPR and $3,000 from "Jesernig dollars".

02AN019
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding based on the lack of complete budget information, incorrect budget information and failure to adhere to current RFP requirements. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

02PN007
Commissioners discussed the project and agreed to deny funding based on failure to adhere to current RFP requirements. Commissioners agreed to encourage resubmittal of the project at the next funding meeting in January 2002.

Bill Green suggested presentations be waved on re-submittal projects. Jensen noted researchers should to be present to answer questions. Commissioners agreed.

Chair Muse asked for any other business. Schreiber said the next meeting will be in Portland Oregon and to expect even more proposals than were heard this time.

Chair Muse adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm

Return to the Minutes Page

Return to WSCPR